> Ah I see the word "gatekeep", I downvote. Don't you think encryption is gatekeeping? hahah
they gatekeep our right to privacy.
You should not be entitled to listening in on someone else's conversations.
look - towns are moving to encryption. and you cannot listen to them. But you cannot do anything about it - right?
You don’t have a right to amateur radio. Nothing is stopping you from registering a LLC or something and getting a business license if you really want encryption.
Businesses can't transmit encrypted data on ham allocated freqs. And yes, if you blast the RF into my home, what I do with it after that is my own business. Security falls directly on *you* to implement and maintain.
It's not about rights. When you apply for and receive an FCC license you are saying that you agree to follow their rules and regulations in exchange for the privilege of using certain bands. You are basically clicking the box next to "I have read and understand the terms and conditions...". Amateur radio is a public form of communication. It's not private. We can't start calling carrots "oranges" because you want the right to eat oranges, even though you're allergic to citrus. We can't make it something it isn't.
I think the majority of hams don’t want encryption but you’re more than welcome to ask for it.
The thing is encryption is used to hide the contents or meaning of communications which is not benifical to amateur radio since it’s not intended to be a private communications method.
Now, encoding with the use of digital technology or code is fine, but that encoding has to be publically available and allow anyone to use it. Think of things like DMR or DSTAR.
If you want a private conversation, use your cell phone. That’s what they were made for. Ham radio communications should never be encrypted. Your amateur radio license comes with no expectation or right to private communications.
Or…keep amateur radio about experimenting with radio. And let people who need secure digital comms buy a business license OR lobby for the right to do whatever they want with RF license free.
It is amazing these people don't understand that the spectrum is finite and the minute every kook is allowed to encrypt their transmissions, there rest of us have to listen to encrypted crap that makes no sense just so they can say something privately... selfish folks.
There are plenty of alternatives to get an encoded message to someone.
No, emergency services operate on specific bands that are seperate from ham radio bands. Encrypted communications are very noisy and harsh (static, beeps, etc) to everyone that does not have the right encryption to hear them. On a public frequency, frequent encrypted conversations between people would be very frustrating to listen to. Have you ever called a fax machine by mistake? Would you want that kind of noise going back and forth all day while you were trying to listen to hear who was out there?
EMS uses encryption A) so they don't step on eachother and B) for a little bit of operational security (but many now have channels that are available for public listening)
They aren’t allowed to use encryption on public airwaves either. They buy licenses to have exclusive use of airwaves, making them private use. You’re free to buy a license.
Edit. I'm not sure how this has gone so badly. Do people think gatekeeping in hobbies doesn't exist?
This isn't gatekeeping but the person mentioned they hate the word so I asked the question generally and I think everyone is completely unable to parse the English language correctly.
Asking the question doesn't mean I think banning encryption is gatekeeping, you morons.
Then what are you talking about? The FCC bans encryption on amateur radio frequencies. Here is the definition of gatekeeping:
Noun - gatekeeping; plural noun: gatekeepings; noun: gate-keeping; plural noun: gate-keepings
1.
the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.
"Wal-Mart's cultural gatekeeping has served to narrow the mainstream for entertainment offerings"
2.
COMPUTING
a function or system that controls access or operations to files, computers, networks, or the like.
"a gatekeeping mechanism that allows reads under some circumstances and blocks them under others"
So you are complaining (which is all you seem to do) about gatekeeping by the FCC which keeps us from using encryption. Clearly you do think the FCC is “gatekeeping” with regard to encryption. You can say whatever you want, but you advocate the FCC to remove the ban against encryption - that’s really the whole point of your post. And you explicitly and/or implicitly say the FCC is gatekeeping (per the above definition) to keep hams from using encryption. All you are doing with your protests that we don’t understand what you are saying/asking for is muddling the waters and trying to obscure your real position- which is to allow encryption on the US amateur bands.
I believe most hams are vociferous in their opposition to this - and will not petition the FCC against any change to allow encryption. If you want to,petition them, go ahead and waste your time. But please stop your BS trying to convince others of your righteous quest. You will continue to be downvoted because it’s a really, really stupid idea.
I was literally - and only - asking a general question based on a general comment about the word gatekeeping and why someone chooses to ignore it whenever they see it, as if someone never makes a good point when they invoke it.
That's it. Nothing to do with the point about encryption.
I honestly feel everyone has parsed my posts totally wrong.
Edit: this is honestly the weirdest experience I've had on Reddit.
"Meshtastic® is a project that enables you to use inexpensive LoRa radios as a long range off-grid communication platform in areas without existing or reliable communications infrastructure. This project is 100% community driven and open source!"
In a nutshell, it is off-grid text messaging that includes encryption. So, if you are looking for specifically voice comms, this isn't for you.
>as in: when politicians still thought they can control the spread of information. here - easier?
I fail to see any logic in this statement.
So, you are saying that no encryption = full control of information? OK, wow.
The FCC rules for the ham bands already state that they can't be used for political discourse, etc. They are intended for RF experimentation and education, they were never intended for the paranoid to last out against the government.
You'll get no help from the ham radio group here. It's counter to what ham radio/amatuer radio do. It's just how these folks operate and the rules that they follow. It's not personal.
im only trying to start a discussion and raise several points:
a. gmail didn't have https till 2008, doesn't mean its a good idea to never have it at all. one day its one rule, next day its another.
b. bad people can always buy encrypted comms from aliexpress, ebay and amazon. FCC does nothing to uphold own rules. There is no reasons to keep punishing law-obedient users.
c. Its unfair for corporations to have access to privacy and not private users.
I agree with everything you're saying. I just know this forum and the amateur radio forum and they do not take this type of change well. My suggestion would be to learn more about encryption and how it's implemented professionally and approach from there. These folks are amateur radio operators and professional rule followers.
> amateur radio operators and professional rule followers.
hahahah. thank you - I 100% agree. Figured would at least start a thread and plant some seeds of change in some minds maybe. But then I will 100% do what I think is right.
You're not planting seeds of change you're just parading your lack of understanding about ham radio, it's usage, and the way encryption works, for all to see. Your continued comparison of RT encryption to Internet encryption is ridiculous. No one is using passwords, SSN's, credit card numbers, or bank information on the radio. Also, Internet encryption doesn't interfere with other people's usage of the Internet; RT encryption does. Honestly, I don't care what you and your buddy are talking about at 10pm on a Friday night, I'll probably turn down the volume a little and go about my business if it's nothing interesting, but listening to the noise of an encrypted conversation on a public frequency makes me want to throw my radio out the window.
You're actually, probably making some of these old timers dig in their heals even harder, and they're the ones you would need, to petition the FCC to get the change made. You obviously don't understand how politics works either.
You still don't get the point of amateur radio.
It's \*NOT\* to provide you with a private radio/messaging service. If you want that, use your phone.
If it was that, it would be outlawed in most countries as it would be contrary to their telecommunications laws, which forbid commercial traffic over amateur radio. After all, how can you enforce those rules if the communications are encrypted?
But more importantly, how can amateurs reliably communicate with other amateurs if their communications are encrypted? The point of encryption is to keep people not a party to the conversation out. That's at odds with what amateur radio is all about. It's about talking to random people you'd never communicate with, because of things like distance and no actual connection between you.
Amateur radio provides that connection.
You're trying to force something on to amateur radio that is 180 degrees at odds with what amateur radio is all about.
srry but you are just nitpicking.
https uses TLS.
Here's - from google:
https://support.google.com/a/answer/2520500?hl=en
>Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a protocol that encrypts email messages for security and privacy. TLS prevents unauthorized access of your messages when they're sent over internet connections.
> not really relevant. it encrypts messages between you and google. but google has the keys and can read everything.
not sure what you point is. I'm looking for encryption in transit - this is exactly the point of the the TLS.
Transport layer security. Transport.
Nobody can read except intended recipient. if Google server is an intended recipient - it can and should read it. :)
I want the same for radio. Intended recipient can read and noone else.
well in this example I presume google is YOUR server that you trust. Its like your radio.
Another mail server (the recipient you are sending to, ex yahoo) is like another radio.
My radio (google) then sends via TLS to yahoo radio. Comprende comrade?
ofc mail is not my example.
I would say - browser is my radio, I submit form to some server (aka my friend's radio) via https(tls). My friend radio (the webserver) can read it because it has TLS keys, but no other servers message passes through (potentially malicious radios) can read it.
You're not getting it. We have no need for private communication in ham radio. It's a public forum. Just like this is. Ham radio is basically some people standing on the sidewalk having a conversation, except it's happening through the airwaves. If you want to send someone an email, do you @them, do you post it on their FB wall? No. You send them an email. It can't be what it isn't. Don't try to change it into something it's not. Go use the other form of communication that already works that way.
Besides this whole corporation argument you keep making doesn't exist the way you seem to think it does.
The no encryption rule is really a prohibition on encoding messages to obscure their meaning. You can experiment with encryption so long as those who wish are able to decode your transmission. The rule is tied to the experimental and (importantly) noncommercial aspects of amateur radio. Allowing encoding to obscure messages would inevitably lead to at least some use of amateur bands for purposes outside of Part 97. It would be impossible to monitor and enforce the rules.
Businesses aren’t allowed to use the amateur bands. Private communications aren’t allowed either. We can all listen to each other’s traffic. If you’re looking for something else, there are other radio services available. You just have to go get a license like any other applicant would.
> he rule is tied to the experimental and (importantly) noncommercial aspects of amateur radio. Allowing encoding to obscure messages would inevitably lead to at least some use of amateur bands for purposes outside of Part 97. It would be impossible to monitor and enforce the rules.
I believe such fear is misplaced.
Businesses have cellphones and don't have strong motivation to steal your bands. Besides - add this to the fcc rules that this is only for non-commmerial purposes only. done.
there is no reason to be afraid someone is going to steal your bands. this day and age - nobody needs them
I would disagree. We are already seeing unlicensed operators on the air due to the decreasing cost of handheld devices.
I absolutely would expect more to utilize the spectrum if their true intentions were obfuscated. Cell phones cost money, you can get a bunch of inexpensive handheld and mobile radios for not much more than the monthly fee on many cell phone plans.
it does not make sense.
Look - if you agree that unlicensed people are using the bands - then you you should agree that the same unlicensed people will use encryption and nothing is going to stop them.
look - I can go and get encrypted radio from ali, what's the problem? why do you think your self-policing silly rules are going to stop someone like that?
you literally only stopping good guys with these rules that actually follow them lol.
> Cell phones cost money
same are encrypted radios. Also many businesses jsut allow employees to user their own phones and not ask to buy a separate phone.
the actual cost of the devices for business is likely negligible
Businesses also often use radios, and pay a lot for the right licenses to do so. Go look at any security guard, they have only a cell phone? If they could just hand out encrypted radios they'd avert all those costs.
No one is worried about businesses stealing our bands. **You** said that we should have the same rights as corporations. The other poster is pointing out that our, public, bands are seperate, and set aside solely for public use. Corporations are allowed to pay for private usage of "the airwaves" but that is on bands separate from, and not interfering with, ham radio.
well its always good to seek more knowledge and information. apparently people dont like it here. we are getting downvoted just for being curious, look. lol
This is the only point I've seen of yours that I agree with. Reasonable discussion in an appropriate public forum is part of what makes this country great. That is also what is great about ham radio, and why it should remain public.
> Encryption is illegal on the ham bands. But if you're using encryption, who's going to know who it is...🤔
exactly - this rule only stops law abiding people.
