Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.
If only you or Rappaport knew what is actually going on behind the scenes.
Will there ever come a moment when the rest of us will?
The best thing I can do for you, is acquiesce. You win. I will now refer to you exactly as you wish. I now dub you,
"HE WHO INSISTS PACTOR IS ENCRYPTED WHEN HUGGINS READS IT RIGHT OFF THE AIR"
As you wish, sir!
Next I have to dig up the long list that I made of people on this very site who stated in print that such a demonstration as Huggins just filed with the FCC would finish the matter. One must presume that these persons were sincere and forthright and now will willingly admit that winlink has no obscuration.....
And there will be a ton of posts from various people which, to be honest, they should now retract.
An honorable person admits when they have learned they made an honest mistake. We all do that from time to time, but it takes a bigger person to admit it.
So folks... since my name is, alarmingly, in the headline of this thread I guess I should have a say. When someone of stellar education makes a statement it's 100% impossible to monitor Pactor/Winlink over the air, I heard my calling and loudly. Crack it just once and the premise is slammed. Key points...
Yeah one can decode Pactor/Winlink off the air if you get enough frames received.
Even if you only get the first portion of the binary containing the encoded email content, that will still decode the first parts, but won't complete. At least with LZHUF it's not all or nothing as previously thought. Better to have all though.
Hence there is no for-sure obscurity possible... unlike with encryption. YOU HEAR THAT WINLINK USERS!!! I CAN READ YOUR EMAIL!!! PLEASE REFRAIN FROM YOUR SEXCAPADE ARRANGEMENTS?!?!?
The technical barrier to monitoring Pactor/Winlink transmissions over the air is cracked, because IMO it wasn't a barrier, just something that needed proper attention. Linux rocks as does the DR-7400!
But that's not all there is to this controversy right?
Was there an "intent" to obscure given all the ramblings from Winlink, et. al. all these years? IMO perhaps so. Apparently some Winlink users sure thought so in April/May time frame.
The various other issues involving lid operator behavior remain IMO. Remember the Winlink station beaconing (that's all it ever did) for over two years?
The issue of spectrum real estate required to do the job remains IMO. Free for all is a bit much. How much spectrum does the entire Winlink system really need? DTN (NTS-D)? Etc? I'm just not hearing slammed channels when I record so time division may be a perfectly acceptable solution for all, but the most trying of times.
Of course there is a big shake up going on these days as Ron and Gordon detail for us as best they can. I'm no Winlink fan, but am pleased with the amount of progress made of late with Ron's RM and everyone's responses both pro and con.
Progress is good.
If collegiate elites were in charge of Part 97 digital spectrum...
The only truth I know for sure is the government can do what I just did.
Bout time you saw the light.
Well then, that raises another question. If the government can read these emails, is the FCC enforcement bureau just turning a blind eye much like to the rest of the ham spectrum?
Yes, HE WHO INSISTS PACTOR IS ENCRYPTED WHEN HUGGINS READS IT RIGHT OFF THE AIR, I am seeing the the light, & I suspect it is green light from your brilliant envy at what Huggins can do!
A new slogan will be comin' round some parts and universities....
YOUR ENGINEERING INCOMPETENCE DOES NOT MAKE MY SIGNALS ENCRYPTED!
Sorta like the old one of, "your failure to plan does not make this my emergency"
Cheers! The facts are coming out in gushes now. (grin)
Chuckle!! I suspect you are very close there --- why, those folks have been WATCHING this for almost 2 decades now.....and apparently there isn't a terribly great interest on their part, wouldn't you say? Everyone should know by now (if they are keeping up) that Winlink Terms & Conditions etc. don't even allow you to order Pizza! (which is legal) In other words, they are stricter than the FCC. I have not catalogued the exact percentage, but a fair bit of the warning notes etc., that I've been seeing winlink administrators send out.....wouldn't cause anyone at the FCC to bat an eyelash. [and other stuff would!]
So yes, they perhaps should be dealing with some of the stuff --- and who knows, maybe they will? That's fine. But what we are seeing now (for anyone who is actually paying attention) is that the rate of stuff that even the ENEMIES of winlink can point to is dropping below 1 out of 1300 contacts...... which is worthy of praise.
I don't now how low it can go. In medicine, if you get within 95% of the general population on a test [like sodium, or calcium or something] we tend to consider your value as "normal." That doesn't mean that standard has to apply to other fields, but it is gratifying to see the winlink rate of non- compliance drop down into territory around 8/100 of 1 percent. I think most people would agree that is pretty darn good.
The FCC probably has more pressing problems, don'tcha think? Maybe the nitpicker crowd will now demand that all SSB ops with amplifiers purchase $1000 instantaneous computer-operated power monitors and that they be given a $100 ticket every time they go 1 milliwatt over the limit..... or go more than 1 second past 10 minutes on 75 meters without ID....or don't speak clearly ("obscured", right?) . And that all repeater owners are required to purchase automated DF gear and every "kerchunk" gets a $1000 fine....who knows..... I am all for following the rules. But some people need to get on meds for OCD around here.....and others have some apologizing to do for things they wrote....and the word "paranoid" needs to be considered for some....