ARRL wants to allow encryption on the ham bands!

ARRL wants to allow encryption on the ham bands!

Amid all the distraction of ARRL's RM-11306 changes to Part 97.221, it is possible to overlook another change requested by the ARRL that effectively removes any prohibition against using encryption on the amateur bands.

Part 97.309 has been totally rewritten in RM-11306 to eliminate 97.309 (b) which currently includes, "RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication."

Why is this important to you?

1. Allowing encryption on the ham bands will make it impossible for you to monitor communications for illegal uses or inappropriate language.

2. The Email robots would be able to disguise the content of email so that commercial email traffic could be passed on the ham bands without detection.

3. Terrorist groups would be able to use amateur radio frequencies and amateur transceivers with pirated calls without detection. Unlike cell phones, there is no record anywhere of communications on the ham bands so such activity could be traced.

It is necessary to compare ARRL's rewording of 97.309 to the current 97.309 in order to see how ARRL's petition allows encryption on the ham bands:


Current FCC regulation:

97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.

(a) Where authorized by §97.305© and 97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified digital codes:


(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as "Baudot").

(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 (commonly known as "AMTOR").

(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as "ASCII").

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.

(b) Where authorized by §§ 97.305© and 97.307(f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must:


(1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code;

(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed;

(3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted.


ARRL's rewording: Section 97.309 is amended to read as follows:

97.309 RTTY and data emission codes.

(a) Where authorized by §97.305(e) and (f), an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using published digital codes for the purpose of facilitating communications.

(b) When deemed necessary by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to assure compliance
with the FCC Rules, a station must:

(1) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed; and

(2) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital
communications transmitted.

What can you do if you disagree with allowing encryption on the ham bands?

You can file a comment with the FCC saying that you oppose any change to 97.309 that makes it possible to obscure the meaning of any communication. You might want to also say why you feel encryption on the ham bands should not be allowed.

Even if you have already filed a comment, you can still file an additional one by following this example:

Comment form example

Be sure to type RM-11306 in all caps and also fill in the required address fields.

Just enter your comment as desired and click the button to send it to the FCC. You will receive a confirmation number in return.

File Comment

Please take this opportunity to make your opinion heard. It really is important to the FCC!

73, Skip KH6TY

 

Comment submitted, but the system seems to have a little heartburn, as I did not receive a confirmation number.

I'll try again shortly, as this is very important.

 

Please Comment! If you care to read my comments, they are below.


Supplement to earlier comments regarding opposition to RM-11306
Charles L. Young
ARS: AG4YO

04/12/07
To the Commission:


I would like to add to my comments in opposition to RM-11306 and the Ex-Parte letter seeking to modify, and the ERRATUM seeking to clarify.

1. In Part 97.309 currently, the rules forbid encryption for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of a communication. The ARRL proposes dropping this part of the rule. Openness is desired by most Amateurs in compliance with International rules and in the tradition of the service. In this day and age with national security concerns and international suspicions running high, most Amateurs I know want our service to remain open and transparent...and as such above reproach. The current wording of the rules is very clear, and has only become obscured by the rhetoric of those who seek ways around the rules. I ask the Commission to please keep encryption and codes out of Amateur Radio.

2. Some recent comments by Winlink supporters try to portray wideband data use as an emergency communications versus hobby use issue. The Commission should remember that a vast majority of emergency communications today is indeed voice and narrowband data communications. I ask the Commission to note the comments saying modes like CW, RTTY, and SSB are outdated and must yield spectrum to wideband data use that reveal the unfortunate attitude of the 1% of US Amateur wideband data users who seek to take over Amateur Radio and turn it into a wireless email service.

3. Prohibiting encryption does not prohibit the use of Winlink for emergency use. Encryption proponents often site HIPPA as the reason to do so. In the memo: http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pdf/HurricaneKatrina.pdf the Department of Health and Human Services clarifies the HIPPA rule for Katrina victims. This clarification makes it clear that the uses Winlink proponents cite as HIPPA concerns are indeed not.

4. Restricting bandwidth for data users does not prohibit Emergency Communications use. Others in comments have compared the data throughput between Pactor II and Pactor III modems and the conclusion is obvious that there is nothing which would severely inhibit Emergency Communications by the use of Pactor II. Opposition to Pactor III and its closed source, encryption, high cost, and unnecessary wideband use is not opposition to Emergency Communications.

