Terrorist Networks Use HF E-Mail

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by N5PVL, Feb 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
  1. N5PVL

    N5PVL Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sorry, that didn't scan over here... Could you try again?

    Charles Brabham, N5PVL

    Director: USPacket
    Admin: HamBlog.Com
    Weblog: N5PVL's Blog
  2. N9LYA

    N9LYA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Same here no go...
  3. WA6UBE

    WA6UBE Ham Member QRZ Page

    Trish [​IMG]

    Since Amateur radio stations are required to have a control operator... perhaps winlink message traffic should be approved by a moderator before it passes across the boundary between winlink and the Internet.
  4. N5PVL

    N5PVL Ham Member QRZ Page

    Apparently the WinLink folks do not care about the possibility of Amateur Radio being utilized by terrorist organizations any more than the president of the ARRL does.

    Looks like they've got thier heads so firmly planted up each other's kiesters that there is not much else they can see.

    But when you consider the fact that WinLink operates illegally in the first place, providing an Internet email service in direct competition with a number of existing commercial providers, I guess after that it is not such a big step to provide commo for islamofascist terrorists, is it?

    I mean, if the rules of Amateur Radio ( PART97) do not count for anything with these folks, why should the rules of civilized behavior and good sense be any kind of a barrier?

    Maybe this explains why WinLink being specifically mentioned in this report means nothing to the WinLink folks - or to the clownish "Mr. Haynie".

    Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem a bit inappropriate that the president of the ARRL would respond to reports of Amateur Radio being utilized by terrorist organizations with twerpy hillbilly humor?
  5. AC0H

    AC0H Ham Member QRZ Page

    How do you know it's not?
    As for CW, SSB, PSK-31, and HF Packet those are all monitored easily with either the human brain or with freeware applications. How exactly does the regular Joe Ham monitor PII and PIII transmissions without spending $1000.

    The PIII protocol may be published but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the info. Go ahead and write a sound card app for decoding it and see how long it takes for WinLink/SCS's lawyers to jump all over you like white on rice.

    It's a proprietary encryption scheme that should be banned on Ham frequencies till SCS truly open sources the protocol.
  6. W6TMI

    W6TMI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Anything communications methods used on ham bands should HAVE to be open source, it's the nature of it - "...not for pecuniary interest".
  7. AC0H

    AC0H Ham Member QRZ Page

    And if I'm not mistaken the prohibition against using "encryption" on the Amateur bands is still in effect. The entire bandwidth proposal is nothing more than an attempt at an end run around and FCC rule they know shouldn't and most likely never will be changed.

    I don't know why the FCC has let US Hams get away with it this long.
  8. N2NH

    N2NH Ham Member QRZ Page

    If this happened in 2001, it's already over 4 years old. Besides, why would anybody want to use Ham Radio when it's so 19th Century? A source is "Says somebody"?? Just how reliable is that? PRESENTLY, If we've got thousands of troops in Afghanistan and they can't find him, what's that got to do with ancient history like this? Try to mess up on these modes and see how long it takes to get a pink slip. I find this very hard to believe.
  9. AC0H

    AC0H Ham Member QRZ Page

    Of course THEY can but the regulation against encryption on the Ham bands is still there. We are supposed to be a self policing service right. How exactly do we do that with encrypted signals?
  10. N5PVL

    N5PVL Ham Member QRZ Page

    W3MIV says:
    Apparently Albert, you are not aquainted with basic text encryption technique. An e-mail to Aunt Fazzy talking about whether or not to water the pansies in the window box could be carrying a communication that would ( or would not ) be an order to set off a dirty bomb in Times Square.

    If Aunt Fazzy is asked to water the pansies, 10,000 or more New Yorkers plus anybody downwind gets radiation sickness, some fatal, some not.

    That's how an email containing some heinous scheme might not be recognized as such.

    WinLink is particularly vulnerable to this kind of activity because unlike its commercial competitors, no billing address or verifiable identification is required in order to obtain service... Stop by at QRZ and come up with ID info on a random callsign, and you're in like Flynn. - It's that simple.

    Winlink is particularly attractive for this kind of activity because of the reasons outlined above, plus the fact that it can be accessed from random outback locations where terrorist cliques must hide, making such a message difficult if not impossible to trace.

    "Armchair email" for Osama!

    To recap: It is secure, there is no verification of ID or billing address required, and it works almost anywhere... What terrorist could ask for a better deal than that, and where else could he get all of those terrorist-friendly features?  

    Only with WinLink.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page