So might as well get rid of the irlp system and echolink too right?
Digital voice encryption
- Thread starter KF4JKY2017
- Start date
- Status
N4KVE
Member
Not at all. It's a convenience I use when I'm on vacation 1000 miles from home to talk to friends back home, but there's certainly ZERO satisfaction in having a 1000 mile conversation with a friend. When I made that contact on 20 meters to a guy in South America, I felt great, as I accomplished something. I controlled my destiny by putting up the proper antenna. A big improvement from the dipole I used to use. So my actions improved my ability to make the DX contacts. But today, people just talk 2 feet into a hotspot, & the internet does the rest. They control nothing. The internet does. But again, it is a convenience, like a $50 microwave.
needairtime
Member
I know I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but unless digital voice is an open standard that anyone can implement including Baofeng, it should not be allowed as it's a type of encryption.
However authentication between stations (i.e. station and repeater) is okay. Call sign/plain password authentication is too weak as people have found. But a challenge-response is acceptable - note that all of this is plaintext that anyone can hear:
Random station: "I'm K1CKD"
Repeater: Prove to me you're K1CKD: tell me your mother's birthday hashed with this random number I just created - 551245
Random station: Uh... 651324 ?
Repeater: Sorry, your response doesn't match what I expect. Goodbye!
(or Repeater: Yes you got it right, tell me code 412562 with your voice for the next 5 minutes, I'll challenge you again in 5 minutes with a different random number, if you get it wrong, goodbye!)
The hash needs to be a well-known algorithm, may it be MD5 or SHA512 or whatever. Of course this example can still be easily hacked but it should show it's possible to have weak authentication without encryption. The "secret" needs to be known by both sides ahead of time and should not be distributed over the air. I suppose that re-authentication needs to be done occasionally as someone could then hijack the authentication key mid stream as it too cannot be encrypted, so this is a weak point though will block out most of the casual key pirates.
I do not want to see digital as a way to skirt the amateur radio encryption laws. Amateur radio was not meant for private communication - it was meant for learning about radios and goodwill to all who share the bandwidth, encryption does not help either of these two facets. You can learn about encryption elsewhere - be over a wire, public bulletin board, or over postal service; and last I want to see an emergency happen and someone has to futz with encryption or proprietary voice compression algorithms (having interoperability is important in emergency situations!!!) to get the message across.
However authentication between stations (i.e. station and repeater) is okay. Call sign/plain password authentication is too weak as people have found. But a challenge-response is acceptable - note that all of this is plaintext that anyone can hear:
Random station: "I'm K1CKD"
Repeater: Prove to me you're K1CKD: tell me your mother's birthday hashed with this random number I just created - 551245
Random station: Uh... 651324 ?
Repeater: Sorry, your response doesn't match what I expect. Goodbye!
(or Repeater: Yes you got it right, tell me code 412562 with your voice for the next 5 minutes, I'll challenge you again in 5 minutes with a different random number, if you get it wrong, goodbye!)
The hash needs to be a well-known algorithm, may it be MD5 or SHA512 or whatever. Of course this example can still be easily hacked but it should show it's possible to have weak authentication without encryption. The "secret" needs to be known by both sides ahead of time and should not be distributed over the air. I suppose that re-authentication needs to be done occasionally as someone could then hijack the authentication key mid stream as it too cannot be encrypted, so this is a weak point though will block out most of the casual key pirates.
I do not want to see digital as a way to skirt the amateur radio encryption laws. Amateur radio was not meant for private communication - it was meant for learning about radios and goodwill to all who share the bandwidth, encryption does not help either of these two facets. You can learn about encryption elsewhere - be over a wire, public bulletin board, or over postal service; and last I want to see an emergency happen and someone has to futz with encryption or proprietary voice compression algorithms (having interoperability is important in emergency situations!!!) to get the message across.
hardsuit
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2017
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 37
kf4jky2017 - ham radio cant use Encryption of any kind, but nothing is Stopping you from Enableing Encryption on a DMR capable radio, operating in HAM BANDS.
bill4long
Member
Generally a hot spot. My hot spot has a range of about one city block. Also, I have one in my vehicle.
slicerwizard
Member
You're wasting your time. Even though that's the correct approach, this thread continues to be populated with calls to use RAS or encryption.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Note for the TL;DR and short attention span crowd: I am answering two different messages and quoting two different people.
One would hope that licensed hams were a bit less ignorant about the technology they use than scanner listeners (or the politicians who pay for public safety systems). Digital is not a form of encryption. Use of proprietary signaling technology does not meet the legal or regulatory definitions of encryption, which is defined as a method designed and used to conceal the content and meaning of radio transmissions. That is not the purpose of digital radio on ham or any other frequencies.
If DMR constituted encryption for the reasons you stated, then the first ham experimenters with Packet, PSK31, or any other form of digital transmission would have been breaking the law.