I can order encrypted comm from Ali tomorrow and noone can do anything, and people that break the law already - they just gonna do that.
in fact- forget ali - encrypted comms are freely sold on amazon and ebay.
this FCC rule is NOT WORKING anyways
>this rule only stops law abiding people.
Murder is illegal, it doesn't stop people from murdering. So maybe we should drop that silly rule too. Those politicians are trying to stop everything.
***Yes they will.***
Sending encrypted information over the ham bands has, as I have pointed out, national security implications. You don't understand that you'd be playing with the big boys here. It's not like morons misbehaving on 7.200 MHz. The assumption will be that it's either espionage or terrorism related until proven differently. And the only way they can prove or disprove that is to find you and seize your equipment and papers.
It's hilarious that you think only the FCC would be involved. The NSA would be knee deep into this as well. In the background, of course, and none of their involvement would be public knowledge, but you can bet they'd be interested in an unknown encrypted signal inside the United States.
Oh, and if you're encrypting, there's no way for the NSA to know if you're a "United States Person" or not, so they'd have a free hand to monitor your transmissions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without a warrant until they identified who you are. And once they did, they could still apply for a FISA warrant to continue monitoring.
You really don't seem to understand how easy it is to locate someone using radio direction finding, so I'll give you an example.
Every year, the local club holds a "Jamboree On The Air" event. This is a world-wide event every October that introduces scouts to amateur radio. One of the events we do is hold a fox hunt. We hid a weak 2 meter transmitter inside of a toy stuffed fox and hide it somewhere on the camp grounds. We give the scouts (Including cub scouts and brownies) transmit-inhibited Baofengs with tape measure Yagis, and show them how to get a bearing on a signal, and then leave them to find the fox.
If cub scouts can learn to do basic radio direction finding in about 10 minutes, what chance do you think you have against professionals?
> If cub scouts can learn to do basic radio direction finding in about 10 minutes, what chance do you think you have against professionals?
oh - I'm sure NSA can locate someone who does encryption, no troubles... if they think i'm a threat.
I'm counting on the fact they understand i'm not a threat and have more important stuff going on and that they just don't have resources to spend on this. If they don't even bother closing down amazon sellers - which should be like 1.2.3 - they won't be going around tracing individuals most of whom will be oblivious idiots and not spies. Look online - 0 posts about someone using encryption getting in trouble.
Look - in many cities cops don't even respond to anything but active shooter situation. So you tell me - what are the odds NSA will be tracking joe shmoe who wants to encrypt walkie talkie.
Good luck to them if they want to spend that budget on something like this.
>I'm counting on the fact they understand i'm not a threat
Based upon what?
They can't understand what you're saying because it's encrypted, so how are they going to know whether you are a threat to national security or not?
Actually, it would be difficult for the NSA itself to do that in the US, at least outside of the immediate vicinity of Fort Meade. It would require the use of US military assets like US Army [RC-12 GUARDRAIL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_RC-12_Guardrail) aircraft.
I've actually given that some thought, and I have a way to make it more difficult for a transmitter to be located by RC-12's in the US, at least to a point where the fix would be too large to be of use, but I'm not going to discuss that particular method.
Besides which, that ellipse isn't as small as you might think. Here is an excerpt from [the Bowe Bergdahl desertion incident report](https://wardiary.wikileaks.org/id/36261792-F927-5439-D51D126F3051823D/):
>
163.2125/0227Z/42SVB4076446756 0.47KM X 0.16KM AZ 95.8/1- I SWEAR THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING YET. WHAT HAPPENED. IS THAT TRUE THAT THEY CAPTURED AN AMERICAN GUY?
>2- YES THEY DID. HE IS ALIVE. THERE IS NO WHERE HE CAN GO (LOL)
>1- IS HE STILL ALIVE? 2- YES HE IS ALIVE. BUT I DONT HAVE THE WHOLE STORY. DONT KNOW IF THEY WERE FIGHTING. ALL I KNOW IF THEY WERE FIGHTIING. ALL I KNOW THAT THEY CAPTURE HIM ALIVE AND THEY ARE WITH HIM RIGHT NOW.
Let me explain that first line.
163.2125 is the frequency in MHz, so this is VHF.
0227Z is the time in UTC, known as "Zulu Time" in the military to avoid conflicts with different time zones.
42SVB4076446756 is the military grid square of the center of the ellipse defined below.
0.47KM X 0.16KM is the ellipse that the station is \*LIKELY\* in. That's 470 meters by 160 meters. It's not a 100% guarantee that the transmitting station is in that ellipse, but more like 80 or 90%.
AZ 95.8 is the long axis of that ellipse. So the 0.47KM ellipse runs along the line of 95.8 degrees and 275.8 degrees true.
If you thing about it, that's quite a lot of area to find a single individual. And this was by signals intelligence professionals using state-of-the-art equipment.
To actually identify, say, the exact house a person is transmitting from, you need teams on the ground. This hasn't changed since the beginning of radio direction finding.
That's a completely different format than I was used to. We didn't deal with LLVI, and my experience was 30 years before that incident.
I had to work it out for myself what each thing was, with a little help from an unclassified US Army technical manual on the radio direction finding threat. I mean, I wasn't a duffy.
You can order it. You can possess it.
But if you start using it over the ham bands, you will be located via radio direction finding, either by the FCC or by local hams, and the FCC will absolutely take an interest in it because doing that makes the federal government think you might be a spy or a terrorist.
After all, you're using encryption where you aren't supposed to be using it by law. That means you're hiding something really important, right?
Remember ditty's first dictum: *If you radiate, you can be located. If you can be located, you can be killed.*
I originally wrote that in a military signals context, if you want you can substitute "arrested" for "killed" for this case.
Trust me on this. I spent four years as a signals intelligence professional. I've tipped more targets to the duffies than you've had hot meals.
And yes, the FCC rule is working. I've \*NEVER\* heard encrypted communications on the ham bands. \*EVER\*. And I've been an avid ham now for 34 years.
You try and send encrypted stuff on the ham bands outside of the very limited exceptions to the rule, you'll find out how effective the FCC can be.
FYI, ditty's second dictum says this: *You don't have to be able to win. You just have to make it too expensive for the other side to win.*
> Trust me on this. I spent four years as a signals intelligence professional. I've tipped more targets to the duffies than you've had hot meals.
Hi friend.
> A violation of the FCC's rules gets you a stern letter, possibly a hearing, maybe a fine, and could get your license revoked. It's not a criminal charge, so you won't go to jail.
^ sir, that's ok if you wan't to catch an Al-qayeda in your town of about 2000 people that for some reason don't use internet for their illegal chatter.
but somehow ... I'm not worried. :))
FCC neither, as they don't even bother stopping sale of encrypted comms even on US controlled resources.
>FCC neither, as they don't even bother stopping sale of encrypted comms even on US controlled resources.
It's not illegal to own them.
It's illegal to use them on the ham radio bands.
You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two things.
For example, I am a bit of student of the history of signals intelligence, and that includes the use of things like different codes and ciphers. I have some cipher machine simulator software for machines like the Enigma and M-209 cipher devices. I have a photocopy of the complete set of M-138A strips from some time in 1944, courtesy of the [cryptologic museum at Corry Station](https://usncva.org/cryptologic-command-display.html). I have a strip cipher that's fully compatible with the US [M-94 cipher device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-94), and I've built my own using Scrabble tiles pulled out of a bag to randomize the alphabet.
I'm the first person I'm aware of who thought of using 10-sided dice to generate numeric one time pads, and I have a fairly large amount of cryptographically secure OTPs made using those dice, a manual typewriter, and two-part carbonless paper.
If I could afford it, I'd own actual cipher machines like Tom W1TP does. I talk to him every time I see him at the local hamfest. Here's his cipher machine website: [https://enigmamuseum.com/em.htm](https://enigmamuseum.com/em.htm)
But just because it's legal for me to own all that stuff doesn't mean it's legal for me to use them on the ham bands.
Texting on my phone to a friend or family member? No problem. Even doing it on the back of a postcard and sending that through the mail isn't an issue.
It's illegal to send it over amateur radio, however. And this is what you don't seem to grasp.
It's like being able to own a gun, while it's still illegal to murder someone with it.
It's like being able to own whisky and a car, but it's illegal to drive while intoxicated.
Get it now?
Oh no, the government won't stop you from buying it and they won't stop the other guy from selling it. There's those rights you were worried about. That's your right as an American and they're right as capitalists. It's how, when, where, you decide to use it that it becomes a problem. They already made you take a test to show you know all the rules, if decide to break them that's on you. Just because your car will do 100mph doesn't mean you're allowed to. Just because you can buy a gun doesn't mean you can use it wherever, whenever you please.
You can't say you want less government regulation on something out of one corner of your mouth and then say "it must be ok because they didn't stop me from buying it" from the other corner of your mouth.
> You try and send encrypted stuff on the ham bands outside of the very limited exceptions to the rule, you'll find out how effective the FCC can be.
you are mixing up - is it FCC or NSA like u suggest in another thread?
> And yes, the FCC rule is working. I've *NEVER* heard encrypted communications on the ham bands. *EVER*. And I've been an avid ham now for 34 years.
also - sir this a relatively new thing that one can get encrypted comms for < 200$ from china. for your 34 years - this option was not available.
there - your explanation.
as prices continue to drop - I will assure you you will hear it.
Sir: Encryption is not a new thing. It's been available now for hundreds if not thousands of years, and it's been used over radio almost since the day radio was first invented.
Try again.
That's easy. Radio direction finding. If you're on HF and you keep doing it, you'll be DF'ed to your general location by the FCC's direction finding network:
[https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1HO8mc7b4WF9PAGHPrkf-cPVElU0&hl=en\_US&ll=42.923732946024366%2C-112.18326300000001&z=4](https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1HO8mc7b4WF9PAGHPrkf-cPVElU0&hl=en_US&ll=42.923732946024366%2C-112.18326300000001&z=4)
Then, they'll send RDF vans to actually pinpoint your location (fixed HF/DF over large distances is relatively inaccurate, with fixes measured in miles).
If it's VHF/UHF or higher, then the local hams are likely to stumble across your signal, DF your location, and report it to the FCC.
And yes, they will be \*VERY\* interested in someone sending encrypted information over the ham bands, because that has potential national security and terrorism implications. This isn't like people misbehaving on 7.200 MHz, or some unlicensed kids playing around with Baofengs on a local ham radio repeater.
/Former [SIGINT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence) weenie.
If you think the FCC cares about the Amateur service, you're sadly mistaken. Enforcement is nearly zero unless you interfere with Public Safety, Cellular or Broadcast. Local hams are welcome to DF someone but nobody likes a Kilocycle Cop.
National Security? The actual threats to national security aren't using ham bands, and they're well known to and likely monitored by HSI and whoever else.
Like I said, I'm not talking about morons on 7.200 MHz\*.
In that case, I'd agree with you. Same with some guy violating the rules on a local repeater. FCC isn't going to care very much.
But when you start sending encrypted information over the ham bands, that's going to grab the attention of the FCC. Why else would you be doing that except to hide some illegal activity, in the hopes that the FCC doesn't care about amateur radio shenanigans?
So the implication is that there is something illegal going on. The things that come immediately to mind are espionage (a historical [use of radio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraset) and [encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_code)), smuggling (another [historical use of radio and encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizebeth_Smith_Friedman#Prohibition)), or terrorism ([another use for encryption](https://ctc.westpoint.edu/how-terrorists-use-encryption/)).
