[CQ] EMERGENCY ‐ AMATEUR RADIO NEEDS YOUR HELP NOW!

[Josh Myer]

On Jun 25, 2013, at 22:13 , Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> On 06/25/2013 10:06 PM, Drew Smith wrote:
>> the idea that someone could send an encrypted message instantly to the other side of the world must have been terrifying to governments during the world wars.
> Yes, but I wasn't considering a historical reason. I was thinking about the shared nature of the Amateur frequencies. If you camp on a frequency with an encrypted station, and use encryption that locks out all but your chosen group out of the system, it's not a shared frequency any longer.
> 
> I am not objecting to authentication, and you can do that within today's rules. But encryption for the purpose of obscuring information from others? I can't see how that would be a benefit to Amateur Radio.
> 
> And I'm not understanding the exact reason why networking experimenters would really need it. If you're doing something that you have to hide, why would it belong on ham radio at all?
> 

I'd like clarification on encryption for authorization (eg BBSes, remote email access, etc), and also some clarifications about HIPAA in EmComm.  Beyond niche cases, encryption doesn't serve a purpose within the traditional amateur radio usage.

Here's a short, succinct summary of the same topic from nearly 7 years ago: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?99951-Encryption-OK-on-Ham-Bands

The amateur bands are a public commons; think of it as shouting in a park.  A park designated for that kind of shouting, but, still, anything you do there is out in public, and can be heard (or recorded) by anyone.  If that's a problem for what you're trying to send, then you need to find a different medium (you can always switch to part 15 operation, which is like loudly whispering in the same park).
--
/jbm AJ9BM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/cq/attachments/20130625/6d70a497/attachment-0003.html>