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."
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).
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?
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.
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.
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!