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: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
  1. DL6MAA

    DL6MAA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Encryption is fundametally different from compression.
    "Effective encryption" is a vague and ambiguous term. It's not a term you can really argue with.
    Which criteria must be met for "effective encryption"? You cannot just introduce a new term
    but not even define it neatly - that is unscientific and certainly does not contribute to a solution.

    73 de Peter
     
    KX4O and M0IND like this.
  2. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    The disclosure is about half written now. Had to put in reams of the captured data files. 4 different monitoring sessions, to do precisely what was requested..... took hours and hours of preparation alone. Longest thing I've ever submitted, but that's the breaks when you have to produce documentation of everything. The number of quotes and footnotes is out of sight! And that will only grow and grow as I have fully 2 more sections to write. Many people made responsible contributions....and then there were others. I avoid commenting on what they wrote....just quote their statement as much as possible and let the FCC draw their own conclusion. People have a right to say what they want. It's a free country.
     
  3. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    Laugh!! Peter, as i went back through it, I discovered that maybe 9 or 10 different terms were employed in various writings. There was no shortage of fascinating claims!!! Wow, getting all of those documented and footnoted took quite some time!! But it was the right of the citizen to say what they wanted. I just get to quote them.
     
  4. W7UUU

    W7UUU Super Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Sort of.... many of your recent threads on this "overall topic" have become vitriolic and filled with bickering - most often as led by you. You may have noticed that two of these threads were closed today, largely due to the "reports" about the endless bickering and vociferous disagreements that you like to make known.

    So yes - it's a "free country" here in the US. But QRZ is not a "free country" in that sense. It's a privately-owned site with rules in place to "keep the peace", as it were.

    I would kindly just ask you keep the vitriol down, and the put-downs of people you feel just "don't understand". You are obviously a very smart guy - I don't think anyone would question that. And often, really smart people historically tend to lack certain "social skills", shall we say, in some instances. This being one of them.

    If you will agree to keep it to a civil tone, and carry on with this otherwise "way over my head" technical discussion, then we're good.

    But if you can't keep the vitriolic sorts of replies in check, this thread will very soon go the way of the others and future such threads likely will not be allowed under the same circumstances, only to repeat the same stuff.

    Make sense?

    Respectfully,

    Dave
    W7UUU
    Moderator
     
    KV6O, WZ7U, KO6WB and 5 others like this.
  5. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    I appreciate the discussion -- several of us discussing elswhere were quite mystified.
    You're the boss, sir. There is nothing difficult about these matters. here it is in a nutshell:
    1. There are about 8 systems in amateur radio that use ARQ and compression.
    2. In every one of those systems, if you examine what goes over the airwaves you aren't going to be able at a glance to understand it. Of course that is correct --- it is compressed. You can often read the callsigns....and nothing more.
    3. Fact #2 alone was accepted by many as proof that the systems were "unreadable" or "encrypted" or "effectively encrypted." (The FCC is unlikely to be so gullible.)
    4. Until recently, NONE of those systems had any known-to-me system for accepting MONITORING input -- because that isn't their normal method of accepting data; monitoring even has TWO transmitters being heard, not one as is normal. MOST people were apparently only aware of ONE system that didn't have such a system for accepting MONITORING input. There has been 19 years of bickering over that ONE SYSTEM.
    5. Obviously, if the proponents' arguments that openness in amateur radio are valid (and I happen to think they are) -- then we need ways to monitor all of these systems.....but that is very different from claiming they are encrypted. They aren't. They merely lack the sofware specific to THAT method of accepting the compressed traffic. I built that missing link for ONE system.
    6. i then encouraged people to examine a system they knew much better -- FLDIGI/FLMSG -- and they would of course discover, as I did personally in my due diligence to be certain I understood the issue properly....that you cannot monitor that system with existing software.
    7. People were apparently angered by that discussion. I don't think that I made any false statements. Everyone knows that FLDGI is not encrypted --- by applying the same criteria that were used to improperly reach a conclusion of encryption in #3....will lead you to a disconcerting conclusion for FLDIGI..

    Why that is controversial is beyond me.

    Your're the boss sir. Does the above make sense now?
    Cheers,
    Gordon
     
  6. KX4Z

    KX4Z Ham Member QRZ Page

    An additional comment: I have no desire to be making "put-downs" If you would be so kind as to point those out as you notice them, I'll be delighted to apologize to persons affected. I am sometimes confused by persons who appear to be purposely "not understanding" English. Perhaps I'm the one confused? I welcome explanations. I don't understand it when people see that I wrote A,B....and claim that I wrote D,E

    ??

    Gordon
     
  7. W7UUU

    W7UUU Super Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    I'm NOT the "boss". I'm just a moderator here.

    I'm just trying to politely ask you to TONE IT DOWN. You've run this same topic in thread after thread, with a "tone of domination" and it's getting OLD.

    Tone it down now. Please.

    Fair enough?

    Dave
    W7UUU
     
  8. WZ7U

    WZ7U Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ignore is a welcome feature at times...
     
  9. KJ4VTH

    KJ4VTH Ham Member QRZ Page

  10. KX4O

    KX4O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Since I'm the Huggins in the OT (but not the OP), figured I'd should stop by and say hello.
     
    W0PV, DL6MAA and KJ4VTH like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page