Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considering Proposal For Encrypted Ham Radio
Bruce Perens writes "FCC is currently processing a request for rule-making, RM-11699 (PDF), that would allow the use of Amateur frequencies in the U.S. for private, digitally-encrypted messages. Encryption is a potential disaster for ham radio because it defeats its self-policing nature. If hams can't decode messages, they can't identify if the communication even belongs on ham radio. A potentially worse problem is that encryption destroys the harmless nature of Amateur radio.There's no reason for governments to believe that encrypted communications are harmless. See hams.com/encryption/ for more information."
Possible vs legal describe two completely different circles on the diagram. In a few places, they even touch.
No, it is illegal to send encrypted content via packet. That makes any kind of web browsing pretty much impossible (Google, for example, does https for everything now...and I wouldn't want my plain-text passwords going all over the place).
Possible, yes. Legal, no. The fact that a large section of Internet traffic cannot be sent legally over packet radio is one of the reasons they want to do this.
Whenever I try to convert part-15 geeks into part-97 geeks, they're interested in high power, they're interested in DIY equipment, they're interested in satellites, they're interested in propagation, and as soon as I mention that you can't swear or encrypt, they walk away.
"If I can't send useful traffic over it, why would I bother?"
Ham radio is losing a generation of geeks who've grown up on a more-free network and aren't interested in a restricted one. Should we just let them go?
What is the logic for making that illegal?
Would it be equally illegal to use codewords to hold a private conversation?
Why, in a supposedly free country, is the possibility of something being "harmful" a justification for its being made illegal?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
There is no restriction on encryption in general. There IS a restriction in the amateur radio licence that states that you cannot encrypt your transmissions made under the terms of the amateur radio licence. I'm not sure what the US equivalent is, but here's the UK terms and conditions: http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/spectrum/amateur-radio/guidance-for-licensees/amateur-terms.pdf See specifically section 11 (2).
It is also illegal to use Ham Radio for commercial purposes. That makes almost any kind of web browsing pretty much impossible.
That is a misunderstanding.
Let me shift the bulletin down: The only reason ham radio is allowed to operate anywhere in the world is because the governments of the world (including ours) do not regard it as a threat to them. Encryption is a threat as far as governments are concerned; and legal limitations (or their lack) in this country don't matter, since ham radio is global. If you add encryption to ham radio, then ham radio becomes a threat to governments, too. Then ham radio will become largely banned or restricted, and its enjoyment elsewhere will drop to the point where it is no longer viable as a hobby.
This proposal, requested by a relatively narrow sector of society (hospitals) out of fear of litigation, if it every becomes allowed, will turn and bite hospitals in the collective butt when they face a shrinking pool of licensed radio operators. Any remaining ham radio operators will use ham radio at work, where the employer assumes the legal risk. Otherwise, why bother, when encryption makes ham radio too much trouble.
--- Andy West http://andywest.org
There's no reason for private citizens to believe unencrypted communications government can spy on are harmless. Evidence: All of human history, and the reasons behind free speech and right against search and seizure.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Ummm, they certainly have. "The pearl is in the river" is just another form of encryption, and just as illegal on the ham bands as AES.
That's an interesting choice of phrase to let your friend know your wife is having her period.
It's a little lengthy to post directly, but here's the info you're looking for (I think): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022424684
Skip down to FCC regulations part 97.113 (4)
enjoy
Actually ordering pizza over ham radio phone patch is fine. The law bans comms in which you have a "pecuniary interest". I.e. you cannot earn money from operating a ham radio. Back in the old days, commercial operators didn't want ham radio ops honing in on their racket. Spending money on a ham radio is fine.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Ok, let me elaborate. The HAM network is almost completely self policed. It would be trivially easy to abuse the spectrum and ruin it for everyone so it's in everyone's best interest that people who don't follow the rules, who are using it for commercial gain for just one example, are reported and stopped. Allowing encrypted traffic would allow me to sell internet service to people in rural areas because there's no way to detect what is in the encrypted content. If something becomes profitable enough eventually you'll choke the spectrum and make it unusable for everyone. Keep in mind that this isn't a managed slice of spectrum, there's no one in charge of who is using what frequency where. Get enough sources broadcasting and it simply won't work.
This is not a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). This is simply a petition by a Citizen.
If the FCC decides to consider the petition, it will issue a NPRM and open a comment period. It will THEN consider the petition with the collection of public comments.