5. Opposition to interference from wideband data to other modes such as SSB, AM, CW, RTTY, and PSK31 is not opposition to Emergency Communications. Data modes for email and other uses restricted to automatic subbands where they will not interfere with other users does not in any way prohibit Emergency Communications.

6. The Commission may at any time suspend the rules for declared State or Federal emergencies, or simply modify the rules allowing expanded use of wideband data and encryption in the RTTY/Data subbands during these declared emergencies. But I believe most Amateurs would agree that if the message can't be sent "in the clear" and not encrypted, it does not belong on the Amateur Bands

7. Government Agencies, RVers, Pleasure Boaters and other potential commercial users all have other options at their disposal that they may purchase instead of trying to use Amateur Radio for commercial use. This does not prohibit Amateur Radio from being used in bona-fide emergencies, but rather seeks to follow Commission rules concerning competition with commercial services.

8. In conclusion I oppose encryption, interference from wideband data modems, allocation of spectrum not based on use patterns, and competition with commercial providers. I do support openness on the Amateur Bands. I am not opposed to Emergency Communications nor does the denial of all ARRL petitions and ex-parte filings by the Commission mean that the issues cannot be resolved by parties getting together and reaching consensus.

9. In the recent proceedings for removal of telegraphy testing for Amateur Radio, the Commission mistook the number of comments and petitions filed for a mandate that action was needed. In this case most Amateurs I have spoken to are of the opinion that regulation by Bandwidth would be a total disaster for Amateur Radio. Assuming this frame of mind, the Commission is seeing alot of "alternatives". This does not mean that a majority of Amateurs feel change is needed.

10. I firmly believe that 90% or more of Amateur Operators feel NO RULES CHANGE IS NEEDED. Yet even with this opinion, we seek to have some space albeit segregated for data experimentation to occur (as in the automatic subbands) without disrupting narrowband data users, users of telegraphy, or users of voice and image modes.

11. I ask again that RM-11306 be denied and the ex-parte request be denied. Doing so will not prohibit Emergency Communications. I also repeat my request posted in previous comments that when the petition is denied, the FCC clarify rules concerning encryption, automatic stations, and commercial use. Thank you for the privilege of commenting.

Respectfully,
Submitted Electronically
Charles L. Young Jr.
AG4YO

 

Yet another example of how screwed up RM-11306 is. This years-old already-once-revised buzzard needs to be shot and thrown out.

Time to start over. Time for the ARRL to understand what the membership really wants instead of catering to the desires of one small slice of the pie, at the expense of others.

Too many mistakes.

 

So what do we think that the DHS would make of the idea ham radio being able to carry encrypted data to all parts of the world?

I suspect they would go for HEAVY regulation of hams and intrusive surveillance.

I also suspect that if Winlink continues to push, they will find themselves classed as an ISP and will have to implement all of the spying and message retention policies required of real ISPs. This would probably spill over onto all data communications on ham frequencies.

This appears all to be driven by Winlink, which is an exact duplicate of a for-profit commercial service, including the people behind both. This has no place on ham bands, and the ARRL should be ashamed of themselves for being conned into doing their bidding.

 

These threads have really Jumped the Shark

73
Mike

 

Huh? Are you reading something different than I'm reading in the proposed rule change?

 

No, Mike just bought himself a SCS Pactor Modem, and is working to expand deployment of the winlink system in Arkansas.

"Winlink is the best way to pass Email style traffic at this time.", remarks Mike in the section report (link below).

ARRL Web: ARRL AR Section

I recognize Mike's efforts to enhance his emergency communications capabilities for his area, and respect those types of efforts.

I will not, however, offer any snide remarks about his choice of systems, even though he elected to offer his snide remark about the opinions of others.

Mike also appears to utilize an extensive packet radio network for his emcomm efforts.

Perhaps he will reconsider his unwelcome comments concerning the rights of others to have opinions different from his own.

I have stated in the past that I believe winlink has value when used for emergency communications. Regularly passing tons of 3rd party emails using shared hf spectrum, all contrary to the spirit and traditions of amateur radio, is where my issues begin.

I do not note anywhere that Mike is stating any favorable opinion concerning encryption on the amateur bands. Perhaps he could offer a constructive comment about that instead.

