ARRL wants to allow encryption on the ham bands!

If you want to encrypt, do it on the commercial common carrier or authorized government bands. It is plainly and specifically illegal on amateur radio. It should remain so.

Encrypted transmissions fly in the face of 100 years of open and public communications amongst learning enthusiasts. If you want to speak privately, use of a cell phone works well today, for legal activities anyway.

Speaking of CW and Morse, are you going to upgrade now, or are you "just peachy" with the Technician license? Just think, if you and your friends would have learned and used CW, you could have avoided comprehension by those with "scanners".

Oh well...

BTW, I've been in the wireless, wire-line, telecom business as a technician, engineer, and project manager for 23 years. In my present position, I am a senior engineer working for the bat-wing boys, designing a 7-site, Project 25, encrypted, integrated voice and data system for the Tacoma area. Am also retired Air Force, with years of operational and maintenance experience with government encryption systems -- including the outdated DES days of the Eighties.

73.

 

ka9uce:

I suggest you go look up the definitions of "obscure" and "change", you obviously don't know the difference.

I suggest you study up on the policies and rules governing amateur radio. Self-policing requires the ability of the amateur community-at-large to be able to monitor transmissions to insure they comply to technical and content standards. Self-policing of the Amateur Radio Service has been official government policy since at least 1922 when the Commerce Dept was the regulating agency.

If you allow encryption on the ham bands self-policing then goes out the window. That means the FCC will have to do the policing and if you think you are restricted by not being allowed to encrypt, how would you like being required to record every transmission? Or submit to an annual station inspection to insure your compliance with all rules and regulations?

It is obvious to me, and I hope to everyone else, that you have not thought through this issue at all, other than as a purely selfish, personal agenda.

There are all kinds of reasons "why not", some of which I listed above. Again, it's not obvious you have done any thinking on the subject at all other than just applying a selfish, personal outlook on life to it.

Encryption is NOT a "mode", not even a digital mode. You would be given a lot more credibility if you didn't exhibit such a low level of knowledge concerning technical terms.

When encryption is not allowed an encrypted signal stands out. When encryption for everything is allowed, it is easy to hide. You still don't show any evidence you understand what the term "self-policing' means.

Yes, it is our right because the Amateur Radio Service has the obligation to perform self-policing. If that inconveniences someone then there *are* other choices to use, including satellite phones. Satellite phones today allow access in places ham radio doesn't even work. If your "privacy" is not worth the extra cost a satellite phone would incur then just how important is that privacy to you?

Again, it would appear this is a subject you have thought about little, at least beyond selfish, personal considerations.

More proof you have no understanding of the traditons of amateur radio let alone the rules and regulations we operate under.

Your statement above is a prime example of how far the quality of the typical amateur radio operator has fallen in the past two decades.

I am absolutely positive I am going to hear a "whine" about how I am attacking you and all "newbie" hams. Please spare me. Instead take the criticism and think about. If it makes you investigate the traditions and policies governing our operations, good! If not, you will have just confirmed my opinion of the level of hams we have entering the service.

Wonderful euphemisms but totally without applicability here. Yes, you can make your own choices. But unless you are a scofflaw you will choose to use a service that allows encryption and not try to ruin a service that cannot afford to allow encryption to be used without devastating consequences.

Are you willing to force those devastating consequences on all amateurs for you selfish, personal gain? Your answer will tell us all a significant amount about your character.

tim ab0wr

 

So it doesn't matter what the law says, you know best, right?

Want privacy? Subscribe to a service that provides privacy. Amateur radio does not. In fact, it states rather clearly up front that there is no expectation of privacy.


And as for your other comments, hams typically notice when something 'different' pops up, and most of the time we find out what it is. If you want to just go ahead and hand over the rest of the HF frequencies to commercial interests, go ahead and keep talking about how you want encryption. Then, there will be no way to tell the difference between the ham making a QSO and the commercial shipping company or fishing boats squatting on the ham bands.

 

Well he has been a Tech since 1983. He does know what is best on the HF bands now doesn't he? Guess he hasn't wanted to improve himself in the last 20+ years now.

 

tech since 1983 ?

 

The argument that encryption is for purposes other than obfuscation is flawed and inconsistent with the professional practice of cryptography and cryptology.

If we are to present a well reasoned, properly articulated argument for our pro or con position to this subject, the proper use of technical terms and art must be adhered to regardless of its accretive or dilutive affect to the speakers point. Any attempt to morph well accepted definitions or practice to suite the speakers point only undermines the argument and the validity of the speaker. Several posts to this topic are poster children for discredited arguments.

If one wishes to argue that cryptography, rather than specifically encryption, is beneficial to the purpose or expansion of amateur radio, then please speak with clarity with regard to authentication, non-repudiation, or integrity.

Glenn W9IQ, CISSP-ISSAP

 

Better be careful... cause WA5BEN invented cryptography, and has the resume to prove it. He was around when they developed the first straight substitution ciphers, and he personally wrote the first progressive substitution key cipher out by hand, on parchment... with a quill.

/sarcasm off


I completely agree with you, that there is a HUGE HUGE difference between the crapola that the HSMM group is spouting and providing a message that the sender can be authenticated, where you can determine if a message is missing or out of sequence, and all at the same time the message payload is in cleartext.