Well they already allow proprietary protocols like DSTAR (you can decode the packets and see what's there, but you have to pay a company for the privilege to do so - not quite in the spirit of ham radio).
Why not allow encrypted packets with a cleartext callsign wrapper? Then you can verify the source of the packets and have access to modern uses of the spectrum. Frankly, I think digital modes are more interesting that ragchewing with the oldtimers anyway, and some of the old FCC rules and bandplans are causing amateur radio to seriously stagnate.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
as most naval communication is encrypted de-facto in the 21st century and often dedicated outside the ham band, the original licensing purpose is rather useless. One could argue in the 50's the radio act served to ensure VHF and UHF television broadcasts and commercial radio would not be interrupted by hobbyists, but the anti-cryptography purposes intended 'do-no-harm' clause smacks of the cold-war.
If hams can't decode messages, they can't identify if the communication even belongs on ham radio. A potentially worse problem is that encryption destroys the harmless nature of Amateur radio.
while hams cannot identify these communications we do regularly hold triangulation contests to see where theyre coming from. The mysterious Yosemite Sam broadcast in the southwest was detected and triangulated by a number of hams during its run with relative success. Again, the "harmless nature" of amateur radio must be re-evaluated in the modern context of the united states government in the 21st century. The NSA warrantlessly spies on us all, we run a torture camp, and execute our own citizens without trial. To continue to enforce anti cryptography in amateur radio is to the benefit of the state, not the amateurs which hold the rights to the airwaves. And if you consider commercial radio as any bellweather for the nature of the radio wave, then its charter to provide a public good is evidence enough the airwaves do in fact belong to the people.
Disclosure: I am a licensed ham operator working toward their general class upgrade.
Good people go to bed earlier.
You're right! I'm a ham and I'm in my 30s!! No mustache though, sorry.
Read the memo, though. The main reason they want to allow encryption is for communication with government emergency services. The proposed change would only allow encryption for these reasons:
(a) signals exchanged between an amateur station and a space station in the amateur satellite service for the purpose of controlling the operation of the space station; and
(b) signals exchanged between an amateur station and an unattended amateur station for the purpose of controlling the operation of the unattended amateur station; and
(c) intercommunications when participating in emergency services operations or related training exercises which may involve information covered by HIPAA or other sensitive data such as logistical information concerning medical supplies, personnel movement, other relief supplies or any other data designated by Federal authorities managing relief or training efforts
This isn't about modernizing amateur radio or allowing exciting new uses, it's about making it compliant with other boring federal regulations.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
I've seen HAM radio at it's best, and how it can be taken out by any idiot with enough broadcast power. I was in Puerto Rico when a bad hurricane hit the island and wiped out all communications over most of the island. A good friend was a HAM operator, and he linked up with a semi-formal network of HAM operators along the east coast that activates whenever there's a hurricane disaster. These people provided the only communications for large numbers of people for several days, and were instrumental in saving lives. At one point, however, one pin-headed yokel got on the frequency the net was using and rebroadcast AM radio music with a lot of watts behind it. They finally got this guy off the air (with some FCC help), but he hindered the net for almost a day.
The HAM community does a lot for many others who are not HAMs, and to open their bands up to individuals who only see dollar signs everywhere and only think of their own "rights" to do whatever they damn well please would be both a travesty and a serious mistake.
First, it's "ham", not "HAM" - "HAM" is *NOT* an acronym, but merely a slang expression, short for 'amateur'.
Second, what's being proposed is to encrypt third-party messages in order to preserve security and privacy.
An example might be information that's otherwise subject to HIPAA. Another might be a requests/responses
between governmental (Federal/state/tribal/municipal) emergency management agencies, such as logistics issues,
that might be sensitive information, but not necessarily "classified" in the traditional military sense.
Third, this is strictly a *proposal* at this time - this is a Rule Making notice (hence, the RM number) and the FCC
has now opened the gate for comments. Therefore, if, after reading the RM thoroughly and studying the needs of
clients (such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and various government agencies that Amateur Radio operators
in the US serve during times of disaster, etc.), you disagree with the proposal, you're more than welcome to submit
your own comments.
Fourth, bear in mind that, at least in the US (and that's what's being discussed here), the originating and receiving stations
*MUST* keep a copy of all third-party traffic anyway.
