Batboard

Very lively discussion in RR and the first post notes the FCC NPRM page looking for input.

http://forums.radioreference.com/commun ... rvice.html

Enjoy!
Mark

I said it on Hamsexy and I'll say it here.

The FCC permits its rules to be broken in times of emergency if the breaking of the rules serves the public interest.

If the ham is serving the public interest by breaking the rules, he has nothing to worry about as he has an affirmative defense if Laura comes a knocking.

On that basis alone the petition is moot. I should sell popcorn to the show, though. The comments are an absolute $(@! storm

it's absolutely ludicrous. Ham radio is not the "emergency radio" service. Encryption is completely contrary to open interoperability, something that is very basic to the fabric of what amateur radio is.

This is a small group of whackers who want to play and change the rules to fit their specific purpose, a purpose that is very misguided from the beginning. It's a BAD IDEA. Plain and simple. No matter how many APX, XPR or XTS radios I own, I would NEVER even THINK about using encryption on the ham bands. It just isn't the place for it. Plain and simple.

Interesting.... http://www.mts.net/~keycom/ham/index.html

Now THAT's interesting!

Marshall

That is because Industry Canada actually has people on board who have common sense and allow things that are reasonable....

they make p25 radios on 900

What's the point of using encryption if you publish the keys on the web?

What is the use case for an encrypted amateur repeater? We have cell phones that do that already, and do it better.

okto wrote:What's the point of using encryption if you publish the keys on the web?

What is the use case for an encrypted amateur repeater? We have cell phones that do that already, and do it better.

Keeps the scanner nerds away, for one. As far as crypto on cell phones... haven't read up much on A5/1, have you?

For Pete's sake... Just use some digital voice protocol like D-STAR if you're worried about scanner eavesdroppers. Or 30 wpm CW, packet, so-on and so forth. We have frequency and mode agility which most Part 90 licensees don't. There are many open protocols which would be difficult to intercept by casual eavesdroppers if some degree of privacy is needed for sensitive communications

I think that encryption is OK anyways under Part 97 rules for RACES operation in certain circumstances.

If you want to play around with encryption to learn how it works (key management... Etc.) and you publish your keys, what's the big deal? The rules pertain to attempting to conceal or obfuscate to contents of the communication. If you openly publish your keys, so what? I don't buy the arguments about not everyone having the key loaders or equipment to be able to decode your transmissions. Not everyone has MOTOTRBO gear or a CW key. So what? You want to play... .. You got to pay in money and sweat equity learning new stuff.

Not everyone can intercept CW, SSB, RTTY, but most of us don't get our bowels in an uproar over that. Then again, some people did get flaming gastritis over PL on ham repeaters... Or any new mode that they couldn't receive on inexpensive OTS ham gear. Back in the 70s, some local olde farts tried to claim that PL was encryption and illegal and exclusive (...because I don't have it or understand it) Really. The hobby is about trying the new and different for the sake of learning.

I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my options to court. Check with Dewey, Chatham, and Howe...

The fact that it gives the hamhumps a case of flaming gastritis is sufficient justification in itself.

OK. Posting the fact that this issue was out there is one thing. Debating it here is another matter. We're not going there. The Batboard lounge is long gone.