WB4CS: You might want to further elaborate as to what you see as a conspiracy theory. Also, if you would have read some of the first replies, people were elaborating on dispatch services utilizing encryption. My post was merrily to correct people making those early comments, as well as to further guide those people to the supposedly correct thread.
FCC Opens Rulemaking to Allow Encryption in Amateur Radio Service
- Status
The ONLY and I mean ONLY thing I can see a need for encryption in amateur radio is when a shelter and hospital or hospital to hospital are communicating about certain persons and any medical condition / medications.
Other than that, this is nothing but crap!
kg9nn
Member
The backdoor code wouldn't be instantiated by the end-user. It would be hard coded into the algorithm, perhaps with a time-domain variable much the same way the Clipper chip works or the way Microsoft's enterprise disk encryption works. The master code doesn't enable the use of the algorithm, it provides a side channel into the algorithm. You can use the algorithm without knowing the backdoor code, similar to how a person can use a public key to encrypt a message which can only be deciphered with the corresponding private key.
I think the most important points you made are: how secure is a crypto-system with a side-channel? I'd say "good enough for who it's for"; we're doing disaster relief not national security.
N4CA
Member
I think you make a good point. I think one of the difficulties is how do you self-regulate the communications when you can't decode the communications?
How do you know that it's an authorized person? Maybe the rule would be that the operator would have to ID in the clear every ten minutes (I think someone else proposed this earlier).
How do you prevent people from doing something against the rules (profiting, playing music, cursing, discussing illegal activities, etc.)? That gets a little more difficult.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Last edited:
k7ltc
Member
Send the FCC Your Comments
I do not agree with the argument for encrypting either. I see no practical way it can be done. If an agency has a true need for a Ham to pass them confidential radio traffic they would probably provide them a radio that is capable of doing so and take the radio back when the emergency passes.
I already sent the FCC my comments on the proposal and stated why I thought the proposal was impractical and offered a couple of ways to pass traffic without encrypting ham radios. I recommend others offer their comments to the FCC as well.
I do not agree with the argument for encrypting either. I see no practical way it can be done. If an agency has a true need for a Ham to pass them confidential radio traffic they would probably provide them a radio that is capable of doing so and take the radio back when the emergency passes.
I already sent the FCC my comments on the proposal and stated why I thought the proposal was impractical and offered a couple of ways to pass traffic without encrypting ham radios. I recommend others offer their comments to the FCC as well.
I agree whole heartedly that we would be doing disaster relief not national security, but therein lies the entire issue. Other commentors on this board have suggested that encrypted amateur radios would be needed to pass sensitive (i.e. national security) information. Some have suggested, loosely, that encryption would be needed to prevent a HIPPA violation during a disaster, but as has been shown HIPPA does not prevent the transmission of medical information in the clear to medical responders (even if it can be monitored by others). Of course the whole HIPPA argument, which I understand not everyone took part in, totally misses the point that medical comms in a disaster will most likely be in the clear to begin with. Why? Well because not every EMS or medical team participating is going to have the encryption keys nor even be using the same systems. ABC Ambulance normally covers the area and so they have radios capable of communicating, even encrypted, with the local EOC/EM, but then they get overwhelmed so they call in DEF Ambulance for mutual aid from the next county. They have interoperability channels in place with ABC, but they don't have encryption capable radios so no encryption. Then as the situation progresses GHI Ambulance from clear across the state gets called in. They use an LTR system locally with no encryption, but they are way out of range of that system at this point. All they have available now are state or national interoperability channels again only in the clear (and in this case due to their radio set ups they only have the 400 MHz band interoperability channels). There seems to be a misconception on this discussion, again not by everyone, that during an emergency/disaster there would be a need for every responding assistance agency (public or private) to be able to conform to the radio system in place during normal day to day communications in the affected area. This is not the case. In most of these cases the transmissions would need to move to systems that allow for interoperability and this most often means no encryption and plain english. For example, 10-51 in this area of Georgia refers to a tow truck, but in Central Florida, for example, 10-51 means en route in most areas. So 10-codes, as anyone who has undertaken NIMS training can attest, would be an no-no in a disaster. The same goes for encryption. The argument that hams must be "prepared" to use encryption in an emergency or they would be turned away may on the surface seem to make sense, but when applied to real life situations it doesn't hold up. If not having encryption capable radios caused hams to be turned away by the local EOC/EM then they would also have to turn away many government and private first response agencies that would also be coming in to assist. So, like I say, I agree we would be doing disaster relief which does not even need to be encrypted, and would probably work better in the clear to begin with. National Security issues that might need to be encrypted will, as I stated previously, be handled by the agencies that would handle those things on a day to day basis anyway on the encrypted, if needed, systems, and redundant systems, they already have in place.