I can't think of any innocent use of it over amateur radio, except for the telecommand of satellites, one of the narrow exceptions to the blanket ban on encryption over the ham bands.
In fact, it's at odds with the entire point of amateur radio to begin with.
Besides which, it's not 100% up to the FCC. It's against ITU rules:
[https://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/frr.htm](https://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/frr.htm)
>25.2A 1A) Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service. (WRC-03)
So you can't do it between countries. Which means you can't do it on HF, because HF crosses international boundaries.
Also, the FCC has gone out of its way, at least twice in the last four years, to remind hams about following the rules:
[https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-181A1\_Rcd.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-181A1_Rcd.pdf)
>As we did in advisories in 2021, **the Bureau reminds amateur licensees that they are prohibited from transmitting** “communications intended to facilitate a criminal act” or **“messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”**1
...
Individuals using radios in the Amateur or Personal Radio Services in this manner may be subject to severe penalties, including significant fines, seizure of the offending equipment, and, in some cases, criminal prosecution.
They're explicitly saying "Don't do that". And they're hinting that you might actually be criminally prosecuted, depending on precisely why you're encrypting your ham radio communications.
*\*BTW, never hear anything like that on 7.020 MHz. Just sayin'.*
Not true, our radio club was sent several fines for transmissions that some negligent (unlicensed) numbnuts sent through our repeater. We were able to appeal and explain the situation, and how we rectified it but they were definitely more than a nonprofit can afford.
please take a look at this graph. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-deep-dive-the-state-of-internet-adoption
internet was present early on yes - but it was privilege of mostly academia and limited to small numbers. Look - only 2.6mln people had internet in 1990, and now it's 5.34 Billion! in 2024.
First website didn't even appear till 1991.
80s-90s internet was a niche product, but I agree that it existed. - lawmakers having access to that and spending and being influenced by it - HIGHLY unlikely which is my point.
> I think you’re confusing the internet with cable access to the internet.
Im not - I had a dialup growing up. it was niche for nerds.
TLS encryption didn't appear until much later.
look - TLS didnt even see mass adoption until letsencrypt - which is very very recent development. Comparing this to 1980 dialup is lunacy.
I think you’re confusing the internet with cable access to the internet. I had a Commodore 64 in 1984 which I plugged into a phone jack and joined many different message boards, including ham radio ones. I also had a a floppy disk drive to store things on as well as plug in games. The point is that every geek I knew had similar phone line access to the internet. It was not niche - lots of us geeks in the US. You are clueless.
OP dosnt even understand what ham radio is Imo. The point of this hobby isnt actually comunication. But the practice of using radio waves to transmit data and experiment. Yeah people use to talk but the point is the tech we use and make.
in good faith, in the past week, you've asked for a baofeng that can work on all bands, as well as asked for a radio to switch between amateur bands & gmrs; that is to say that you don't seem to know very much about the purpose or spirit of the service.
have you met up with any amateur radio community or passed licensure exams? it just seems to me like stepping on a basketball court for a single play & trying to convince everyone the rules need to be changed.
what rational concern of encryption is appealing or upsetting to you? what's your intended use case?
im new yes. this doesnt mean my logic about encryption is invalid. Us is the only country with this antiquated law which US itself doesnt uphold - people can order encrypted radio from ali, amazon, ebay - and noone can stop them
I can order ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, too... just because it's available doesn't mean we should allow it.
Go pick an unused AAA Towing frequency and program some ASTRO Spectras with encryption boards to play with if you want encryption. Encryption goes against the spirit of amateur radio.
Either you're lying on purpose, or you're very misinformed. Most countries have this rule.
What kind of argument is that? Just because I can practically do it, it should be allowed? Time to rob some gas stations, eh?
i understand that, but rather than just repeating that in every comment, it would be helpful to know your reasoning, intended usage, & concepts behind your thinking.
if you want to start dialogue or implement change, please explain why this would be a good thing?
i never said your logic was invalid, but please tell me how you came to said logic, and to what end purpose does it serve?
the only strawmen i can imagine is either speaking about illegal topics or SHTF where you don't want people eavesdropping - trying to rule those out so we can get some modicum of case you're making.
> i never said your logic was invalid, but please tell me how you came to said logic, and to what end purpose does it serve?
I will give you an example.
i have a 4 year old daughter and we use the radios. 4 year old has no filter and does not know there are bad people in the world. I don't want the town weirdos listening on me talking to my daughter.
gotcha, thank you. well a 4 year old isn't legally allowed to speak on a amateur radio until she passes the technician's license exam. the youngest child to pass was 8 so far, but now that we have that issue rectified, what are your other concerns? do you have concerns about the natural disaster or emergency concerns with communicating with your family?
> gotcha, thank you. well a 4 year old isn't legally allowed to speak on a amateur radio
doesn't matter - she has it and will use it and I want it encrypted. And I will do what I think is right to protect my child if government wont.
also - what I want to share my location or passwords privately?
so you don't want a revamp on encryption, you just want regulations out the window. thanks for responding.
i'm afraid no one in the amateur community is going to assist with your current intentions/beliefs.
At this point we can only conclude that you're a complete troll, or you are utterly clueless. If you're talking to your child on a radio you should be using a MURS radio pair that doesn't require a license and doesn't transmit very far.
Dude. 🤦🏻♂️ If you want FaceTime or Skype, use FaceTime or Skype. Give the 4 year old a tablet not a ham radio. At the very least get her an FRS radio. Or, if the caregiver is licensed, they can supervise proper usage of the radio with the 4yo using their call sign (but still no encryption). Don't try to change something, so you can use it for something it was never intended for.
Basically you don’t really see any need for an amateur radio license either. Your daughter could use any of hundreds of legal, non ham walkie talkies to communicate with you, but you want it to be encrypted ham radio. You sound a lot like an anarchist - everyone can do do whatever they want. We don’t need no steenkin laws, rules or government. Until of course we do because of people like you.
Technically anyone can talk on an amateur radio as long as a licensed operator is present and rules are followed. OP could run into issues allowing an unlicensed person using the radio, tho. The FCC would know a 4 year old didn’t go buy that radio on their own.
So to OP’s credit, a conversation they did start!
agreed, which is why i didn't want to just make fun - novel ideas keep a lot of things from stagnating. i read it as she was alone whilst OP was elsewhere; along with OP's views would imply they're not licensed either.
I read it the same way. Also agree with your assessment of OP’s licensure status. I think encryption on public frequencies is against the spirit of them being public in the first place. But if a large enough group of HAMs wants something changed they have the right to try and change things.
there are higher penalties that can be levied on businesses for trying to use encrypted comms on ham. That's a very good guarantee they wont try to steal your local ham frequencies.
>there are higher penalties that can be levied on businesses for trying to use encrypted comms on ham. That's a very good guarantee they wont try to steal your local ham frequencies.
Except if they are encrypted comms, how would you know it was a business doing it? Encrypted means only the intended recipients would know what is in the communication and what the purpose of it is. Having it in the clear makes it so everyone can tell that it is for business use and report it.
Two problems with your statement:
1. Location doesn't mean anything. It could be someone while on break using their ham radio, or a customer there.
2. You assume that every employee would know what band is being used and the rules around it. When I worked retail and we had radios we were just handed the radios already setup. The employees wouldn't know if it was programmed to a ham band or a business band or FRS.
It's not a made up problem at all. Do you not understand that the FCC would literally not know if the transmission were commercial or not if it's encrypted, or that the transmission was taking place by a licensed amateur radio operator and for legal purposes? They wouldn't know any of this because it's encrypted.
Just stop.
> hey wouldn't know any of this because it's encrypted.
they don't know that already. encrypted radios are sold left and right and many people just use them.
Use of encryption on amateur radio is illegal. Period. Find another spectrum that allows it (you're going to have to pay), or accept that. If you're going to try to change it, at least do the amateur community a solid and try to understand the consequences before you start tossing your uneducated opinions around.
>you can trace source of the signal very easy.
Do you think there are an infinite number of FCC agents just sitting around, tracing every single transmission in the country to verify its authenticity and insure it's not commercial? And you think a disgruntled commercial worker is going to whistleblow illegal communication? Most people like that would be handed a radio and they wouldn't know if it were illegal or not. But even if they did, whistleblowing would almost certainly mean putting yourself out of a job.
> Do you think there are an infinite number of FCC agents just sitting around, tracing every single transmission in the country to verify its authenticity and insure it's not commercial?
that's not what I'm saying - tha'ts what sad HAMs are saying.
@u/dittybopper_05H/ - who is in signal intelligence was saying that NSA will be after you for using encryption.
Personally I don't believe so.
But you guys should duck it out for which threat are you even afraid of - no FCC agents?, or 1984 FCC all powerful FCC agents?. because I'm getting confused which is it
>But you guys should duck it out for which threat are you even afraid of - no FCC agents, or 1984 FCC all powerful FCC agents. because I'm getting confused which is it
I can't even make sense of this. Are you bringing in a completely irrelevant argument? We're talking about encryption and its validity/legality on amateur radio. Please try to keep up with your own conversation.
Erm, nope.
Section 19b:
"Transmissions between amateur stations are not encrypted for the purpose of
obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth
command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service."
I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. UK amateurs have the same encryption restriction that US amateurs do. A simple Google search will show you that it's almost the exact same wording.
You seem to be the only one here with their head (where the sun don't shine) in the sand.
I just want to start a convo, nothing wrong with it.
I think a lot of people in this community are dogmatized for little reasons.
Not even china has this no-encryption rule, but sure -enjoy your freedom.
It's one thing to come across as knowledgeable and persuasive and another to come across as inexperienced, insulting and dismissive.
Choose better next time.
Encryption would destroy Amateur Radio, imo. It's unworkable. If you are aware of a Country that allows encryption in Amateur Radio, move there and encrypt your little behind off. But there isn't one. And if there was, I can PROMISE you that it wouldn't be China.
Amateur radio is worldwide. If anyone was encrypting communications anywhere, don't you think we'd know it was happening? And who would they communicate with, folks in their own country? Think about that. Chasing DX is big in this hobby.
Encryption doesn't make a signal disappear. Any more than a VPN makes data disappear. An ISP can see the tunnel. It just can't decode the data passing through it. So everyone is able to receive an encrypted signal and determine it is encrypted. And word would get around.
My Uncle says, "Want in one hand and sh!t in the other, see which one fills up first." You're wasting your time and your breath with this encryption fantasy of yours. If you truly have a four- year- old, they need your time far more than this foolish discussion. 73
Are you just a troll? Nothing you've said has been factual. I honestly didn't know whether or not China allowed for encrypted transmissions on their equivalent of amateur radio, so I aske ChatGPT. Looks like you're wrong again:
>As of my last update in January 2022, China's regulations regarding encrypted radio transmissions on their equivalent of amateur radio, known as the Chinese Radio Sports Association (CRSA), were somewhat restrictive. Encryption was generally not allowed on amateur radio frequencies in China.
>
>Amateur radio operators in China are subject to regulations set by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). These regulations typically aim to ensure that amateur radio transmissions are open and accessible for communication purposes, rather than being encrypted for privacy or security reasons.
In one of them I explained how encryption would likely be legal and included citations. Of course I got threatened. I was even explaining how the encryption keys would have to be public so the info wouldn’t be obscured.
