Quote:
Originally Posted by ab3a
I want to emphasize, I'm not discussing encryption. I'm discussing encoding and decoding. They are different. Coding methods are like modulation methods. They're used to improve performance of a connection. Encryption is strictly used to keep unauthorized people from understanding certain information.
Coding methods are not the same thing as encryption methods. Sadly, this nuance is often lost on regulators, legislators, jurists, and the general public.
Secondly, there is another very persistent and ignorant notion that somehow one can "intercept" radio traffic. YOU CAN NOT INTERCEPT RADIO TRAFFIC! You can only receive it. The traffic may be unintelligible due to encryption or an unknown encoding method, but you still received it. Interception implies that you catch it and that it will never get to its destination because you got it first.
Someone needs to explain this to the communications lawyers before they screw up the language even more than it already is.
Mumble Grumble spit...
Jake Brodsky, AB3A
|
Jake,
Your point is taken, but the use of the term "intercept" as it applies to listening to communications has entered the vernacular. It is used throughout legislation as a synonym for "receiving".
I don't think we will be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Regarding encryption, not having to crack encryption may be helpful. The thing that I would wonder is if the
intent of use of a digital modulation was to obsfugate reception. Does that make the
perception of reverse engineering analogue to decryption?
Victor