Christian KF4ZMB
n9upc
Member
Wow such a heated debate.....with good points and views from each side of the debate.
First we need to look at this from a logical and rational stand point. Can this issue create some issues and problems? Yes, it can but so can anything else that is past but this is not going to open flood gates like some people think that it will.
I look at it this way: If someone is going to use encryption illegally on the ham bands regardless if the provision is passed people are still going to use it illegally if they want to do so. I attribute this like the concealed carry debate in WI. I was told if the bill passes then criminals will carry guns. Guess what folks criminals have been carrying guns illegally long before the bill passed. (Insert gasp here!)
Now the part that I can see this spiraling out of control is if this handled in a blanket fashion such as yeah in times of emergency communications use encryption. So what defines emergency communications? What type of encryption? What are ID'ing requirements?
The amateur radio service already allows encryption for controlling amsats. But as it is defined it states for specific purposes. While I am not against it I am not one that feels that it must happen!
If it is defined with very strict parameters then I think that it can work well, if it is needed! It is just another from of communication technically. I have heard the Nexedge, iDas, Mototrbo, or even P25 is somewhat a form of encryption because someone can not monitor it on a regular standard radio.
I think that if a standard is created, implemented, and followed then as I said it could work. But, if it is a standard then people, even the general public, might even be able to listen to the comms. Yes, it is illegal to monitor encrypted comms people would still do it if they could. So does this defeat the purpose of encryption.
One last thought is that many Chinese import radios that are being used in the ham bands have encryption options in them as some people use it for more than amateur radio. Lets just wait and see what happens and voice your opinion as it can help see different views. Yet lets be good amateur radio operators and not start to flame or bash others because of their opinion or views in this matter.
First we need to look at this from a logical and rational stand point. Can this issue create some issues and problems? Yes, it can but so can anything else that is past but this is not going to open flood gates like some people think that it will.
I look at it this way: If someone is going to use encryption illegally on the ham bands regardless if the provision is passed people are still going to use it illegally if they want to do so. I attribute this like the concealed carry debate in WI. I was told if the bill passes then criminals will carry guns. Guess what folks criminals have been carrying guns illegally long before the bill passed. (Insert gasp here!)
Now the part that I can see this spiraling out of control is if this handled in a blanket fashion such as yeah in times of emergency communications use encryption. So what defines emergency communications? What type of encryption? What are ID'ing requirements?
The amateur radio service already allows encryption for controlling amsats. But as it is defined it states for specific purposes. While I am not against it I am not one that feels that it must happen!
If it is defined with very strict parameters then I think that it can work well, if it is needed! It is just another from of communication technically. I have heard the Nexedge, iDas, Mototrbo, or even P25 is somewhat a form of encryption because someone can not monitor it on a regular standard radio.
I think that if a standard is created, implemented, and followed then as I said it could work. But, if it is a standard then people, even the general public, might even be able to listen to the comms. Yes, it is illegal to monitor encrypted comms people would still do it if they could. So does this defeat the purpose of encryption.
One last thought is that many Chinese import radios that are being used in the ham bands have encryption options in them as some people use it for more than amateur radio. Lets just wait and see what happens and voice your opinion as it can help see different views. Yet lets be good amateur radio operators and not start to flame or bash others because of their opinion or views in this matter.
It's: HIPAA, fellas!
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act!!
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/laws/hipaa/Pages/1.00 WhatisHIPAA.aspx
Not a type of semi-aquatic land animal in Sub-Saharan Africa, for God's sake!!
Get it right!
Of course, I always get everything right...
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act!!
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/laws/hipaa/Pages/1.00 WhatisHIPAA.aspx
Not a type of semi-aquatic land animal in Sub-Saharan Africa, for God's sake!!
Get it right!
Of course, I always get everything right...
Last edited:
N4DES
Retired 0598 Czar ÆS Ø
What did you do just crawl out from under a rock???