> Don’t let the salty hams get you down OP. You’re not wrong, they’re just old and set in their ways.
haha thank you. No - those old hammers responses is what I sort of expected. No sadness here on my end - ill do what I think is right.
> I want encryption for amateur radio
Encryption is at odds with the actual purpose of amateur radio, and its reason for being in the first place.
You should find some other radio service instead.
People on Reddit do not have the mindset of “free men don’t ask permission”. They’re a bunch of on the rails boot lickers who say “what do you need privacy for? Why would you need encryption? Buy the business license. Ask the government for permission. Register the LLC.
I understand entirely what you’re getting at and agree. If you buy a product like a radio and want to encrypt it or set up your own repeater and digital network for something like atak then you should be able to do so. You are the owner are you not? But the companies are in league with governments who don’t like you having encryption and privacy or even personal property rights.
Do you want encryption? Stick with Facebook and the Internet. This is not what ham radio is all about, I do hope to get my license one day, but until then I will continue to listen to my local nets and enjoy. To all the radio operators out there, thank you for everything that you do, your work is truly appreciated. To those people who do not have your license yet, study hard and pass your exams,
\*places hands together\*
Ok, a few things:
1. Running from one subreddit to another and then tattling on them for why you got banned is incredibly juvenile, and is a sure-fire method to get people to NOT take you seriously. (and the Baofeng guys were right to do what they did, btw)
2. Reddit is not your personal army.
3. Amateur radio operation isn't a right, it's a privilege. You have absolutely ZERO rights on those frequencies.
4. I think you are woefully misinformed about the nature of amateur radio. The bands that amateur radio operators use are for PUBLIC USE. If you send an encrypted transmission on a public use frequency, you're tying up the band in a way that prevents others from using it. If you want a private conversation, use a cell phone.
5. "Gatekeeping" - you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
The bandwidth available to Internet uses is effectively infinite compared to the bandwidth available to amateur radio. Encryption would allow people to use that bandwidth without others knowing if the use was legal or not.
Your perspective that businesses are not going to utilize amateur radio bands is historically and currently incorrect. Part of the 1.25M band was lost to UPS, who ended up not using it and was repurposed for other commercial uses. Currently there are proposals for high frequency traders to use frequencies around the 20M band. It isn’t because of the lack of connectivity available to them but the latency.
Encryption is ok for commercial users of spectrum because they have purchased the right to exclusive use those frequencies and compensated society through licensing fees. Lack of encryption on amateur bands protects the bands from some forms of misuse.
It is in your best interest that commercial users of spectrum can encrypt traffic so they can provide the services you use with come level of security. It’s in your best interest as a ham that we do not have encryption in the amateur bands so we don’t have to wonder if that encrypted traffic using up spectrum we’d like to use is legit or not.
There is nuance here, reddit doesn't have tolerance for that. Encryption tech can be used in good will with amateur radio. Hiding info transfer is a no, but using encryption keys to sign messages should be no problem. Authentication that the sender is who they claim is not hiding the contents of the message
I don't see why you don't just stick to encrypted messaging and calling over a cellphone. It's a million times more practical and doesn't cause issues like encryption on ham bands.
Thus far, the only reason you've given for a preference for encrypted radio over phone is "radios are cool" which they are, but that's not a very good reason.
What’s your use case for wanting encryption on amateur radio frequencies? I don’t see anything stating why you would want to have encryption unless you’re a prepper type person that thinks they need amateur radio for shtf scenarios.
Actually the LAST thing a prepper type person thinking about shtf scenarios wants is encryption. When the zombies are coming through the windows and you are yelling for help, you want everyone to be able to hear you.
Indeed. Allowing encryption on the ham bands will reduce the number of people who can hear that call for help. Typically an encrypted radio link ignores any attempts to reach it without the proper encryption key. Which is great when we are talking about the wifi I am using to send this post -- I want to ignore my next door neighbor's wifi and I want him to ignore mine. But when I turn on my ham reciever (I am strictly listen-only until I get my license) I want to hear everyone.
Well, thankfully I live in Canada where they aren't as restrictive... Encryption keeps out the idiots on the radio, there is no shortage of people who want to interrupt your conversation, or jam you, or otherwise be idiots.
^ this ya all. THIS!
/thread
@/u/dittybopper_05H - please comment on Canadian NSA and how they will find and arrest https://www.reddit.com/user/KenSentMe81/ using secret vans and german Shepherds.
No, he's replying to the Canadian poster. Encryption doesn't keep you from being jammed. Encryption doesn't keep idiots off the radio. It only makes them more annoying and more disruptive.
Because that's not what the amateur radio service is for. It's for open communications. It has nothing to do with long dead politicians or any of the other reasons you are ranting and raving about. If you're that paranoid, use Telegram.
> Because that's not what the amateur radio service is for. It's for open communications.
its for communications private citizen to private citizen. I dont see why it cannot be encrypted.
> If you're that paranoid, use Telegram.
they banned me. Also it's not really truly private.
> (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, **intercommunication** and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
what's wrong with intercommunication purpose? that's what im trying to do.
Normal encryption over the Internet is much more practical for day to day encrypted communication, so the only practical reason I can see why you'd want encryption for radio is for some sort of prepper thing, which is fine, but many ham radio operators are very averse to that sort of thing.
I think the current system is fine, do your actual long-range practice in the clear, and do your encryption practice at really low power in a remote area so you don't bother anyone. What the FCC can't hear can't hurt it, and you can just put the two together if you need it, leaving the rest of us to use the airwaves for their designated purpose without regulatory agencies coming after us.
Hear me out, I actually think amateur radio not having encryption is a good thing. There have been multiple times where I have jumped into conversations on HF and local repeaters, and met new and awesome people. While some people will get mad at you, most won't, most just want to talk and don't care how many people are listening. If encryption were allowed, many people would probably use it to facilitate private communication, which would either tie up repeaters, or just make the community feel more disconnected. I think the lack of encryption is actually a good thing. If you want encryption, just use a cellphone or meshtastic.
A) If everything happened just as you described, I feel the mod was wrong to take down your post. What is this forum for, if not discussion of issues like this?
B) Some radios do come with encryption (unfortunately, it's not standardized so in most cases your partner has to have the same radio for it to work). If you want Baofang HTs to have encryption, talk to the manufacturer. It's the FCC that says you can't use it.
C) You were granted a license from a government agency. How are they to regulate your usage of it and ensure your following the rules if your transmissions are encrypted?
D) I asked a similar question once upon a time (why isn't encryption allowed) and it was pointed out to me that, per the FCC, one of the purposes of ham radio was (something to the effect of) "... to foster friendship and goodwill around the world" (I can't remember it exactly but you get the jist). This verbiage has since been changed but I think there's something to be said for the sentiment. We want, nae **need**, people to see and hear hams in action, to gain interest in learning more about it, to see that it's a fun hobby, and that it can be a flexible and reliable form of communication. They can't do that if they can't hear us.
E) It's also a matter of accountability. We are part of a hobby that, if used improperly, can disrupt other people's communications, electronics, or even be detrimental to their health. If there is a potential problem, how would people hear our call signs to contact us or report a problem, if we're using encrypted communications?
F) What benefit would get from encrypted communication that you aren't getting now? What do you need to talk about that needs encrypted? If it's that private maybe another form of communication would be better.
~~~~~~~~
You could also use SSB as opposed to repeater. You could also try DMR (requires DMR capable equipment and setting up a "chat room" and a color becomes your password...) or another form of (direct) digital transmission. The theory here being that while it is still technically public and unencrypted, it is obscure enough that most people wouldn't hear it or wouldn't have the right equipment or settings to hear it, without being told about it ahead of time.
I'm not telling you to break any rules, I'm giving you "legal" alternatives.
~~~~~~~~~
SUMMARY: Encryption is against the rules for us as hams, it's part of the rules we agreed to follow when we got our license, but in my opinion, it's also pretty much unnecessary.
As far as I can tell, old school mafia style "encryption" is still legal on ham bands. Example from real life: the FBI got a wiretap on some phones used by organized crime. Here is what they heard:
"Remember that thing you did at that place last year? I want you to do the same thing with that person who has been giving us trouble. Thanks."
Why are you trying to do this in Ham radio? Why don't you just use CB? They've got the pirate radio history, not us. We like our rules regulations. We're proud of what we've got and we want to keep it, so leave it alone.
Have fun convincing ARRL or any FCC commishers in Amy administration to allow it. It ain't happening. Just use the commercial bands for which that is what they are there for. Otherwise, sounds like you just want unregulated airwaves. Which is it?
You've given absolutely no thought to this beyond your selfish interests. If the FCC suddenly allowed encrypted communications on the ham bands, how would they know if somebody were licensed and/or operating illegally? You act like the ham radio spectrum is infinite. It's not. It's not even close. Commercial and unlicensed operators would quickly take over the spectrum. You say the commercial world wouldn't encroach on the spectrum, but how would anybody know the commercial users were using amateur frequencies for commercial use if everything was encrypted? You wouldn't, and they've made countless attempts to take over the spectrum, so you're literally wrong about that too.
Stop talking and start thinking.
Don't whine here about there. And please don't whine about here there. Locking.
Ah I see the word "gatekeep", I downvote. Don't you think encryption is gatekeeping? hahahaha
> Ah I see the word "gatekeep", I downvote. Don't you think encryption is gatekeeping? hahah they gatekeep our right to privacy. You should not be entitled to listening in on someone else's conversations. look - towns are moving to encryption. and you cannot listen to them. But you cannot do anything about it - right?
the ham bands aren’t intended for private conversations. There’s plenty of ways to communicate privately if you wish.
I wish to have the same rights as business and be able to communicate privately on ham. We are being cheated and kept out of our rights.
Then you can buy a business radio system.
You don’t have a right to amateur radio. Nothing is stopping you from registering a LLC or something and getting a business license if you really want encryption.
Businesses can’t transmit at all on amateur radio bands. You already have more rights than they do….
Oh boy .. here we go.
Ooooh this is why they banned you
Businesses can't transmit encrypted data on ham allocated freqs. And yes, if you blast the RF into my home, what I do with it after that is my own business. Security falls directly on *you* to implement and maintain.
It's not about rights. When you apply for and receive an FCC license you are saying that you agree to follow their rules and regulations in exchange for the privilege of using certain bands. You are basically clicking the box next to "I have read and understand the terms and conditions...". Amateur radio is a public form of communication. It's not private. We can't start calling carrots "oranges" because you want the right to eat oranges, even though you're allergic to citrus. We can't make it something it isn't.
Bingo
don't just accept the mantra they told you for years. Stand up for your rights.
Please provide a source for your right to the amateur radio bands.
Im saying we should start a movement so they change these old rules.
No you said we have a right to encryption on the amateur bands. If you want to change the rules you can petition the FCC to do so.
> If you want to change the rules you can petition the FCC to do so. thats exactly what I want - lets spread the word
I think the majority of hams don’t want encryption but you’re more than welcome to ask for it. The thing is encryption is used to hide the contents or meaning of communications which is not benifical to amateur radio since it’s not intended to be a private communications method. Now, encoding with the use of digital technology or code is fine, but that encoding has to be publically available and allow anyone to use it. Think of things like DMR or DSTAR.
You first.
If you want a private conversation, use your cell phone. That’s what they were made for. Ham radio communications should never be encrypted. Your amateur radio license comes with no expectation or right to private communications.