They're stuck in gradeschool concepts of cryptographic mechanisms. What I can't tell is... are they just playing dumb, promoting the goal of encryption with intentionally flawed arguments of nonrepudiation, or are they really that behind the times?


Let's state this clearly.... The only reason to remove the language about obfuscation is simply that... to provide mechanisms to obscure the message content. There is no reason to obscure the message content just to make sure that the sender is who they say they are.

 

Frankly, I have avoided the issue of personal attacks since it detracts from well reasoned debates. I have a tremendous respect for the advancements that RSA has brought to the commercialization of cryptography as well as the financial success that RSA has realized. I tip my hat to anyone who has been a part of that formula. I do not however, blindly accept flawed arguments regardless of the notoriety of the source.

73’s

Glenn W9IQ, CISSP-ISSAP

 

Normally I would agree, and if you read my posts you'll see that it's exceedingly rare that anything like my previous post slips by.... but sometimes certain people like to 'toot their own horn', but can't seem to read the sheet music.

In any case, the situation is that certain parties are lobbying for encryption to be allowed on the ham bands, certain organizations have suggested in internal reports that encryption would be somehow advantageous to certain goals, and this has all come together with RM-11306.

 

Thanks Richard, I respect your reply. What might help this topic in general is to cease the debate as to what is what is not encryption and instead ask the question – “What is the practical use of encryption (obfuscation) for Amateur Radio?” Perhaps we would then come to consensus since this is the at the heart of the issue.

Glenn W9IQ, CISSP-ISSAP

 

This is the mindset that we're up against, that either truly believes or tries to get others to believe that in order to be able to 'experiment', you have to remove languange specific to message obfuscation.

Whether it's intentional or simple ignorance of the facts, I'll let others decide.

 

Glenn,
Thank-you for that well thought out statement.  This is true for any argument on any topic.  

Sometimes it is valuable for someone who takes a side in an argument to also critique the arguments that are intended to support his/her side.  This distilling process is intended to fortify the arguments and to bleed off the arguments that are easily discredited.  Zealots of an argument many times wish to apply a litmus test to those who are participating in an argument to determine where they stand pro or con.  This is a disservice to the argument as a whole.  I have found that it is valuable to argue on the opposite side of a point to discover which arguments are sound, and which are not as sound, or completely unusable.  Many times this leads to ad hominem attacks.  Simply put, suggesting that an argument is weak does not indicate the pro or con stance of the writer.  The pro or con stance of a writer is really irrelevant when evaluating arguments.  Zelots typically are so engrossed in their argument that it tends to cloud their objectivity.  This leads to the bandwagon effect.

73,
Mark N5RFX

 

Well it certainly happens and we are all human and one of our frailties is provocation. One advantage of these forums is the fact they are not real time. When one feels provoked to attack, it is best to wait for a period of time for the adrenalin to subside. I think most folks really want to have reasonable discussion on any topic. Some topics in and of themselves are provocative, and then there are the agents provocateurs in an argument. It only takes one to poison the well. That is the benefit of moderation in these forums. Moderators need not be censors, but regulators of those things that exploit human frailties.

73,
Mark N5RFX

p.s. I have to thank Albert W3MIV for the agents provocateurs reference. Albert has expanded my vocabulary. Thanks.

 

Don't forget about RM-11306, and how the ARRL wants to slowly but surely start allowing encryption to be used on amateur frequencies.

 

Nice Subtitution Cypher -- I'll keep my $50.  

--Keith

THAT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE EVERY DEFINITION I CAN FIND DEFINES ENCRYPTION AS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF "THE CIPHERTEXT MESSAGE CONTAINS ALL THE INFORMATION OF THE PLAINTEXT MESSAGE, BUT IS NOT IN A FORMAT READABLE BY A HUMAN OR COMPUTER WITHOUT THE PROPER MECHANISM TO DECRYPT IT; IT SHOULD RESEMBLE RANDOM GIBBERISH TO THOSE NOT INTENDED TO READ IT."

THE 'MECHANISM TO DECRYPT IT' INCLUDES ALL OF THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO TAKE THE CODED DATA AND TURN IT BACK INTO CLEARTEXT. WITHOUT KNOWING THE METHOD, WITHOUT THE METHOD BEING FREELY AND OPENLY PUBLISHED TO THE POINT OF BEING ABLE TO TURN THAT CODED DATA BACK INTO CLEARTEXT, IT IS ENCRYPTED. THAT ENCRYPTION MAY BE SIMPLE IN NATURE, BUT A SIMPLE HIDDEN CIPHER IS STILL AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ENCRYPTION UNTIL AND UNLESS THE CIPHER IS FULLY PUBLISHED. AT THAT POINT, IF SOMEONE CAN TAKE THE PUBLISHED DATA ALONE AND RECOVER THE CLEARTEXT, IT IS NO LONGER ENCRYPTION.

HOWEVER, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO REMOVE THE 'OBSCURATION' PART OF THE RULES. THERE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH CODES OR TECHNICAL MECHANISMS, NOT EVEN ANYTHING PUBLISHED BY HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS LARRY, THAT CAN GET AROUND THE FACT THAT THE POINT OF THE ORIGINAL RULES WAS INTENT.