FCC Opens Rulemaking to Allow Encryption in Amateur Radio Service

[rdale]

Ok I am going to put my two cents worth in to this fourm.
For all of you NO HAM operators you need to read a book on the rules we have to follow and for all of you HAM OPERATORS YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ THE SECTION OF THE FCC RULES THAT STATES THAT! I know its in there cause I read it more then once and was quized on it more then once not only on the pratice test but also on the Actual test.

73's

I think you lost two cents in the process This is a proposal to change the rules.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Skywarn is not ARES, nor does Skywarn depend on ARES - or even ham radio - to operate.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[DaveNF2G]

NOTE: This thread was started on June 23rd. The ARRL Letter of June 20th, (three days prior) carried the same news and was widely distributed all over the world. It was not exactly hard-to-find, the news was already being talked about on the amateur radio discussion outlets besides rr.com.

And your point is...? There is nothing that says or implies that the RR.com News and Announcements Forum is for matters that are "hard to find" or not already being discussed elsewhere.

{Note: the title is not correct, the FCC has NOT opened a Rule Making, they Might but so far they have NOT done that }

You have just tired out your fingers for no reason. Nobody disputes anything you said. If you had taken the time to read the entire thread before commenting, you would have noted that I (the OP) and others have already corrected the initial error.

 

[w2xab]

Encryption is not all bad!

The NPRM for encryption in the Amateur Radio Service is NOT a bad thing, it is in support of our public safety communications support. It is very limited in scope and I guess some encryption will be allowed after venting all the pros and cons of the proposal.

Some encryption in Part 97 is already allowed for Space telecommand. With the movement towards digital formats (D-Star, DMR, P25), a listener has to have specialized gear to even receive and decode the different formats.

I have seen 1.2 GHz D-Star users (using ID-1s) surf the web through amateur radio, using HTTPS; this is encrypted and you could argue illegal under Part 97.

 

[WB4CS]

I have seen 1.2 GHz D-Star users (using ID-1s) surf the web through amateur radio, using HTTPS; this is encrypted and you could argue illegal under Part 97.

That's a stretch, a very long reaching stretch.

The petition for a rule change is for encrypted voice, not data.
With the correct software it is completely possible to sniff data packets and view the contents of https web traffic. I do this all day at my job, so this I know. Therefore, https is not a form of encryption that Part 97 bans. (In my opinion, your mileage may vary.)

 

[lep]

And your point is...? There is nothing that says or implies that the RR.com News and Announcements Forum is for matters that are "hard to find" or not already being discussed elsewhere.



You have just tired out your fingers for no reason. Nobody disputes anything you said. If you had taken the time to read the entire thread before commenting, you would have noted that I (the OP) and others have already corrected the initial error.

Actually I did read the entire thread. A number of folks made comments which 'disputed' what I said. I would not have bothered to comment if there had not been so much erroneous info posted. It would not serve a useful purpose to list all the wrong stuff, but in summary, these comments by various posters were not correct:


1. suggestion that ARRL was ignoring the matter by delaying mentioning it until the comment period was almost over for some unspecified reason.
2. comment that the original post was a 'nice catch' as if it was the original source of info on the assignment of an RM number when the notice of the RM had already been widely circulated.
3. confusion of what an NPRM is and the present proceeding has not (yet) risen to that.

Actually, all I have to do is Tell my iPAD what I want to 'type' and I can save me fingers from getting tired.

 

[KF4ZMB]

Of course, nobody proposed encrypting that. Someone else proposed that those things would be encrypted, and I said no. Then it was mentioned that ARES don't provide critical information, and I posted areas where I think hams are critical.

I recognize that nobody thus far has proposed encrypting it, and I also recognize that you stated your opinion that it would not be encrypted. I also have no doubt that what ever emergency management agency you are a part of would not seek to encrypt that traffic. However (with no disrespect meant) you cannot speak for all agencies nor every situation. That was, I believe, the point the other person was making. Again, I mean no disrespect by this but many of your posts seem to assume that just because you, as an emergency management professional, would or would not do something means that no other emergency management professional would ever do different. As anyone who has ever worked in public safety, emergency management, or emergency communications can attest many times decisions are made that make absolutely no sense and do not follow best practices. I have 13 years experience working in public safety (and volunteered in public safety for 2 years prior to that). I have also previously worked in a EOC and directly for the EM team at that location, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that they would not have seen eye to eye with all of your claims. This is just the way life is. Everyone has an opinion and that is fine, but I feel it is a little illogical to assume that anyone can make a statement about what everyone else would or would not do. Absolute statements like "no one would ..." or "every one would ..." are rarely accurate or provable. We can all comment on our own situation, organizations, etc. but not for everyone else.