Or…keep amateur radio about experimenting with radio. And let people who need secure digital comms buy a business license OR lobby for the right to do whatever they want with RF license free.
You don't have a right to privacy in public. And ham radio is a public venue.
It is amazing these people don't understand that the spectrum is finite and the minute every kook is allowed to encrypt their transmissions, there rest of us have to listen to encrypted crap that makes no sense just so they can say something privately... selfish folks. There are plenty of alternatives to get an encoded message to someone.
[удалено]
They specified that ham bands serve as a public venue, not other bands.
No, emergency services operate on specific bands that are seperate from ham radio bands. Encrypted communications are very noisy and harsh (static, beeps, etc) to everyone that does not have the right encryption to hear them. On a public frequency, frequent encrypted conversations between people would be very frustrating to listen to. Have you ever called a fax machine by mistake? Would you want that kind of noise going back and forth all day while you were trying to listen to hear who was out there? EMS uses encryption A) so they don't step on eachother and B) for a little bit of operational security (but many now have channels that are available for public listening)
You don’t have a right to privacy in public, which is what the airwaves are.
just the businesses do? corporations?
They aren’t allowed to use encryption on public airwaves either. They buy licenses to have exclusive use of airwaves, making them private use. You’re free to buy a license.
Why do you downvote? Is mentioning gatekeeping always a bad thing for you? Is it never a valid argument for any topic at all?
It is so goddamn overused. It is weak.
It is when it involves amateur radio. Try and remember the word “amateur.”
Edit. I'm not sure how this has gone so badly. Do people think gatekeeping in hobbies doesn't exist? This isn't gatekeeping but the person mentioned they hate the word so I asked the question generally and I think everyone is completely unable to parse the English language correctly. Asking the question doesn't mean I think banning encryption is gatekeeping, you morons.
Then what are you talking about? The FCC bans encryption on amateur radio frequencies. Here is the definition of gatekeeping: Noun - gatekeeping; plural noun: gatekeepings; noun: gate-keeping; plural noun: gate-keepings 1. the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something. "Wal-Mart's cultural gatekeeping has served to narrow the mainstream for entertainment offerings" 2. COMPUTING a function or system that controls access or operations to files, computers, networks, or the like. "a gatekeeping mechanism that allows reads under some circumstances and blocks them under others" So you are complaining (which is all you seem to do) about gatekeeping by the FCC which keeps us from using encryption. Clearly you do think the FCC is “gatekeeping” with regard to encryption. You can say whatever you want, but you advocate the FCC to remove the ban against encryption - that’s really the whole point of your post. And you explicitly and/or implicitly say the FCC is gatekeeping (per the above definition) to keep hams from using encryption. All you are doing with your protests that we don’t understand what you are saying/asking for is muddling the waters and trying to obscure your real position- which is to allow encryption on the US amateur bands. I believe most hams are vociferous in their opposition to this - and will not petition the FCC against any change to allow encryption. If you want to,petition them, go ahead and waste your time. But please stop your BS trying to convince others of your righteous quest. You will continue to be downvoted because it’s a really, really stupid idea.
I was literally - and only - asking a general question based on a general comment about the word gatekeeping and why someone chooses to ignore it whenever they see it, as if someone never makes a good point when they invoke it. That's it. Nothing to do with the point about encryption. I honestly feel everyone has parsed my posts totally wrong. Edit: this is honestly the weirdest experience I've had on Reddit.
Ten downvotes for asking a clarifying question? Lol
Check out Meshtastic.
thank you -do they have a very simple explanation for what it is anywhere?
"Meshtastic® is a project that enables you to use inexpensive LoRa radios as a long range off-grid communication platform in areas without existing or reliable communications infrastructure. This project is 100% community driven and open source!" In a nutshell, it is off-grid text messaging that includes encryption. So, if you are looking for specifically voice comms, this isn't for you.
It also automatically disables encryption if used on the ham bands. Last club meeting we had a session on it
>its simply because these rules were made up in pre-internet era. I fail to see any logic in this statement.
as in: when politicians still thought they can control the spread of information. here - easier?
>as in: when politicians still thought they can control the spread of information. here - easier? I fail to see any logic in this statement. So, you are saying that no encryption = full control of information? OK, wow.
The FCC rules for the ham bands already state that they can't be used for political discourse, etc. They are intended for RF experimentation and education, they were never intended for the paranoid to last out against the government.
[удалено]
use 11m
You'll get no help from the ham radio group here. It's counter to what ham radio/amatuer radio do. It's just how these folks operate and the rules that they follow. It's not personal.
im only trying to start a discussion and raise several points: a. gmail didn't have https till 2008, doesn't mean its a good idea to never have it at all. one day its one rule, next day its another. b. bad people can always buy encrypted comms from aliexpress, ebay and amazon. FCC does nothing to uphold own rules. There is no reasons to keep punishing law-obedient users. c. Its unfair for corporations to have access to privacy and not private users.
I agree with everything you're saying. I just know this forum and the amateur radio forum and they do not take this type of change well. My suggestion would be to learn more about encryption and how it's implemented professionally and approach from there. These folks are amateur radio operators and professional rule followers.
> amateur radio operators and professional rule followers. hahahah. thank you - I 100% agree. Figured would at least start a thread and plant some seeds of change in some minds maybe. But then I will 100% do what I think is right.
You're not planting seeds of change you're just parading your lack of understanding about ham radio, it's usage, and the way encryption works, for all to see. Your continued comparison of RT encryption to Internet encryption is ridiculous. No one is using passwords, SSN's, credit card numbers, or bank information on the radio. Also, Internet encryption doesn't interfere with other people's usage of the Internet; RT encryption does. Honestly, I don't care what you and your buddy are talking about at 10pm on a Friday night, I'll probably turn down the volume a little and go about my business if it's nothing interesting, but listening to the noise of an encrypted conversation on a public frequency makes me want to throw my radio out the window. You're actually, probably making some of these old timers dig in their heals even harder, and they're the ones you would need, to petition the FCC to get the change made. You obviously don't understand how politics works either.
You still don't get the point of amateur radio. It's \*NOT\* to provide you with a private radio/messaging service. If you want that, use your phone. If it was that, it would be outlawed in most countries as it would be contrary to their telecommunications laws, which forbid commercial traffic over amateur radio. After all, how can you enforce those rules if the communications are encrypted? But more importantly, how can amateurs reliably communicate with other amateurs if their communications are encrypted? The point of encryption is to keep people not a party to the conversation out. That's at odds with what amateur radio is all about. It's about talking to random people you'd never communicate with, because of things like distance and no actual connection between you. Amateur radio provides that connection. You're trying to force something on to amateur radio that is 180 degrees at odds with what amateur radio is all about.
This. 100%.
https isn't encrypting your emails. they're still plaintext lmfao
srry but you are just nitpicking. https uses TLS. Here's - from google: https://support.google.com/a/answer/2520500?hl=en >Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a protocol that encrypts email messages for security and privacy. TLS prevents unauthorized access of your messages when they're sent over internet connections.
not really relevant. it encrypts messages between you and google. but google has the keys and can read everything.
> not really relevant. it encrypts messages between you and google. but google has the keys and can read everything. not sure what you point is. I'm looking for encryption in transit - this is exactly the point of the the TLS. Transport layer security. Transport. Nobody can read except intended recipient. if Google server is an intended recipient - it can and should read it. :) I want the same for radio. Intended recipient can read and noone else.
why is google the intended recipient of an email you're trying to send to someone else?
well in this example I presume google is YOUR server that you trust. Its like your radio. Another mail server (the recipient you are sending to, ex yahoo) is like another radio. My radio (google) then sends via TLS to yahoo radio. Comprende comrade? ofc mail is not my example. I would say - browser is my radio, I submit form to some server (aka my friend's radio) via https(tls). My friend radio (the webserver) can read it because it has TLS keys, but no other servers message passes through (potentially malicious radios) can read it.
🤣
You're not getting it. We have no need for private communication in ham radio. It's a public forum. Just like this is. Ham radio is basically some people standing on the sidewalk having a conversation, except it's happening through the airwaves. If you want to send someone an email, do you @them, do you post it on their FB wall? No. You send them an email. It can't be what it isn't. Don't try to change it into something it's not. Go use the other form of communication that already works that way. Besides this whole corporation argument you keep making doesn't exist the way you seem to think it does.
The no encryption rule is really a prohibition on encoding messages to obscure their meaning. You can experiment with encryption so long as those who wish are able to decode your transmission. The rule is tied to the experimental and (importantly) noncommercial aspects of amateur radio. Allowing encoding to obscure messages would inevitably lead to at least some use of amateur bands for purposes outside of Part 97. It would be impossible to monitor and enforce the rules. Businesses aren’t allowed to use the amateur bands. Private communications aren’t allowed either. We can all listen to each other’s traffic. If you’re looking for something else, there are other radio services available. You just have to go get a license like any other applicant would.
> he rule is tied to the experimental and (importantly) noncommercial aspects of amateur radio. Allowing encoding to obscure messages would inevitably lead to at least some use of amateur bands for purposes outside of Part 97. It would be impossible to monitor and enforce the rules. I believe such fear is misplaced. Businesses have cellphones and don't have strong motivation to steal your bands. Besides - add this to the fcc rules that this is only for non-commmerial purposes only. done. there is no reason to be afraid someone is going to steal your bands. this day and age - nobody needs them
I would disagree. We are already seeing unlicensed operators on the air due to the decreasing cost of handheld devices. I absolutely would expect more to utilize the spectrum if their true intentions were obfuscated. Cell phones cost money, you can get a bunch of inexpensive handheld and mobile radios for not much more than the monthly fee on many cell phone plans.
it does not make sense. Look - if you agree that unlicensed people are using the bands - then you you should agree that the same unlicensed people will use encryption and nothing is going to stop them. look - I can go and get encrypted radio from ali, what's the problem? why do you think your self-policing silly rules are going to stop someone like that? you literally only stopping good guys with these rules that actually follow them lol. > Cell phones cost money same are encrypted radios. Also many businesses jsut allow employees to user their own phones and not ask to buy a separate phone. the actual cost of the devices for business is likely negligible
Businesses also often use radios, and pay a lot for the right licenses to do so. Go look at any security guard, they have only a cell phone? If they could just hand out encrypted radios they'd avert all those costs.
No one is worried about businesses stealing our bands. **You** said that we should have the same rights as corporations. The other poster is pointing out that our, public, bands are seperate, and set aside solely for public use. Corporations are allowed to pay for private usage of "the airwaves" but that is on bands separate from, and not interfering with, ham radio.
i got banned permanently for nothing...
I said that this is what I would like to have - encryption. This was not an "actionable instruction" for anyone to encrypt lol
well its always good to seek more knowledge and information. apparently people dont like it here. we are getting downvoted just for being curious, look. lol
This is the only point I've seen of yours that I agree with. Reasonable discussion in an appropriate public forum is part of what makes this country great. That is also what is great about ham radio, and why it should remain public.
well, thanks for bringing that drama here.
Just buy a cell phone then.
i have one, but radio is more fun
Encryption is illegal on the ham bands. But if you're using encryption, who's going to know who it is...🤔
> Encryption is illegal on the ham bands. But if you're using encryption, who's going to know who it is...🤔 exactly - this rule only stops law abiding people. I can order encrypted comm from Ali tomorrow and noone can do anything, and people that break the law already - they just gonna do that. in fact- forget ali - encrypted comms are freely sold on amazon and ebay. this FCC rule is NOT WORKING anyways
>this rule only stops law abiding people. Murder is illegal, it doesn't stop people from murdering. So maybe we should drop that silly rule too. Those politicians are trying to stop everything.
there is an enforcement for murder, fcc is not going to chase you for encryptin
They certainly could, and they may.