I don't understand your point. Encryption is not allowed in the ham bands, regardless of what radio you have.
One would hope that licensed hams were a bit less ignorant about the technology they use than scanner listeners (or the politicians who pay for public safety systems). Digital is not a form of encryption. Use of proprietary signaling technology does not meet the legal or regulatory definitions of encryption, which is defined as a method designed and used to conceal the content and meaning of radio transmissions. That is not the purpose of digital radio on ham or any other frequencies.
If DMR constituted encryption for the reasons you stated, then the first ham experimenters with Packet, PSK31, or any other form of digital transmission would have been breaking the law.
I don't understand your point. Encryption is not allowed in the ham bands, regardless of what radio you have.
N4KVE
Member
So back in the days of AM, SSB was encryption. LOL.
needairtime
Member
Digital in itself is not "encryption" but if the codec is secret, it may well be encryption because it's no longer interoperable. Broadcasting voice in PCM format is not encryption because anyone could pick out the bits and decode the voice without breaking the law. If it's encoded by some proprietary codec, now this is problematic as if someone figures out how to decode/encode it, it would be illegal due to patent laws. If they didn't figure out how to encode/decode it, it may well be encryption as you can't figure out what is encoded in the content.
The real worry is people thinking "hey, we have digital... and if we just add this secret proprietary bit here and there and so, now we have private communications and nobody will know we're conducting business transactions over ham radio...
SSB seemed like encryption but it was well known what the radio was doing, if you knew the electronics you can design an SSB transceiver. Actually I thought using an AM demodulator you could still sort of make out SSB so it's not nearly as bad.
The real worry is people thinking "hey, we have digital... and if we just add this secret proprietary bit here and there and so, now we have private communications and nobody will know we're conducting business transactions over ham radio...
SSB seemed like encryption but it was well known what the radio was doing, if you knew the electronics you can design an SSB transceiver. Actually I thought using an AM demodulator you could still sort of make out SSB so it's not nearly as bad.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Encryption can't be used if the intent is to obscure communications. But there are some digital modulation methods where the use of encryption or "scrambling" the payload data will cause the peak power and occupied bandwidth to remain constant, regardless of the ones or zeros density of the payload.
In that case, the modulation and encoding algorithms are made part of the station records, and the station is identified in the clear. That's likely already part of many IP mesh networks out there. It's built into the radios.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Yes, I know that, and that it's allowed for satellite control uplinks. Those are beside the point of the posting I was answering - I think.
But digital access modes ARE allowed and NOT encrypted. I suppose all of us Amateurs who like to learn new things, new technologies and operating modes should just go away so those who don't like/don't want/cant afford digital equipment can have the bands all to themselves.
We should all go back to our Navy Keys and forget voice modes, too.
Folks, let's get back to the original topic...the need for a universal key issued after confirmation of license to thwart people boot-legging callsigns on VoIP systems.
K5MPH
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,693
- Reaction score
- 275
Very well said Im with you on that one.....But, but, but, what about the poor guy who is stuck in a vinyl village house where the HOA says he can't have any outside antennas. He needs DMR/D-STAR/System Fusion in order to talk around the world. Clearly, you don't get it.
More and more, I'm beginning to like the idea of a group of DMR repeater operators funding their own C Bridge so they can run their own network. To heck with these world-wide networks. Serve the local community first.
But, I'm probably getting off topic for this thread.
bill4long
Member
Data going over the internet has nothing to do with Part 97 restrictions on encryption. It's what is actually transmitted on amateur frequencies is what matters. That cannot be encrypted.
Last edited:
bill4long
Member
Of course you can. You can buy a radio that has the codec in it and use that to decode the digital signal. Or buy the codec chip and design your own board to decode it. The codecs are readily available.
The FCC has no problem with the AMBE codecs, so this is all moot anyway.
Last edited:
needairtime
Member
That's the problem, it's impossible to build your own without licensing from a single source (buying the chip/radio is licensing). FCC is making a mistake in this regard, people should be vigilant about this problem and not buy into single source hardware.
Except people say Ooh! Ahh! and ignore the technical aspects of their rights taken away, being forced to pay "taxes" to DVSI.
Except people say Ooh! Ahh! and ignore the technical aspects of their rights taken away, being forced to pay "taxes" to DVSI.
N4KVE
Member
Well, they own the patent. Many people say the same thing about being forced to pay "taxes" to Moto for their CPS. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
That's not my point. My point is, there are some technical reasons why a data stream might need to be encrypted for purposes other than to obscure the message. In those cases, encryption across Part 97 frequencies would be permissible with appropriate notation in the station record.
I used the mesh networks as an example of radios that probably scramble the payload , on top of any other WEP (or whatever) encryption protocols.
- Status