Respectfully,
Christian KF4ZMB

 

[KF4ZMB]

Skywarn is not ARES, nor does Skywarn depend on ARES - or even ham radio - to operate.

Apples and Oranges.

I would agree that they are different, and that SkyWarn is not exclusively amateur radio. However, in the part of the country I live in it is amateur radio that handles all the SkyWarn traffic. If this statment was made in response to my SkyWarn comment the issue I was trying to bring to light is what would be classified an emergency by each individual agency. I agree that ARES and SkyWarn are different. One of the key points of this whole discussion, however, was that emergency management/public safety/government groups would be the ones who might need to pass sensitive information via amateur radio (a very unlikely event in my opinion and experience) in which case they, not the amateur radio community, would be the one to determine which emergencies required encryption and which did not. So, my point was, if this decision was left up to the EOC or EM staff, what might they decide was or was not an emergency or what was or was not "sensitive". I still see it as highly unlikely that in most, if not all, situations amateur radios would be used to pass sensitive information. Simply put it is a huge liability issue, and a major risk of leakage, because you are asking a volunteer to be responsible for sensitive information to begin with. One could argue that in the event of a major emergency at a hospital that the volunteers who normally give directions, etc. might be used in other areas, but I seriously doubt, regardless of their level of training, that they would be used in any direct patient contact or high liability areas. The same is true in this case I believe. If amateur radios were needed to replace any EM, EOC, or public safety communications on this scale I would assume that they would be used to pass the non-sensitive information. As others have pointed out, if the situation became such that all public safety repeaters were inoperable then it is a good chance that amateur radio repeaters would probably also be inoperable. In that case for longer distance ops we might be looking at HF communications, or a relay type system where operators are placed at strategic locations to forward comms around the area. In both of these cases the situation would have gotten so bad that one has to wonder how many volunteers, amateur radio or otherwise, would be willing to, or even could, come out. Passing information such as the location of fatalities in an encrypted mode is really uncalled for. If the situation is such that any repeaters still work the chance is that cell phone towers also still work, so the public, media, etc. will find this out through other means. As a more recent example, I would assume that more people, even those in Boston, heard first about the marathon bombing via cell phones, social media, etc. than did by monitoring Boston radio comms. That is just the facts of the age. Almost everyone carries around their own "radio" known as a cell phone.

Christian KF4ZMB

 

[KF4ZMB]

2. comment that the original post was a 'nice catch' as if it was the original source of info on the assignment of an RM number when the notice of the RM had already been widely circulated..

Not to be picky here, but it is entirely possible that the person who said it was a nice catch is not as well read on the other boards (maybe doesn't read any of them), so this might be the only place they would hear about it. That doesn't mean it wasn't listed other places first, but it could mean that this is the first place they have seen it. As an example, I used to work with a man who said he was probably "one of the last people in the world to hear that JFK had been assassinated". He said were he was working at during the time he worked by himself, he did not have a radio, and he had no contact with anyone else until he came in for the day. When he did so he learned from a person that "the President just got killed in Dallas". It shocked him so bad that he ran to the closest phone to call his mother to tell her "before she heard it from someone else". Of course when he made the call he found out that almost everyone else had known about it for hours. It was new information to him, but older information to others. That could be the case in this situation as well.

Christian KF4ZMB

 

[PJH]

For the hosptial discussion, do we really want to see this roll up?

 

[jparks29]

The chebby actually doesn't look that bad.... secure from the elements (inside), should have a genset, elevated antenna mounting platform, etc. The antenna on the roof of the cab is questionable though, as I'm sure that mass of metal behind it will not only cause a HUGE null, but also cause a poor SWR reading.

The 60's RV is a joke, they even put the flag on backwards...

 

[SCPD]

Yeah we don't want the "public" to know anything during an "Emergency"!

The advantages are many... For starters, if primary comms for emergency managers are down, they can use the ham bands to pass messages along without media or scanner listeners getting it (wrong) and passing along to the public.