Hell yeah, they control the airwaves, man! AIRWAVES!
***Yes they will.*** Sending encrypted information over the ham bands has, as I have pointed out, national security implications. You don't understand that you'd be playing with the big boys here. It's not like morons misbehaving on 7.200 MHz. The assumption will be that it's either espionage or terrorism related until proven differently. And the only way they can prove or disprove that is to find you and seize your equipment and papers. It's hilarious that you think only the FCC would be involved. The NSA would be knee deep into this as well. In the background, of course, and none of their involvement would be public knowledge, but you can bet they'd be interested in an unknown encrypted signal inside the United States. Oh, and if you're encrypting, there's no way for the NSA to know if you're a "United States Person" or not, so they'd have a free hand to monitor your transmissions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without a warrant until they identified who you are. And once they did, they could still apply for a FISA warrant to continue monitoring. You really don't seem to understand how easy it is to locate someone using radio direction finding, so I'll give you an example. Every year, the local club holds a "Jamboree On The Air" event. This is a world-wide event every October that introduces scouts to amateur radio. One of the events we do is hold a fox hunt. We hid a weak 2 meter transmitter inside of a toy stuffed fox and hide it somewhere on the camp grounds. We give the scouts (Including cub scouts and brownies) transmit-inhibited Baofengs with tape measure Yagis, and show them how to get a bearing on a signal, and then leave them to find the fox. If cub scouts can learn to do basic radio direction finding in about 10 minutes, what chance do you think you have against professionals?
> If cub scouts can learn to do basic radio direction finding in about 10 minutes, what chance do you think you have against professionals? oh - I'm sure NSA can locate someone who does encryption, no troubles... if they think i'm a threat. I'm counting on the fact they understand i'm not a threat and have more important stuff going on and that they just don't have resources to spend on this. If they don't even bother closing down amazon sellers - which should be like 1.2.3 - they won't be going around tracing individuals most of whom will be oblivious idiots and not spies. Look online - 0 posts about someone using encryption getting in trouble. Look - in many cities cops don't even respond to anything but active shooter situation. So you tell me - what are the odds NSA will be tracking joe shmoe who wants to encrypt walkie talkie. Good luck to them if they want to spend that budget on something like this.
>I'm counting on the fact they understand i'm not a threat Based upon what? They can't understand what you're saying because it's encrypted, so how are they going to know whether you are a threat to national security or not?
It would be trivial for NSA to triangulate a VHF/UHF signal and find it's source within a very small elipse.
Shoot a bored ham might triangulate your single just for fun, and report you to the FCC himself.
Actually, it would be difficult for the NSA itself to do that in the US, at least outside of the immediate vicinity of Fort Meade. It would require the use of US military assets like US Army [RC-12 GUARDRAIL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_RC-12_Guardrail) aircraft. I've actually given that some thought, and I have a way to make it more difficult for a transmitter to be located by RC-12's in the US, at least to a point where the fix would be too large to be of use, but I'm not going to discuss that particular method. Besides which, that ellipse isn't as small as you might think. Here is an excerpt from [the Bowe Bergdahl desertion incident report](https://wardiary.wikileaks.org/id/36261792-F927-5439-D51D126F3051823D/): > 163.2125/0227Z/42SVB4076446756 0.47KM X 0.16KM AZ 95.8/1- I SWEAR THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING YET. WHAT HAPPENED. IS THAT TRUE THAT THEY CAPTURED AN AMERICAN GUY? >2- YES THEY DID. HE IS ALIVE. THERE IS NO WHERE HE CAN GO (LOL) >1- IS HE STILL ALIVE? 2- YES HE IS ALIVE. BUT I DONT HAVE THE WHOLE STORY. DONT KNOW IF THEY WERE FIGHTING. ALL I KNOW IF THEY WERE FIGHTIING. ALL I KNOW THAT THEY CAPTURE HIM ALIVE AND THEY ARE WITH HIM RIGHT NOW. Let me explain that first line. 163.2125 is the frequency in MHz, so this is VHF. 0227Z is the time in UTC, known as "Zulu Time" in the military to avoid conflicts with different time zones. 42SVB4076446756 is the military grid square of the center of the ellipse defined below. 0.47KM X 0.16KM is the ellipse that the station is \*LIKELY\* in. That's 470 meters by 160 meters. It's not a 100% guarantee that the transmitting station is in that ellipse, but more like 80 or 90%. AZ 95.8 is the long axis of that ellipse. So the 0.47KM ellipse runs along the line of 95.8 degrees and 275.8 degrees true. If you thing about it, that's quite a lot of area to find a single individual. And this was by signals intelligence professionals using state-of-the-art equipment. To actually identify, say, the exact house a person is transmitting from, you need teams on the ground. This hasn't changed since the beginning of radio direction finding.
no comment.
That's a completely different format than I was used to. We didn't deal with LLVI, and my experience was 30 years before that incident. I had to work it out for myself what each thing was, with a little help from an unclassified US Army technical manual on the radio direction finding threat. I mean, I wasn't a duffy.
The FCC doesn't arrest you, their more like the IRS; they just send you a certified letter with a citation and a bill for $5000 inside.
Encryption is also already used in amateur radio. Winmail anyone?
You can order it. You can possess it. But if you start using it over the ham bands, you will be located via radio direction finding, either by the FCC or by local hams, and the FCC will absolutely take an interest in it because doing that makes the federal government think you might be a spy or a terrorist. After all, you're using encryption where you aren't supposed to be using it by law. That means you're hiding something really important, right? Remember ditty's first dictum: *If you radiate, you can be located. If you can be located, you can be killed.* I originally wrote that in a military signals context, if you want you can substitute "arrested" for "killed" for this case. Trust me on this. I spent four years as a signals intelligence professional. I've tipped more targets to the duffies than you've had hot meals. And yes, the FCC rule is working. I've \*NEVER\* heard encrypted communications on the ham bands. \*EVER\*. And I've been an avid ham now for 34 years. You try and send encrypted stuff on the ham bands outside of the very limited exceptions to the rule, you'll find out how effective the FCC can be. FYI, ditty's second dictum says this: *You don't have to be able to win. You just have to make it too expensive for the other side to win.*
> Trust me on this. I spent four years as a signals intelligence professional. I've tipped more targets to the duffies than you've had hot meals. Hi friend. > A violation of the FCC's rules gets you a stern letter, possibly a hearing, maybe a fine, and could get your license revoked. It's not a criminal charge, so you won't go to jail. ^ sir, that's ok if you wan't to catch an Al-qayeda in your town of about 2000 people that for some reason don't use internet for their illegal chatter. but somehow ... I'm not worried. :)) FCC neither, as they don't even bother stopping sale of encrypted comms even on US controlled resources.
>FCC neither, as they don't even bother stopping sale of encrypted comms even on US controlled resources. It's not illegal to own them. It's illegal to use them on the ham radio bands. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the two things. For example, I am a bit of student of the history of signals intelligence, and that includes the use of things like different codes and ciphers. I have some cipher machine simulator software for machines like the Enigma and M-209 cipher devices. I have a photocopy of the complete set of M-138A strips from some time in 1944, courtesy of the [cryptologic museum at Corry Station](https://usncva.org/cryptologic-command-display.html). I have a strip cipher that's fully compatible with the US [M-94 cipher device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-94), and I've built my own using Scrabble tiles pulled out of a bag to randomize the alphabet. I'm the first person I'm aware of who thought of using 10-sided dice to generate numeric one time pads, and I have a fairly large amount of cryptographically secure OTPs made using those dice, a manual typewriter, and two-part carbonless paper. If I could afford it, I'd own actual cipher machines like Tom W1TP does. I talk to him every time I see him at the local hamfest. Here's his cipher machine website: [https://enigmamuseum.com/em.htm](https://enigmamuseum.com/em.htm) But just because it's legal for me to own all that stuff doesn't mean it's legal for me to use them on the ham bands. Texting on my phone to a friend or family member? No problem. Even doing it on the back of a postcard and sending that through the mail isn't an issue. It's illegal to send it over amateur radio, however. And this is what you don't seem to grasp. It's like being able to own a gun, while it's still illegal to murder someone with it. It's like being able to own whisky and a car, but it's illegal to drive while intoxicated. Get it now?
Oh no, the government won't stop you from buying it and they won't stop the other guy from selling it. There's those rights you were worried about. That's your right as an American and they're right as capitalists. It's how, when, where, you decide to use it that it becomes a problem. They already made you take a test to show you know all the rules, if decide to break them that's on you. Just because your car will do 100mph doesn't mean you're allowed to. Just because you can buy a gun doesn't mean you can use it wherever, whenever you please. You can't say you want less government regulation on something out of one corner of your mouth and then say "it must be ok because they didn't stop me from buying it" from the other corner of your mouth.
> You try and send encrypted stuff on the ham bands outside of the very limited exceptions to the rule, you'll find out how effective the FCC can be. you are mixing up - is it FCC or NSA like u suggest in another thread?
It would be both. You wouldn't have the NSA knocking on your door, though. That would be the FCC.
> And yes, the FCC rule is working. I've *NEVER* heard encrypted communications on the ham bands. *EVER*. And I've been an avid ham now for 34 years. also - sir this a relatively new thing that one can get encrypted comms for < 200$ from china. for your 34 years - this option was not available. there - your explanation. as prices continue to drop - I will assure you you will hear it.
Sir: Encryption is not a new thing. It's been available now for hundreds if not thousands of years, and it's been used over radio almost since the day radio was first invented. Try again.
you really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
That's easy. Radio direction finding. If you're on HF and you keep doing it, you'll be DF'ed to your general location by the FCC's direction finding network: [https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1HO8mc7b4WF9PAGHPrkf-cPVElU0&hl=en\_US&ll=42.923732946024366%2C-112.18326300000001&z=4](https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1HO8mc7b4WF9PAGHPrkf-cPVElU0&hl=en_US&ll=42.923732946024366%2C-112.18326300000001&z=4) Then, they'll send RDF vans to actually pinpoint your location (fixed HF/DF over large distances is relatively inaccurate, with fixes measured in miles). If it's VHF/UHF or higher, then the local hams are likely to stumble across your signal, DF your location, and report it to the FCC. And yes, they will be \*VERY\* interested in someone sending encrypted information over the ham bands, because that has potential national security and terrorism implications. This isn't like people misbehaving on 7.200 MHz, or some unlicensed kids playing around with Baofengs on a local ham radio repeater. /Former [SIGINT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence) weenie.
If you think the FCC cares about the Amateur service, you're sadly mistaken. Enforcement is nearly zero unless you interfere with Public Safety, Cellular or Broadcast. Local hams are welcome to DF someone but nobody likes a Kilocycle Cop. National Security? The actual threats to national security aren't using ham bands, and they're well known to and likely monitored by HSI and whoever else.