Fifth, all of this traffic, be it encrypted or in the clear, would be sent from one amateur station to another and those stations
must (continue to) follow the identification rules. So, if you happen to overhear W1XXX sending an encrypted message to
W2XYZ, don't get your knickers in a twist - it'll be their responsibility to follow the rules. OTOH, if you overheard an encrypted
message (or even an unencrypted stream of bits/noise) and there was no accompanying identification, then you're free to
call 1-888-CALL-FCC and notify them, as you might for any other "intruder".
It wouldn't matter if it's sent by packet (which, BTW, is usually identified under the AX.25 protocol with the callsign embedded
in the packets) on VHF, or via WINLINK using PACTOR or WinMOR, or PSK31 or RTTY or any of the other digital modes.
Or, gasp, even CW...
Now is the time for amateurs to put their thinking caps on, study the current rules, study what's being considered in the RM,
learn what the local and served agencies need and/or can live with, and file well-reasoned comments and suggestions for
implementation with the FCC. The idea is to enable amateur radio operators to better serve their communities, after all...
And, be prepared to do a second round of "Reply Comments" to address the various issues raised in the initial comments.
Does anyone seriously not believe the famous numbers stations as already an ultra-low-throughput form of encrypted transmission? Whether you send the data as electrical bits, RF, carrier pigeons, or a recording of Angelina Jolie saying "zero" and "one" over and over and over really has no relevance to the underlying meaning. Either it already breaks the law, or it doesn't.
Totally true. But I've never heard a numbers station in a ham band. Hams can't just operate everywhere in the shortwave spectrum. There are certain frequency "bands" they can use. The numbers stations aren't within these bands.
Are we an Emergency Service? No - we are not. That is what part 90 is for.
We are hobbyist, enthusiasts that practice the radio art and sciences. As such, we develop the skills and methods to make things work, when all else fails.
We fill in, when asked, when established systems fail. We are not a "First Responder" that jumps into any and every situation with our "magic" HTs to save the day.
If you want to be part of an EmComm organization, join one - they have their own radio service under part 90 rules. They use encryption there - and it works well.
Thankfully, the public communications community has noticed when things have gone bad and we've stepped in to help. They've evolved their systems to be more robust and survive events. No, they're not perfect and there will be opportunity to help out in the future. But, we provide that help out of civic duty. Not as an EmComm service.
Allowing encryption on the Amateur Bands will further dilute the separation between our hobbyest, experimental service and established EmComm services. When those EmComm service start asking for more bandwidth to support their growth - where do you think they're going to look? If we're already providing EmComm services - predeployed, dedicated, secure encrypted, agency specific communications - what shouldn't they have our bands?
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
You... really know nothing about how ham radio operates, do you? They share a range of frequencies and broadcast areas, with different frequencies having different effective ranges. A good shortwave operator with good equipment on the right frequency at the right time of day might be able to communicate with someone halfway around the world (that's not an exaggeration). The system works because only people who are genuine enthusiasts go into the field, and they all work together to make sure it works. Half the appeal is that it's mostly user-regulated.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Because, one of the longstanding implicit quid pro quo behaviors of Amateur radio is that it is 'harmless'. Amateur radio operators are given the freedom to use a significant swath of radio frequency for non commercial use. Amateur radio is designed to be self policing. If somebody starts sending commercial / illegal / inappropriate transmissions, other radio ops are supposed to help figure out where the transmission is coming from and cooperate with the FCC in finding the miscreant.
So, if you obfuscate the transmission, all of that goes out the window. Then the feeling is that the FCC will decide that amateur radio isn't worth the bother (and we can be a real PITA) and shut the whole thing down.
It's a slippery slope that no one wants to peer down.
Not EVERYTHING on the planet needs to be attached to the Internet....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I think this is confusing "mostly well behaved" with self policed. For instance, look at the abject fuckery that goes on at 14.313 MHz each and every day. All manner of rule violations. Not judging the rules here, but no question, deep and serious violations of them. No one "polices" this in any sense of the term; nothing any ham does shuts it down, slows it down, restrains it, or otherwise serves as a "police" function. Reporting it to the FCC does nothing; years and years of reports have gone without any response.
