Huggins Did It!

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KX4Z, Jul 31, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
  1. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sadly probably, but not by desire. The most precious and usually most expensive resource is people to do the work. It does appear the FCC is pretty well tapped out for the moment relying on us to be the eyes and ears.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2019
    KA0HCP and KX4Z like this.
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    The distributed, networked, receiver that the WINLINK folks have created allows any and everyone to be part of the monitoring group. It’s not hard at all. Give it a whirl, and you’ll quickly understand much more about the system and how to spot bad behavior.

    Click the button to report; I suggest that you also click the button so you get copies of emails, And pretty soon you will ham self policing in action. There is obviously a learning curve going on as hams become more aware of what is allowed, versus not allowed. This is a healthy improvement.

    One of the better outcomes of all this fracas.

    Now I am hoping that the WINLINK folks eventually move towards even more impressive accomplishments, such as automated power reduction, and potentially distributed error correction.... if the naysayers will just let them move on. I really would like to see work at these kinds of future improvements. There’s no reason not to be making advances
     
  3. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    I wonder if the prize is still available...


    "C. Security?
    It is relatively secure. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not permit encryption on amateur radio frequencies. On the other hand, Winlink uses a compression technique that doesn't allow the frequency watcher to read the message – it looks like garbage. (The local Winlink guru has, for years, offered a substantial prize to anyone who could intercept and read a message – no one has claimed it.)"
    ;)
     
    WZ7U, W0PV and KX4Z like this.
  4. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    So here are the first of many statements now proven false in two different cities, by two different people....

    ND6M made this statement which needs to be retracted:
    "The REAL problem is using Amateur frequencies to send ENCRYPTED e-mails ......" [emphasis added] but there is no encryption, proven many many times now.
    Reference: https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...tion-at-the-fcc-rm-11831.652589/#post-5016616

    W6EM had this patently false claim to make while attempting to educate me:
    "OK, Gordon. As a Winlink Cheerleader, you must know that the body of each message, and any attachments are not decodable by a 3rd party observer." [emphasis added]
    Reference: https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...t-the-fcc-rm-11831.652589/page-8#post-5016979

    N1FM has been disproven multiple times now:
    'Pactor modes other than level 1 (P1) are not open source [2][3],are unspecified, and not publicly documented, and therefore cannot be decoded by anyone else over the air, other than the two stations locked in an email or file transfer...." [emphasis added]
    Ref;
    https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...-the-fcc-rm-11831.652589/page-17#post-5018957

    Ah, the truth sometimes comes out......
    Get the FACTS straight first...and then consensus is a lot easier to build.

    Gordon
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Here is a little gem from HE WHO CLAIMS PACTOR IS ENCRYPTED DESPITE HUGGINS READING IT RIGHT OFF THE AIR,
    April 5 2019:
    "Even if you have the hardware and software, you still can not monitor a two way exchange, it is private and therefor prohibited by Part 97."

    Oh my.....he really said that.....
    https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...-the-fcc-rm-11831.652589/page-35#post-5022317


    Here is another from the same mouth:
    "Being able to decode the ARQ doesn't mean anything because you can not decode the message content. I keep hearing from the supporters that the content can be decoded by anyone and that is simply not true. "
    https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?th...-the-fcc-rm-11831.652589/page-47#post-5023817
    Gordon
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Where, oh where did these gentlemen get all these false beliefs??
    You don't suppose there has been even a concerted effort at some religious cult belief on this, now do you? For years, even?
    It just boggles the mind. And now they all have a chance to show their character, and say, "Gee, you're right. That isn't encrypted. It just requires the right engineering effort to read, much like everything else in radio."

    Actions speak louder than words. When the WINLINK folks turned attention to enforcement, and their act began to get cleaned up; when people started demonstrating that the demand to read these texts was clearly a fulfillable engineering effort --- there should have been a chorus of people applauding! Should have been people saying, "BRAVO! Wish you had done or demonstrated that earlier, but I'm delighted to see it now!"

    Because the opposite reaction would be to show completely different true motives, right?

    Cheers,
    Gordon
     
    WU8Y and K7JEM like this.
  7. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK, ... I'll play your silly semantics game.

    "§97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit:... edit...messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning...

    (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services."


    ...and your next smoke and mirror trick will be to say that it is not INTENDED to obscure the meaning.


    RMS Express Tutorial Ver. 1.1.3.0... edit...

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not permit encryption on amateur radio frequencies. On the other hand, Winlink uses a compression technique that doesn't allow the frequency watcher to read the message – it looks like garbage. (The local Winlink guru has, for years, offered a substantial prize to anyone who could intercept and read a message – no one has claimed it.)


    Now, tell me about how it is not INTENDED to obscure the meaning
     
    KK4NSF likes this.
  8. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Is the intent to obscure the meaning, or compress the data so that it can be sent more efficiently? The latter might "obscure the meaning", at least to some people, but that is not the "intent", it is simply a byproduct.

    If a person can sit down, and with available information about the format and modulation, etc, create a program to display messages, then no "encryption" is going on. And apparently, no intent to obscure is going on, else the means and knowledge would not be readily available to do so.
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  9. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    "Intent" is one of those words found in legal jargon. An illicit act is more heinous if the "intent" was to harm... or "purpose" in your rule quote. In some cases it seems it's a requirement for conviction along with, perhaps, motive, etc.

    Winlink (in the past at least and perhaps up until last Monday)
    Once upon a time at least, the author of the RMS tutorial certainly intended to obscure the meaning using compression across multiple frames. It says so right there! Not smart. Many used Winlink with this in mind as documented in other Zed Threads.

    DTN (aka the old NTS-D)
    These folks use the exact same technique to move radiograms around. To my knowledge none have ever expressed any promise of security... hence no intent or purpose to obscure.

    Note I did not mention the mode used because it is immaterial. Winlink uses many modes, while DTN uses only Pactor123 for performance reasons.

    So it seems "intent" matters despite the findings it isn't secure after all. I wonder who gets to adjudicate "intent" in this Part 97 context?
     
  10. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page


    Please answer a few questions about your assertions:

    1. Who wrote that tutorial you cite, RMS Express Tutorial V. 1.1.3.0 -- was it David W. Barrow, in 2011, reference: http://www.la3f.no/faste/digi/winlink/ExpressTutorial1130a.pdf

    2. Is the writer of the tutorial a member of the WINLINK DEVELOPMENT GROUP? [I cannot find any indication that the gentleman is.... ]

    3. Why, in your mind is this writer authoritative? Here is what is on their QRZ page, for example:
    (1993 - present) Active member of Ozaukee Radio Club. (2009 - present)Membership Chair.

    (2011 - present) NRA Basic Pistol Instructor

    (1993 - 2008) Active Member of OZaukee Amateur Radio Emergency Services (OZARES).

    (1999) Emergency Coordinator for Ozaukee Co. WI

    (2004 - 2008) Ozaukee County (WI) Supervisor

    (1982 - 1996) Constable, Town of Cedarburg, WI

    Formerly active in CAP and USCG-Aux.

    Former member of The Florida Bar.

    Proprietor of Stonewall Computer Center - a computer consulting firm.

    Married, daughter and son (both married)

    Rev: N9UNR - Tue May 4 5:15:52 1999


    So I'm at a loss to explain why you believe this person is authoritative or an expert authorized to speak here? Are you just bringing up whatever you can find written by anyone that supports your view? Please explain.



    it would help the discussion if you could clear those questions up.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: Morse-1