73,
Luke

 

Luke, I was just offering my opinion of the campaign to read into the changes more than whats there. I don't think we need encription and I don't beleive the ARRL wants it either. Its pure nonsense and to suggest such a thing only fuels the fire when its not true. But I do think others are making a case for their own purposes.
Some of the anti winlink FCC comments say they represent 90% or better of the US Ham population. I don't know where they get these numbers, but they claim it anyway and use it to make a case. You can be generous and just say that there are almost 2000 comments made so far. If all of those were against it, that would be less than 1% of the US Ham population.
People using Winlink never claimed to represent 90% or better of the US Ham population.
I do wish something official would come out that would stop all this nonsense in its tracks. Its worse than the code/no-code debates.
And yes, I did send a post to our statewide group about Airmail. I did promote the use of PI through PIII and which tnc's had those capabilities for our in-state use.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't get it. I just don't agree. I am allowed to have an opinion also, right?
73
Mike

 

my reply went to another post.
i sent my comments and got a confirmation.
another tactic by the gods of newington.
i think cheese needs to be with the whineing
in newington.

 

Of course Mike, there was nothing sarcastic in my post. Your opinion is as valid as everyone else's.

I think you may want to revisit 97.309 though. It may not scream "USE ENCRYPTION NOW, IT"S OK", but the text in the proposal sure muddies the prohibition of using encryption.

OK, so you know I'm against the petition. Putting that aside for a moment, and if it is true that the intention is not to legitimize encryption, why doesn't a spokesperson for winlink just say, "Hey dudes, we don't need or want encryption. Our network runs just fine, and our agencies are served without data encryption, and we'll urge the ARRL to change the petition to reflect this in no uncertain terms".

Something on the order of a statement like that would be of great benefit. It would build trust, something the winlink network has so little of. It would indicate that we have that much more in common.

I tell you, the winlink folks have done a horrific job with their P.R., and most of the problems they are dealing with relate to just that. At this point, with Steve having the entire winlink network "mail bomb" the FCC after stating here on QRZ that he would never do this, it has become an all out war. Us against you guys, if you will.

If there will be any healing of this rift, after everything that has transpired, the winlink network will have to be the ones to step forward and offer the olive branch. Many have tried to reach compromise with the movers and shakers in this network, and their hand has been slapped time and again.

I sincerely meant what I posted earlier, and I support emergency communications 100% anywhere, as long as it adheres to Part 97 regulations. My congratulations to you for your effort.

I'm afraid that after what has transpired over the last few years regarding this petition, that will be as good as it gets from this end. Maybe you weren't on the scene when this all started. It has a truly sordid history. And I deeply regret that I veiw so many fellow amateurs in such a negative light, but that's the way they've made it.

Without something positive coming out of the winlink camp, this is what we will have. The opponents of this petition are every bit as determined as the supporters, maybe even more so, as I'm the one who reopened the can of worms a couple of months ago with a little rumor I heard about that happened to come true. But that's just more history.

Eventually, this will be settled. I just hope that we can repair the damage that's being done. The code/nocode thing will probably pale in comparison as to lasting damage.

Best 73,
Luke

 

It won't matter. There are those who believe that encryption is already allowed on the ham bands.

Some guy - I can't remember his name now or what issue - someone help me out here - wrote an editorial in CQ magazine last year, arguing that the wording of the regulation already does allow for encryption.

He focused in on this part:  

His theory is that it is OK to encrypt if your "purpose" is something other than to "obscure the meaning", even if the net result is the same.

So for example, you can encrypt a ham transmission if you say that your "purpose" is to "protect the confidentiality of the content". The fact that that also happens to obscure the meaning is merely coincidental.

Seems really specious to me - but the point is that there ARE people out there who genuinely believe that this is OK under the current rules.

 

Are there any ARRL subscribers on here who could elicit a response and explanation from their voluntary and/or paid representatives of that club ?

 

I asked my director... but then again, he hasn't responded to the last 3 of my emails, sent on the 12th, 9th and 4th. Copied in on those were the vice director and section manager. Zero response from them either.

Today I had enough and copied "everybody and God" at the ARRL, since I can't seem to get any answer out of my section manager or director(s).

I still doubt I'll get a response... even as an ARRL member.

 

CQ Magazine's Don Rotolo. Followed up this month by an article on a new encryption scheme by a guest writer (who said he was inspired by Rotolo's article) in Rotolo's column. But (wink, wink) Rotolo said it can't be used on AR but it can be used on MARS...(wink, wink).