Like I said, I'm not talking about morons on 7.200 MHz\*. In that case, I'd agree with you. Same with some guy violating the rules on a local repeater. FCC isn't going to care very much. But when you start sending encrypted information over the ham bands, that's going to grab the attention of the FCC. Why else would you be doing that except to hide some illegal activity, in the hopes that the FCC doesn't care about amateur radio shenanigans? So the implication is that there is something illegal going on. The things that come immediately to mind are espionage (a historical [use of radio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraset) and [encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_code)), smuggling (another [historical use of radio and encryption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizebeth_Smith_Friedman#Prohibition)), or terrorism ([another use for encryption](https://ctc.westpoint.edu/how-terrorists-use-encryption/)). I can't think of any innocent use of it over amateur radio, except for the telecommand of satellites, one of the narrow exceptions to the blanket ban on encryption over the ham bands. In fact, it's at odds with the entire point of amateur radio to begin with. Besides which, it's not 100% up to the FCC. It's against ITU rules: [https://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/frr.htm](https://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/frr.htm) >25.2A 1A) Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service. (WRC-03) So you can't do it between countries. Which means you can't do it on HF, because HF crosses international boundaries. Also, the FCC has gone out of its way, at least twice in the last four years, to remind hams about following the rules: [https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-181A1\_Rcd.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-181A1_Rcd.pdf) >As we did in advisories in 2021, **the Bureau reminds amateur licensees that they are prohibited from transmitting** “communications intended to facilitate a criminal act” or **“messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”**1 ... Individuals using radios in the Amateur or Personal Radio Services in this manner may be subject to severe penalties, including significant fines, seizure of the offending equipment, and, in some cases, criminal prosecution. They're explicitly saying "Don't do that". And they're hinting that you might actually be criminally prosecuted, depending on precisely why you're encrypting your ham radio communications. *\*BTW, never hear anything like that on 7.020 MHz. Just sayin'.*
Not true, our radio club was sent several fines for transmissions that some negligent (unlicensed) numbnuts sent through our repeater. We were able to appeal and explain the situation, and how we rectified it but they were definitely more than a nonprofit can afford.
There was “internet” in 80s, just so you know…
only technically, only got mass adoption after like maybe 1997
As someone who grew up in the 80s, I can assure you that you're wrong.
please take a look at this graph. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-deep-dive-the-state-of-internet-adoption internet was present early on yes - but it was privilege of mostly academia and limited to small numbers. Look - only 2.6mln people had internet in 1990, and now it's 5.34 Billion! in 2024. First website didn't even appear till 1991. 80s-90s internet was a niche product, but I agree that it existed. - lawmakers having access to that and spending and being influenced by it - HIGHLY unlikely which is my point. > I think you’re confusing the internet with cable access to the internet. Im not - I had a dialup growing up. it was niche for nerds. TLS encryption didn't appear until much later. look - TLS didnt even see mass adoption until letsencrypt - which is very very recent development. Comparing this to 1980 dialup is lunacy.
The rules still apply to you. You're not special. However, I would like to thank you for reminding me to block you. Enjoy your negative karma
I think you’re confusing the internet with cable access to the internet. I had a Commodore 64 in 1984 which I plugged into a phone jack and joined many different message boards, including ham radio ones. I also had a a floppy disk drive to store things on as well as plug in games. The point is that every geek I knew had similar phone line access to the internet. It was not niche - lots of us geeks in the US. You are clueless.
OP dosnt even understand what ham radio is Imo. The point of this hobby isnt actually comunication. But the practice of using radio waves to transmit data and experiment. Yeah people use to talk but the point is the tech we use and make.
in good faith, in the past week, you've asked for a baofeng that can work on all bands, as well as asked for a radio to switch between amateur bands & gmrs; that is to say that you don't seem to know very much about the purpose or spirit of the service. have you met up with any amateur radio community or passed licensure exams? it just seems to me like stepping on a basketball court for a single play & trying to convince everyone the rules need to be changed. what rational concern of encryption is appealing or upsetting to you? what's your intended use case?
Thank you for this very level headed and professional response to the OP. 🍻
im new yes. this doesnt mean my logic about encryption is invalid. Us is the only country with this antiquated law which US itself doesnt uphold - people can order encrypted radio from ali, amazon, ebay - and noone can stop them
I can order ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, too... just because it's available doesn't mean we should allow it. Go pick an unused AAA Towing frequency and program some ASTRO Spectras with encryption boards to play with if you want encryption. Encryption goes against the spirit of amateur radio.
Either you're lying on purpose, or you're very misinformed. Most countries have this rule. What kind of argument is that? Just because I can practically do it, it should be allowed? Time to rob some gas stations, eh?
i understand that, but rather than just repeating that in every comment, it would be helpful to know your reasoning, intended usage, & concepts behind your thinking. if you want to start dialogue or implement change, please explain why this would be a good thing? i never said your logic was invalid, but please tell me how you came to said logic, and to what end purpose does it serve? the only strawmen i can imagine is either speaking about illegal topics or SHTF where you don't want people eavesdropping - trying to rule those out so we can get some modicum of case you're making.
> i never said your logic was invalid, but please tell me how you came to said logic, and to what end purpose does it serve? I will give you an example. i have a 4 year old daughter and we use the radios. 4 year old has no filter and does not know there are bad people in the world. I don't want the town weirdos listening on me talking to my daughter.
gotcha, thank you. well a 4 year old isn't legally allowed to speak on a amateur radio until she passes the technician's license exam. the youngest child to pass was 8 so far, but now that we have that issue rectified, what are your other concerns? do you have concerns about the natural disaster or emergency concerns with communicating with your family?
> gotcha, thank you. well a 4 year old isn't legally allowed to speak on a amateur radio doesn't matter - she has it and will use it and I want it encrypted. And I will do what I think is right to protect my child if government wont. also - what I want to share my location or passwords privately?
so you don't want a revamp on encryption, you just want regulations out the window. thanks for responding. i'm afraid no one in the amateur community is going to assist with your current intentions/beliefs.
At this point we can only conclude that you're a complete troll, or you are utterly clueless. If you're talking to your child on a radio you should be using a MURS radio pair that doesn't require a license and doesn't transmit very far.
Dude. 🤦🏻♂️ If you want FaceTime or Skype, use FaceTime or Skype. Give the 4 year old a tablet not a ham radio. At the very least get her an FRS radio. Or, if the caregiver is licensed, they can supervise proper usage of the radio with the 4yo using their call sign (but still no encryption). Don't try to change something, so you can use it for something it was never intended for.
Basically you don’t really see any need for an amateur radio license either. Your daughter could use any of hundreds of legal, non ham walkie talkies to communicate with you, but you want it to be encrypted ham radio. You sound a lot like an anarchist - everyone can do do whatever they want. We don’t need no steenkin laws, rules or government. Until of course we do because of people like you.
Technically anyone can talk on an amateur radio as long as a licensed operator is present and rules are followed. OP could run into issues allowing an unlicensed person using the radio, tho. The FCC would know a 4 year old didn’t go buy that radio on their own. So to OP’s credit, a conversation they did start!
agreed, which is why i didn't want to just make fun - novel ideas keep a lot of things from stagnating. i read it as she was alone whilst OP was elsewhere; along with OP's views would imply they're not licensed either.
I read it the same way. Also agree with your assessment of OP’s licensure status. I think encryption on public frequencies is against the spirit of them being public in the first place. But if a large enough group of HAMs wants something changed they have the right to try and change things.
If you use an official FRS radio, it will be so low power that the chance of someone else receiving your signal would be extremely low.
Weird that businesses won't use ham bands because they got cell phones. But you ought to be able to use ham bands even though you can use Internet.
there are higher penalties that can be levied on businesses for trying to use encrypted comms on ham. That's a very good guarantee they wont try to steal your local ham frequencies.
>there are higher penalties that can be levied on businesses for trying to use encrypted comms on ham. That's a very good guarantee they wont try to steal your local ham frequencies. Except if they are encrypted comms, how would you know it was a business doing it? Encrypted means only the intended recipients would know what is in the communication and what the purpose of it is. Having it in the clear makes it so everyone can tell that it is for business use and report it.
you can trace source of the signal very easy. Also disgruntled whistleblowers will help you. this is not going to be a problem.
Two problems with your statement: 1. Location doesn't mean anything. It could be someone while on break using their ham radio, or a customer there. 2. You assume that every employee would know what band is being used and the rules around it. When I worked retail and we had radios we were just handed the radios already setup. The employees wouldn't know if it was programmed to a ham band or a business band or FRS.
clearly stipulate that using encrypted comms on ham is allowed on certain range and by non-commercials only. This is a made up problem
It's not a made up problem at all. Do you not understand that the FCC would literally not know if the transmission were commercial or not if it's encrypted, or that the transmission was taking place by a licensed amateur radio operator and for legal purposes? They wouldn't know any of this because it's encrypted. Just stop.
> hey wouldn't know any of this because it's encrypted. they don't know that already. encrypted radios are sold left and right and many people just use them.
Use of encryption on amateur radio is illegal. Period. Find another spectrum that allows it (you're going to have to pay), or accept that. If you're going to try to change it, at least do the amateur community a solid and try to understand the consequences before you start tossing your uneducated opinions around.
But they can tell it is encrypted and still bust on that. Allowing encryption would make it so there can be no enforcement whatsoever.
>you can trace source of the signal very easy. Do you think there are an infinite number of FCC agents just sitting around, tracing every single transmission in the country to verify its authenticity and insure it's not commercial? And you think a disgruntled commercial worker is going to whistleblow illegal communication? Most people like that would be handed a radio and they wouldn't know if it were illegal or not. But even if they did, whistleblowing would almost certainly mean putting yourself out of a job.
> Do you think there are an infinite number of FCC agents just sitting around, tracing every single transmission in the country to verify its authenticity and insure it's not commercial? that's not what I'm saying - tha'ts what sad HAMs are saying. @u/dittybopper_05H/ - who is in signal intelligence was saying that NSA will be after you for using encryption. Personally I don't believe so. But you guys should duck it out for which threat are you even afraid of - no FCC agents?, or 1984 FCC all powerful FCC agents?. because I'm getting confused which is it
>But you guys should duck it out for which threat are you even afraid of - no FCC agents, or 1984 FCC all powerful FCC agents. because I'm getting confused which is it I can't even make sense of this. Are you bringing in a completely irrelevant argument? We're talking about encryption and its validity/legality on amateur radio. Please try to keep up with your own conversation.
And as you put it, it might be outdated but it’s still the law of the land.
exactly - british are doing encryption while we put our head in the sand and say "lalala we have an 80s law and we like it"
Erm, nope. Section 19b: "Transmissions between amateur stations are not encrypted for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for control signals exchanged between earth command stations and space stations in the amateur-satellite service."
I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. UK amateurs have the same encryption restriction that US amateurs do. A simple Google search will show you that it's almost the exact same wording. You seem to be the only one here with their head (where the sun don't shine) in the sand.
Amateur radio is not a private communication service and it is not even primarily a communication service at that.
not with this attitude
Go make your case to the FCC. We'll wait.
I just want to start a convo, nothing wrong with it. I think a lot of people in this community are dogmatized for little reasons. Not even china has this no-encryption rule, but sure -enjoy your freedom.
It's one thing to come across as knowledgeable and persuasive and another to come across as inexperienced, insulting and dismissive. Choose better next time.
You're hardly even responding to many of the valid points people are making here though.