You are totally incorrect.
You are totally incorrect.
It's: HIPAA, fellas!
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act!!
What is HIPAA
Not a type of semi-aquatic land animal in Sub-Saharan Africa, for God's sake!!
Get it right!
Of course, I always get everything right...
This particular time, I am correct.
It's HIPAA, not HIPPA.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/
I shall now crawl back under my very comfortable rock.
N4DES
Retired 0598 Czar ÆS Ø
Read post #6 and 3rd link down.
http://forums.radioreference.com/co...g-allow-encryption-amateur-radio-service.html
Q: Does the Privacy Rule require hospitals and doctors' offices to be retrofitted, to provide private rooms, and soundproof walls to avoid any possibility that a conversation is overheard?
A: No, the Privacy Rule does not require these types of structural changes be made to facilities.
Covered entities must have in place appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI. "Reasonable safeguards" mean that covered entities must make reasonable efforts to prevent uses and disclosures not permitted by the rule. The Department does not consider facility restructuring to be a requirement under this standard. In determining what is reasonable, the Department will take into account the concerns of covered entities regarding potential effects on patient care and financial burden.
For example, the Privacy Rule does not require the following types of structural or systems changes:
• Private rooms.
• Soundproofing of rooms.
• Encryption of wireless or other emergency medical radio communications which can be intercepted by scanners.
• Encryption of telephone systems
So yes...you are incorrect...
http://forums.radioreference.com/co...g-allow-encryption-amateur-radio-service.html
Q: Does the Privacy Rule require hospitals and doctors' offices to be retrofitted, to provide private rooms, and soundproof walls to avoid any possibility that a conversation is overheard?
A: No, the Privacy Rule does not require these types of structural changes be made to facilities.
Covered entities must have in place appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI. "Reasonable safeguards" mean that covered entities must make reasonable efforts to prevent uses and disclosures not permitted by the rule. The Department does not consider facility restructuring to be a requirement under this standard. In determining what is reasonable, the Department will take into account the concerns of covered entities regarding potential effects on patient care and financial burden.
For example, the Privacy Rule does not require the following types of structural or systems changes:
• Private rooms.
• Soundproofing of rooms.
• Encryption of wireless or other emergency medical radio communications which can be intercepted by scanners.
• Encryption of telephone systems
So yes...you are incorrect...
Last edited:
nd5y
Member
Jimru is trying to explain that many people on this forum can't spell HIPAA for some reason. It has one P and two As.
Health
Insurance
Portability
and
Accountability
Act
of 1996
Health
Insurance
Portability
and
Accountability
Act
of 1996
PJH
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,622
- Reaction score
- 87
What I think that many people in this thread has also tried to explain, is that its irrelavent how its spelled or that anything related really matters. This is why ham's take forever to get things accomplished as (like other groups) - focusing on the spec of dust laying out on the 4ft dirt pile.
We need to focus on the big picture first.
We need to focus on the big picture first.
That's all it was and apologies for yelling at y'all, too.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Doctor Smith needs to consult with Doctor Jones about Patient Sicky.
The hospital's Part 90 radios are inoperative. The cellphone network is overloaded, and the PSTN has no dial tone. The ham equipment is staffed, but not encryption capable.
How long do you think Doctors Smith and Jones are going to fret about encryption not being available before saving Patient Sicky's life?
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
When all else really fails, true whackers will be waving their radios and badges in everybody's faces.
Everybody else will be looking for food.
The whole discussion (and hobby) is totally irrelevant in the apocalyptic scenarios dreamt up to justify all sorts of ridiculous suggestions.
Everybody else will be looking for food.
The whole discussion (and hobby) is totally irrelevant in the apocalyptic scenarios dreamt up to justify all sorts of ridiculous suggestions.
Just one patient? If I was head of either hospital, I would be concerned about hundreds of patients. But then again, that's me; what do I know, since I'm probably one of those radical radio and badge waving "whackers" since I'm a member of ARES.
If the scenario were so bad where I live that the hospital's triple-redundancy system could not work; I would NOT be at the hospital (voluntarily, that is), I would be taking care of my 85 y.o. mom!
N1XDS
ÆS Ø
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,015
- Reaction score
- 218
I can see that as a option some people may like I would like to see that since some don't want someone else to know their dying and etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked