FCC Opens Rulemaking to Allow Encryption in Amateur Radio Service

[PJH]

You are a few days late with that one

 

[WB4CS]

The ARRL is calling on the FCC to deny a Petition for Rule Making (RM-11699) seeking to permit the encryption of certain amateur communications during emergency operations or related training exercises. Don Rolph, AB1PH, of E Walpole, Massachusetts, petitioned the Commission in March to suggest an additional exception to §97.113, which currently prohibits “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”------> ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption of Some Emergency Communications

Hmm, that sounds familiar. Have I read that somewhere else?

http://forums.radioreference.com/co...ion-amateur-radio-service-22.html#post2000522

http://forums.radioreference.com/co...ion-amateur-radio-service-23.html#post2000537

http://forums.radioreference.com/co...ion-amateur-radio-service-23.html#post2000653

http://forums.radioreference.com/co...ion-amateur-radio-service-23.html#post2000891

 

[loumaag]

Folks, unless you can add something substantive to the discussion, please don't add posts. If you want to chime in and have not followed the discussion since the beginning, take the time to read the whole thread before you chime in. Repeating announcements from last week doesn't add to the discussion. We had enough horses beaten to death in this topic already, so either post something new or don't post.

The only reason this is staying open at this late date is that hopefully the FCC will announce some sort of decision in a timely manner, instead of sitting on the public comments forever before moving on. Thanks for understanding.

 

[SB-Wi]

However, at least one commentor on RM-11699 on the FCC website has said that encryption would prevent terrorists from listing in to amateur radio after a disaster. What is said terrorist going to hear if they did listen in?

Christian KF4ZMB

I'd be more concerned with them planning an attack using encrypted traffic knowing most other communications (landline, cell, email, etc.) are now being "monitored".

 

[jparks29]

I'd be more concerned with them planning an attack using encrypted traffic knowing most other communications (landline, cell, email, etc.) are now being "monitored".

Anything important isn't sent via phone/txt/email etc.

It's the idiots who brag and/or plan everything in ways that can be monitored that set red flags and get people caught.

It's not the major players that people need to watch out for, it's the lone wolf.

 

[SCPD]

This could be the case I don't know. What I do know was that the comment I was refering to was not one made by Mr. Rolph. I did not list the name of the commentor on purpose because my point was not to point out, or in anyway pick on, one individual commentor.

I was not in Boston during this attack, but a close family friend attends Boston University and was supposed to be at the finish line on the day of the attack. The only reason he was not was because he had gotten sick and decided to stay in his dorm. He said that the airways were immediately full of information, almost everyone was on a cellphone with someone who had been in the area, and all sorts of people were posting to social media sites about the event. Even the national news jumped immediately on the reporting, which is to be expected. This type of intelligence -- gathering intelligence information from openly distributed sources (news, social media, etc.) -- is practiced by most, and probably all, governmental intelligence services (CIA, etc.). So, it is likely that an organized terrorist attack would also gather intelligence information from the news. If they had anything else planned in which they would need additional intelligence at that stage. This was the point I was making. A shelter in place order was given during that time, openly on the news, through email, etc. for citizens and major places like Boston University. Therefore, if a terrorist had wanted to know where a good place to "hit" where a large amount of people were at time they would only have needed to "hit" places that would forseeably have a large number of people "sheltering in place" after the order was given. There would be no need for them to monitor amateur radio or even any on scene radio communications to get that information. That is the point I was making. It seems unlikely that out of all the places terrorists could get information after a disaster, again if they wanted or needed it, that they would choose to get this information exclusively from amateur radio.

Again my attempt was not point out, or pick on, anyone commentor. Rather, I was trying to add a little realism, yet once again, to a debate that has taken on unrealistic ideas, roles, and scenarios, it seems, from the very beginning.

Christian KF4ZMB

I will say IMO news organizations and social media are the crippling factors in most of these type of scenarios,I think the media hurts more than it helps.

I know of accidents where fatalities have occurred and the family saw it on the news or face book before they were never notified and other such reports where the media should have kept their mouth shut.

I have saw on TV numerous times where the media have given away military locations and the location where the military action is going to take place and providing our enemies with information as to what military action we are planning which gives the enemy the heads up and time to change their strategy ...just my 2 cents.

 

[PJH]

If your in a theater of conflict, you can be sure both sides are expecting something.

 

[n5ims]

The FCC has officially rejected this request.

Filing by Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in RM-11699 on 2013-09-17 00:00:00.0

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
8. On the basis of the above, we conclude that the request in the above-captioned petition
for rulemaking does not warrant further consideration at this time.
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 303(r), and Section 1.401(e) of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.401(e), that the petition for rulemaking filed by Don Rolph, RM-
11699, on March 28, 2013 IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
10. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

 

[N4DES]

Outstanding!

 

[gadepp]

Great. I see no complaints posted as to their findings...

 

[N8OHU]

Great. I see no complaints posted as to their findings...

Just because no one has posted doesn't mean that those that support limited use of encryption agree with them.

 

[jmhthompson]

When is it used

If a message is encrypted how does one monitor if it is being used appropriately?
Taking away the Ham's ability to self police is first step to uncontrollable abuse that ends with the loss of our frequency allocations,..