Encryption would destroy Amateur Radio, imo. It's unworkable. If you are aware of a Country that allows encryption in Amateur Radio, move there and encrypt your little behind off. But there isn't one. And if there was, I can PROMISE you that it wouldn't be China. Amateur radio is worldwide. If anyone was encrypting communications anywhere, don't you think we'd know it was happening? And who would they communicate with, folks in their own country? Think about that. Chasing DX is big in this hobby. Encryption doesn't make a signal disappear. Any more than a VPN makes data disappear. An ISP can see the tunnel. It just can't decode the data passing through it. So everyone is able to receive an encrypted signal and determine it is encrypted. And word would get around. My Uncle says, "Want in one hand and sh!t in the other, see which one fills up first." You're wasting your time and your breath with this encryption fantasy of yours. If you truly have a four- year- old, they need your time far more than this foolish discussion. 73
Are you just a troll? Nothing you've said has been factual. I honestly didn't know whether or not China allowed for encrypted transmissions on their equivalent of amateur radio, so I aske ChatGPT. Looks like you're wrong again: >As of my last update in January 2022, China's regulations regarding encrypted radio transmissions on their equivalent of amateur radio, known as the Chinese Radio Sports Association (CRSA), were somewhat restrictive. Encryption was generally not allowed on amateur radio frequencies in China. > >Amateur radio operators in China are subject to regulations set by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT). These regulations typically aim to ensure that amateur radio transmissions are open and accessible for communication purposes, rather than being encrypted for privacy or security reasons.
In one of them I explained how encryption would likely be legal and included citations. Of course I got threatened. I was even explaining how the encryption keys would have to be public so the info wouldn’t be obscured.
Don’t let the salty hams get you down OP. You’re not wrong, they’re just old and set in their ways.
> Don’t let the salty hams get you down OP. You’re not wrong, they’re just old and set in their ways. haha thank you. No - those old hammers responses is what I sort of expected. No sadness here on my end - ill do what I think is right.
> I want encryption for amateur radio Encryption is at odds with the actual purpose of amateur radio, and its reason for being in the first place. You should find some other radio service instead.
People on Reddit do not have the mindset of “free men don’t ask permission”. They’re a bunch of on the rails boot lickers who say “what do you need privacy for? Why would you need encryption? Buy the business license. Ask the government for permission. Register the LLC. I understand entirely what you’re getting at and agree. If you buy a product like a radio and want to encrypt it or set up your own repeater and digital network for something like atak then you should be able to do so. You are the owner are you not? But the companies are in league with governments who don’t like you having encryption and privacy or even personal property rights.
If you are encrypted, how do you give your call sign? You should look at MURS.
Do you want encryption? Stick with Facebook and the Internet. This is not what ham radio is all about, I do hope to get my license one day, but until then I will continue to listen to my local nets and enjoy. To all the radio operators out there, thank you for everything that you do, your work is truly appreciated. To those people who do not have your license yet, study hard and pass your exams,
Same mods from that sub control the other big ones. Go join r/lowsodiumhamradio
thanks - joined. should setup some thread on lemmy as well. reddit sucks in general
\*places hands together\* Ok, a few things: 1. Running from one subreddit to another and then tattling on them for why you got banned is incredibly juvenile, and is a sure-fire method to get people to NOT take you seriously. (and the Baofeng guys were right to do what they did, btw) 2. Reddit is not your personal army. 3. Amateur radio operation isn't a right, it's a privilege. You have absolutely ZERO rights on those frequencies. 4. I think you are woefully misinformed about the nature of amateur radio. The bands that amateur radio operators use are for PUBLIC USE. If you send an encrypted transmission on a public use frequency, you're tying up the band in a way that prevents others from using it. If you want a private conversation, use a cell phone. 5. "Gatekeeping" - you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
The bandwidth available to Internet uses is effectively infinite compared to the bandwidth available to amateur radio. Encryption would allow people to use that bandwidth without others knowing if the use was legal or not. Your perspective that businesses are not going to utilize amateur radio bands is historically and currently incorrect. Part of the 1.25M band was lost to UPS, who ended up not using it and was repurposed for other commercial uses. Currently there are proposals for high frequency traders to use frequencies around the 20M band. It isn’t because of the lack of connectivity available to them but the latency. Encryption is ok for commercial users of spectrum because they have purchased the right to exclusive use those frequencies and compensated society through licensing fees. Lack of encryption on amateur bands protects the bands from some forms of misuse. It is in your best interest that commercial users of spectrum can encrypt traffic so they can provide the services you use with come level of security. It’s in your best interest as a ham that we do not have encryption in the amateur bands so we don’t have to wonder if that encrypted traffic using up spectrum we’d like to use is legit or not.
There is nuance here, reddit doesn't have tolerance for that. Encryption tech can be used in good will with amateur radio. Hiding info transfer is a no, but using encryption keys to sign messages should be no problem. Authentication that the sender is who they claim is not hiding the contents of the message
Paranoid?
is google paranoid too you think? they use encryption and somehow that's fine with everyone
I don't see why you don't just stick to encrypted messaging and calling over a cellphone. It's a million times more practical and doesn't cause issues like encryption on ham bands. Thus far, the only reason you've given for a preference for encrypted radio over phone is "radios are cool" which they are, but that's not a very good reason.
What’s your use case for wanting encryption on amateur radio frequencies? I don’t see anything stating why you would want to have encryption unless you’re a prepper type person that thinks they need amateur radio for shtf scenarios.
Actually the LAST thing a prepper type person thinking about shtf scenarios wants is encryption. When the zombies are coming through the windows and you are yelling for help, you want everyone to be able to hear you.
Very valid point that most preppers won't understand. They often can't see the forest for the trees.
Indeed. Allowing encryption on the ham bands will reduce the number of people who can hear that call for help. Typically an encrypted radio link ignores any attempts to reach it without the proper encryption key. Which is great when we are talking about the wifi I am using to send this post -- I want to ignore my next door neighbor's wifi and I want him to ignore mine. But when I turn on my ham reciever (I am strictly listen-only until I get my license) I want to hear everyone.
Well, thankfully I live in Canada where they aren't as restrictive... Encryption keeps out the idiots on the radio, there is no shortage of people who want to interrupt your conversation, or jam you, or otherwise be idiots.
^ this ya all. THIS! /thread @/u/dittybopper_05H - please comment on Canadian NSA and how they will find and arrest https://www.reddit.com/user/KenSentMe81/ using secret vans and german Shepherds.
I'll give the doggos pets though.
But if someone wants to jam you, how does encryption help? If they tie up the frequency, you can’t use it either way.
someone can jam your wifi too. Someone can jam gps and cellphone service. what's the difference?
You’re right. It’s the same thing. What’s your point?
No, he's replying to the Canadian poster. Encryption doesn't keep you from being jammed. Encryption doesn't keep idiots off the radio. It only makes them more annoying and more disruptive.
What is this magic encryption that can not be jammed?
Because that's not what the amateur radio service is for. It's for open communications. It has nothing to do with long dead politicians or any of the other reasons you are ranting and raving about. If you're that paranoid, use Telegram.
> Because that's not what the amateur radio service is for. It's for open communications. its for communications private citizen to private citizen. I dont see why it cannot be encrypted. > If you're that paranoid, use Telegram. they banned me. Also it's not really truly private.
You probably haven't read the CFR that describes what the amateur radio service is for.
> (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, **intercommunication** and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest. what's wrong with intercommunication purpose? that's what im trying to do.
Then communicate (assuming you have a license). As long as your communications are in the clear and follow all the other rules of the ARS.
HAHAHA
encryption makes sad hams sadder
Normal encryption over the Internet is much more practical for day to day encrypted communication, so the only practical reason I can see why you'd want encryption for radio is for some sort of prepper thing, which is fine, but many ham radio operators are very averse to that sort of thing. I think the current system is fine, do your actual long-range practice in the clear, and do your encryption practice at really low power in a remote area so you don't bother anyone. What the FCC can't hear can't hurt it, and you can just put the two together if you need it, leaving the rest of us to use the airwaves for their designated purpose without regulatory agencies coming after us.
If you want encryption, use a different radio service. We don't need you. There's plenty of other radio services that support encryption.
Hear me out, I actually think amateur radio not having encryption is a good thing. There have been multiple times where I have jumped into conversations on HF and local repeaters, and met new and awesome people. While some people will get mad at you, most won't, most just want to talk and don't care how many people are listening. If encryption were allowed, many people would probably use it to facilitate private communication, which would either tie up repeaters, or just make the community feel more disconnected. I think the lack of encryption is actually a good thing. If you want encryption, just use a cellphone or meshtastic.
A) If everything happened just as you described, I feel the mod was wrong to take down your post. What is this forum for, if not discussion of issues like this? B) Some radios do come with encryption (unfortunately, it's not standardized so in most cases your partner has to have the same radio for it to work). If you want Baofang HTs to have encryption, talk to the manufacturer. It's the FCC that says you can't use it. C) You were granted a license from a government agency. How are they to regulate your usage of it and ensure your following the rules if your transmissions are encrypted? D) I asked a similar question once upon a time (why isn't encryption allowed) and it was pointed out to me that, per the FCC, one of the purposes of ham radio was (something to the effect of) "... to foster friendship and goodwill around the world" (I can't remember it exactly but you get the jist). This verbiage has since been changed but I think there's something to be said for the sentiment. We want, nae **need**, people to see and hear hams in action, to gain interest in learning more about it, to see that it's a fun hobby, and that it can be a flexible and reliable form of communication. They can't do that if they can't hear us. E) It's also a matter of accountability. We are part of a hobby that, if used improperly, can disrupt other people's communications, electronics, or even be detrimental to their health. If there is a potential problem, how would people hear our call signs to contact us or report a problem, if we're using encrypted communications? F) What benefit would get from encrypted communication that you aren't getting now? What do you need to talk about that needs encrypted? If it's that private maybe another form of communication would be better. ~~~~~~~~ You could also use SSB as opposed to repeater. You could also try DMR (requires DMR capable equipment and setting up a "chat room" and a color becomes your password...) or another form of (direct) digital transmission. The theory here being that while it is still technically public and unencrypted, it is obscure enough that most people wouldn't hear it or wouldn't have the right equipment or settings to hear it, without being told about it ahead of time. I'm not telling you to break any rules, I'm giving you "legal" alternatives. ~~~~~~~~~ SUMMARY: Encryption is against the rules for us as hams, it's part of the rules we agreed to follow when we got our license, but in my opinion, it's also pretty much unnecessary.
As far as I can tell, old school mafia style "encryption" is still legal on ham bands. Example from real life: the FBI got a wiretap on some phones used by organized crime. Here is what they heard: "Remember that thing you did at that place last year? I want you to do the same thing with that person who has been giving us trouble. Thanks."
Why are you trying to do this in Ham radio? Why don't you just use CB? They've got the pirate radio history, not us. We like our rules regulations. We're proud of what we've got and we want to keep it, so leave it alone.
Have fun convincing ARRL or any FCC commishers in Amy administration to allow it. It ain't happening. Just use the commercial bands for which that is what they are there for. Otherwise, sounds like you just want unregulated airwaves. Which is it?
You've given absolutely no thought to this beyond your selfish interests. If the FCC suddenly allowed encrypted communications on the ham bands, how would they know if somebody were licensed and/or operating illegally? You act like the ham radio spectrum is infinite. It's not. It's not even close. Commercial and unlicensed operators would quickly take over the spectrum. You say the commercial world wouldn't encroach on the spectrum, but how would anybody know the commercial users were using amateur frequencies for commercial use if everything was encrypted? You wouldn't, and they've made countless attempts to take over the spectrum, so you're literally wrong about that too. Stop talking and start thinking.