Now, it's quite true that most hams don't take part, and further, view the situation as appalling; but this is like your neighbor disliking seeing crack sold on the sidewalk. That's behaving well, not policing. They're not policing it; they might report it, but that's still not policing it. Only the police can do that, because they have the authority and power to do something about it. In the ham situation, the feds aren't coming when they are called, either, so the activity goes unchallenged in any realistic way. And believe me, getting on there and arguing? Not helpful.
There's more than that going on, too. I know for a fact that there are stations on the air using considerably more than legal power; stations that intentionally interfere with others in several ways, etc. I *also* know that the FCC has the analytical tools to detect, and the authority to stop, this kind of behavior. I lay the blame for this shameful garbage entirely at the FCC's feet.
Yes, but any ham can do the same thing for free. Encrypted or not. That's going to make your business model unsustainable. Also, I should point out that packet has allowed email back and forth to the Internet for decades now. So I think your idea of "providing Internet" isn't going to choke the spectrum. Hard to sell something others give away for free (not impossible... but hard.)
Another thing: With the plethora of digital modes available right now, it's become a royal PITA to try and figure out what you're listening to, much less decode it. Is it Olivia? RTTY? Amtor? Heil? Packet? and on and on for must be over a hundred modes and variants. The difference between an encrypted packet and one you can't figure out otherwise is... nothing.
And one more thing (lol): As far as HF goes, we don't have the bandwidth to supply anything like Internet to anyone. There's no risk whatsoever of commercial interest of that type coming in. You'd have to be talking about operation at UHF and above, and *that* means line of sight, and *that* means latency that grows with every link, and it also means that those 99.99% dead bands would see some use, which might keep them from being taken from us. Not a perfect reason by any means, but a reason regardless. The fact is, cellphones have almost entirely killed VHF/UHF ham activity. It's sad as hell, but there it is.
Oh, hey. One MORE thing: Your "Internet supply" is going to have to accept all manner of interference from other hams, etc. That's going to make your service really, really poor. Quite aside from the free competition that will start up the day after you do because you're going to offend every ham with half a wit.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, mostly harmless, anyway.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
HAM radio is about experimentation. The communication part is almost a side effect. Radio-amateur frequencies were never intended to substitute commercial telecom networks. So if you transmit something on the HAM frequencies, it's expected that everybody can decode the message. It's part of the experimental nature of HAM radio. You can not even use it for relaying messages for a third party, that's what phones are for.
That's the intent. Then again, there has been some erosion already, e.g. with the D-Star protocol. It's a digital communication protocol that uses the AMBE vocoder to transmit voice. The problem is: AMBE is patented, and you need a special chip to decode it. That's 100% against the intent of HAM-radio: normally you should be able to experiment and create your own decoder, but in this case it's impossible unless you buy the chip. This is a quite controversial topic, and has spurred the creation of a free alternative, called CODEC-2.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
The funny thing is that amateur radios often make better business / public service radios than most commercial units. I can control the output on my Yaesu (Standard / Vertex) 2M rigs much better than the Fire department can do on their super expensive Motorola bricks. For one thing, I don't need a $20,000 (actual cost, complete with high quality Chinese dongle) box to change bandwidth and power parameters. I can do it from the front panel*. The power spectrum looks much cleaner than the Motorola rigs.
If it weren't blatantly illegal I would rig my HT to broadcast on Fire / Rescue channels and not have to take the overweight FT5000 POS that they dumped on me. **
* Of course, this is an intellectual exercise. One should never open up the front display unit and unsolder the two jumper wires that are described in many places in the Internet. One should never, ever do that.
** I wouldn't even think of it. Especially because opening the transmit frequency of a Yaseau FT-530 requires one to open up the back and remove a jumper. A difficult and dangerous endeavor. Small parts, even.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You should take a while to actually listen to HAM radio. People are DOS'ing each other, sometimes by accident, sometimes intentional. There are some jerks among HAM operators, as there are everywhere. But you can't do this on the entire frequency range (well, you can, but that takes a lot of power + this is illegal + you'll be fined + you'll have your equipment confiscated because you can not do broadband transmissions).
That said, in practice there are no problems most of the time. There is no need to allocate time slots or whatever. Don't propose a fix if you aren't familiar with the subject :-).
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I can agree with restrictions regarding technical proficiency, and not making the airwaves unusable for others. But when you restrict what type of content may be carried in those messages based on moral standards, you've completely lost any reasonable grounds in my book. Not because I don't believe in morality, but because I don't believe in any morality that involves bad words.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"