ARRL report - No Consensus Reached for FCC on “Symbol Rate” Issues

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W0PV, Jul 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: abrind-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    No doubt our population rocks. I raise an eyebrow whenever the US suggests the US should drive the train, so to speak, concerning the ham band "public park." It's nationalist arrogance for a usually world-cooperative environment I didn't expect to see from an NYU representative.
  2. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks, John. Yes, you placed the right perspective on it. Clearly, another person's found personal, sensitive information shouldn't be used improperly with impunity. And, to address your point, it was scary to see all of that in a database record, viewable to any who log in. It makes the case for thorough review of incoming email from the Internet before it is accepted into their system and released to an ACDS for first transmission.
    NL7W, K0IDT and KX4O like this.
  3. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    This seems to be pretty clear... See the last bullet point:

    What kinds of interception and divulgence of radio transmissions are legal?
    The FCC and the Communications Act do not forbid certain types of interception and disclosure of radio communications, including:

    • Mere interception of radio communications, such as overhearing your neighbor’s conversation over a cordless telephone, or listening to emergency service reports on a radio scanner (although intercepting and/or recording telephone-related radio communications may be a violation of other federal or state laws).
    • Divulgence of certain radio communications that were transmitted for use by the public (such as over-the-air radio and television broadcasts).
    • Divulgence of broadcasts related to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress.
    • Divulgence of transmissions by amateur radio or citizen band radio operators.
  4. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    (Replying for everyone, not just for Ron)

    The Board hasn’t met yet. So NOW is the time to contact your Division Director and express your concerns.

    I know. Some of the Board don’t want to hear it, or don’t want to hear it from a current non-ARRL member. (At least in the Atlantic Division, we are fortunate to have a Director who WILL listen, and I know Ria is doing the same over in the Hudson Division). But you have to try. IMHO, if you don’t try, then you have no grounds to complain later.

    SImply put, they won’t know that people are concerned about an issue unless the people tell them that. So tell them.
    KX4O likes this.
  5. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    IMHO, in today’s day and age, if YOU transmit sensitive data over a system that is not encrypted, furthermore one that you know or should know is not encrypted, the onus is or should be on YOU if that information is copied by someone else who wasn’t supposed to.

    In the US at least, Amateur Radio, by definition, is sent “in the clear”. We are prohibited by FCC rules from using ciphers and other means of encryption... and have been for many decades. Pre-dating any of the digital modes in use today.

    So by extension, if someone harvests personal data from over the air, or a 21 day archive, or whatever via Amateur Radio... it is on the sender, not the system.

    Now that does also imply that the people running these systems... this includes but is not limited to Winlink.. over Amateur Radio need to properly inform, or remind, users of the risks involved. So long as that is done, I can’t see where a legal liability would exist. (Not that this would stop a lawyer from alleging as such, but that’s what trials are for)
  6. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    My larger point is the "someone" in your sentence bears the responsibility if he/she uses the information illicitly since they are actually committing the crime. The information trail might matter as well despite what the FCC has to say about it.
    K0IDT, W6EM and NL7W like this.
  7. KC4RAN

    KC4RAN Ham Member QRZ Page

    The "information trail" might create liability for the transmitting station that put the information on the air, but it looks like the statute is clear for anyone who copies the information and publishes it.
    47 U.S. Code § 605.Unauthorized publication or use of communications

    "This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator."

    [edit] If some exemption like this didn't exist, one could imagine the potential implications. Web-SDR? Gone. Radios on demo at hamfests? Gone. YouTube videos with reviews of ham gear that include audio from amateur frequencies? Gone.

    Once you open the door to someone being liable for publishing the contents of something received over amateur frequencies - because some other law says the information is protected - then that's a terribly slippery slope.
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
  8. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, they're explaining 47USC605(a). Or, attempting to. John, KX4O, introduces another issue: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 18USC 2701-2712. That looks like a rather sticky wicket for entities like Winlink, when they move an incoming Internet sourced email from their server to a user running an ACDS. The next question is who is responsible for adverse consequences of removing personal data from storage, which is protected, to Amateur Radio's domain, which isn't protected. Is Winlink culpable for adverse consequences or is the control operator of the ACDS who transmits the sensitive material? As John alludes, it might cost a hapless operator more than the equity of his abode.........
    K0IDT and NL7W like this.
  9. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Another way to look at it, shouldn't the country with the first, or second, largest amateur operator population be the leader in innovation? That's the usual complaint I hear from certain quarters, US ham innovators are being held back
    by stupid rules while the rest of the world passes by us. Okay, where is all the innovation in the rest of the world? What new modes are being developed and where? Most recently FT8 and variants seem to be doing quite well under
    current rules, and I'm pretty sure a very large portion of the world jumped on that particular train when it blew past. US arrogance or leadership?

    The point with the RMS map was the sheer density of US HF Winlink stations compared to the rest of the world. Shouldn't the US be the driving force in bringing the ACDS problems under control? That is if Winlink survives the storm they brought down on themselves. It was never about them or Pactor, arrogance on full display?

    Something else to consider in this mess is the potentially illegal activity by those US stations operating off shore. One excellent example, a US Technician class ham, anchored in a Japanese port, running email destined for internet delivery, through a Russian gateway (no third party agreement), in the voice portion (US voice) of 40m. Kinda blew multiple Part 97 rules out of the water. If you want to make your head spin take a look at these pages. I didn't know that
    you needed an Advanced or Extra to operate in CEPT countries (there are certain exceptions)..........get the Excedrin out beforehand, or drink heavily, it's worse than the Part 97 jigsaw puzzle. From that page: "Note that most European countries (including their overseas territories e.g. French Polynesia and many Caribbean islands) (emphasis added) are covered by the CEPT agreement, which requires a US Advanced or Extra-class license." I wonder how many US stations are currently in violation of this agreement? It would be nice if we had some effective enforcement of Part 97.
    KX4O likes this.
  10. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    According to an informed source, it was meant that US bands be in-sync with IARU/ITU Region 1, 2,3 alloctions, etc. Should have been more clearly stated that way.
    KX4O likes this.

Share This Page