Just because the public hears it, doesn't meant they'll get it "wrong".

 

[rdale]

Remember I spent 12 years in Tv news. You wouldn't believe the number of times the public called in a tidbit they heard from the scanner which barely resembled what actually was said.

Heck, many of our reporters did the same

 

[DaveNF2G]

I've spent over 50 years watching TV news and can't count the number of times I've watched coverage of an event that barely resembled the actual event. They might have gotten the location correct...

 

[wa4zko]

Dittos

Oh this is going to be good....I'm up to 2 pages so far.

I'm just getting started too. Some food for thought whether you agree or not....

http://kypn.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/winlink-is-after-encryption-again/

Discussion here doesn't reach the eyes of the FCC. I would encourage those with concerns about this to take a few minutes, document your comments on this (pro or con), and submit them to the FCC here:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=r63ev

No need to be overly fancy or lawyer like. Just be sure to make it clear that you are commenting on the filing # RM-11699 , state clearly that you are FOR or AGAINST what is being proposed, date it, include your name, callsign, address, and upload it. You can give as little or as much commentary as you wish.


73
WA4ZKO

 

[MTS2000des]

For the hosptial discussion, do we really want to see this roll up?

That's so like the clowns who insist they are psychic and "just know" when we need them.

If I see these whackers rolling up our ED ramp, I will order the facility on lockdown!

 

[KF4ZMB]

For the hosptial discussion, do we really want to see this roll up?

I completely understand (and agree with) the point you are making here. In all seriousness, however, during the time I spent working in emergency communications/public safety/emergency management I have seen some "official" government emergency communications vehicles that make these look like top notch setups. No joke. I know of at least one place that used an old school bus for mobile emergency communications. It was still yellow, still had the Blue Bird logo on the side of it, had the "STOP" sign still on the side of it, had black spray paint covering up whatever school districts name had been on the side of it, and had a logo from the local EMA on the back emergency exit door. The inside setup? They had removed some of the seats, and basically screwed folding tables in their place. The communications officers had to use handheld radios and notebooks (the spiral variety) to record information. So, maybe that is the same thing in these places. Maybe the old blue RV is a "step up" over the other emergency communications vehicle.

Christian KF4ZMB

 

[990adv]

You know, I always wondered what type of citizen would want to spy on some other citizen, abuse their Constitutional rights, read their e-mail, track them via gps etc.

Now I think I know. Who the ---- do you think you are saying that some things need to be kept from the citizens? Military secrets maybe but information after a disaster or major crime? I detect an elitist, us vs them, we know better mindset.

How about this scenario. "Hey Dr Smith, we better not tell this pt he has a terminal illnes. He might go do something crazy like rob a bank, kill an ex wife or run up credit card bills." Not many people would argue if I said that would be immoral. This is essentially what you give as justification to keep the public in the dark. We cannot be trusted with the truth.

Regrding HIPAA. Our hospital has a policy of giving bedside report. That means the RN leaving gives report to the RN coming on at the bedside. Rooms are not private. Family members are in the room of the pt and his roommate. Everybody hears everything. HIPAA has an exemption for this but do you really think more people are really going to hear more of your private health information over a very limited radio transmission or two RNs talking for 10 minutes at length about your past medical hx and what brought you into the hospital this time? This is not to say I agree with the disclosure of information at the bedside, I think it is horrible. I just bring this up to put things into perspective.

 

[rdale]

Now I think I know. Who the ---- do you think you are saying that some things need to be kept from the citizens? Military secrets maybe but information after a disaster or major crime? I detect an elitist, us vs them, we know better mindset.

No, I detect a conspiracy theorist gone off the edge. Not every tidbit of information collected during a disaster or crime is fit for public consumption. The reasons SHOULD be obvious...

 

[MTS2000des]

No, I detect a conspiracy theorist gone off the edge. Not every tidbit of information collected during a disaster or crime is fit for public consumption. The reasons SHOULD be obvious...

and that is why your part 90 encrypted radios (which there are no HAM transceivers that I am aware of capable of encryption) should be used with encryption on part 90 frequencues/systems.

and please don't give me this "when all else fails" whacker mantra, if you and your ARES buddies can AFFORD encrypted digital radios, you can certainly AFFORD the infrastrcuture and part 90 licenses that go with it.