FCC Opens Rulemaking to Allow Encryption in Amateur Radio Service

[WayneH]

Again encryption on the ham bands is a good idea, if they can do it then so can we.

You've said you were done with this thread multiple times. If you still must persist in this thread, that's nearing 400 posts, please make a useful contribution that's not already been covered. Vague, single sentence posts only enlarge the thread and make it more difficult to read.

 

[jparks29]

^^^ This!

Negative.

I've already posted how encryption is legal.

Using a published encryption type (DES/AES,etc) with a public key is not 'obscuring or hiding' the message, it's simply another digital format to experiment with.

Anyone with the proper equipment can access it, nothing different than P25 or D*star.

 

[sc800]

I would be very interested in what the actual "emergency" communications were. Nets passing numbers in shelters, radio checks, etc are not emergency communications. Reports identifying new, updates or current conditions of emergency conditions such as people traped, lost, missing, track of tornadeos and expected track, etc sure. Medical emergencies located at shelters could be considerd if no EMS personnal are on location or as to the basic info i.e. adult female with breathing problems. Maybe age but not much more than that need be sent via radio to a net control. Any additional could be considered a violation of federal HIPPA laws since the net control is not a medical control and has no need for that info. If long term records are kept maybe a local log, but must be secured, could be maintained and if a hospital is in the loop in the net could be sent via cell or landline phone, not radio unless emergency medical care is required and they are needed for immediate assistance in patient care, otherwise once again a violation in HIPPA laws. With all that being said why would encryption be needed. We do not use encryption when contacting hospitals from ambulances. Using any form of encryption would also pose a problem with identification requirements. If no one can hear your ID then you have not identified as required. There are many issues against the use of crypto on the HAM bands. If you feel it is needed then use frequencies it may be used on. How about P25 narrow band, in the MURS channels and have encryption. Many say what if... Most professional communications systems have a redundant back up system and many have those individual repeaters in the trunking system built into radios for use in just that situation, if all systems were to fail. Just having a ham radio net will not satisfy any system if their system fails, only a single small temp solution. When all other forms of communications fail we have a much larger issue than encryption, so I ask why? I see it as a bad idea. Well I hope my tid bit can be understood, I write as I think. Either way im sure there are people who will try and change my thoughts in this. Encryption is a bad idea, encoding maybe ok, but why? There should be no reason to pass personal info of people via ham radio. If need to then maybe use an info encoding system.

Do not confuse me being against the use of crypto as me being against any ECOM Group.

Amateur Radio is not covered by HIPAA. HIPAA not only has specific exceptions to it for radio communications but also only applies to what it calls "covered entities". Those are medical providers who bill health insurance. Since I doubt the local ARES, REACT, RACES group is billing health insurance or are even considered medical providers, HIPAA doesn't even apply.

 

[Chris45]

Tell you what to do?

Chris, You can't tell me what to do and what not to do. You and the very few here don't run what the FCC does on this encryption issue. The FCC doesn't see a problem with it so neither should you

My apologies! I did not intend to publicly upset you. But nowhere on this issue have I tried to tell you or the FCC what to do. However, I can tell you what I and others concerned with such a travesty to amateur radio can and may do. We certainly can legislate against this and seek the growing support of both government and public safety agencies opposed to encryption on the amateur radio airways.

This is not telling you what to do, rather providing you with something to think about.

 

[PJH]

No one has actually challenged this to the FCC to my knowledge. I do recall an opinoin either from the ARRL or FCC that stated as such, but was really frowned upon.

Part of the issue is the lack of real access. How many people are going to ID the 26 +/- HEX key over the radio in a way that someone can write it down? Then with a public key, its really not encyption to in even the least strict sense. DES was achived by coverting the voice into a digital format, then applying the DES encyption with the reverse process on the other end. That was all done on the chip. Today's radios in the digital formats have to do almost none of that (hence the better voice quaility). The DSP and DVSI chip already convert the voice and the chip or software based algo just applies the ENC to the digital data.

DES (not -XL) and AES are they only "open source" types out there, and your really not "experimenting", you are playing.

Unless you are developing your own algo for the ham crowd (and you have a PhD in mathmatcs), it wouldn't really be classified as experimenting in any form.

Would you call test driving a car a true experiment? Your kicking the data bits or kicking the tires, but the concept of transmitting or the concept of driving the car has already been proven.

Negative.

I've already posted how encryption is legal.

Using a published encryption type (DES/AES,etc) with a public key is not 'obscuring or hiding' the message, it's simply another digital format to experiment with.

Anyone with the proper equipment can access it, nothing different than P25 or D*star.

 

[zz0468]

Again encryption on the ham bands is a good idea...

I have yet to see any compelling arguments as to why this should be allowed. Would you care to elaborate with something other than conjecture and your ill-informed opinion?

...if they can do it then so can we.

Who is "we"? You refer to yourself as a former ham in a previous post. What's your stake here as a "former ham"?

But just because "they" (I presume you mean part 90 users?) get encryption doesn't automatically mean hams should. It's two different services with two different purposes. Hams have privileges that no other service gets, which is a pretty good indicator that different services are treated differently, a point you seem to fail to grasp.

 

[zz0468]

Part of the issue is the lack of real access. How many people are going to ID the 26 +/- HEX key over the radio in a way that someone can write it down?

Adding to the complexity, even with a known key, not many amateurs are going to have access to the necessary hardware such as keyloaders, to enter the publicly known key. This would render an encrypted transmission pretty much unbreakable except to governments and an elite few with access to the necessary tools.

But why bother?

In the case of some of the previously mentioned examples where confidential patient data might be passed via ham radio from hospital to hospital, why not do that via a microwave channel? It's going to be about as secure as it needs to be, it operates entirely and unambiguously within the rules, and it puts some spectrum to use that we badly need to defend.

 

[jparks29]

No one has actually challenged this to the FCC to my knowledge. I do recall an opinoin either from the ARRL or FCC that stated as such, but was really frowned upon.

Part of the issue is the lack of real access. How many people are going to ID the 26 +/- HEX key over the radio in a way that someone can write it down? Then with a public key, its really not encyption to in even the least strict sense. DES was achived by coverting the voice into a digital format, then applying the DES encyption with the reverse process on the other end. That was all done on the chip. Today's radios in the digital formats have to do almost none of that (hence the better voice quaility). The DSP and DVSI chip already convert the voice and the chip or software based algo just applies the ENC to the digital data.

DES (not -XL) and AES are they only "open source" types out there, and your really not "experimenting", you are playing.

Unless you are developing your own algo for the ham crowd (and you have a PhD in mathmatcs), it wouldn't really be classified as experimenting in any form.

Would you call test driving a car a true experiment? Your kicking the data bits or kicking the tires, but the concept of transmitting or the concept of driving the car has already been proven.

I will agree with the 'playing around' part. Although if one was serious, one could go out and do measurements/calculations on reduction of range on various modes, Ie analog Vs IMBE Vs TDMA Vs AES et al.

Personally, I think ID'ing in the clear is a reasonable compromise. When I'm operating DV/P25 CAI/IMBE, I ID in analog... That way the old crotchety people know the freq is actually being used, and not jammed/interfered with. I've been accused of 'interference' when using an MDC trailing PTT ID, strictly because someone thought it was AX.25 packets, and couldn't read it with their APRS/packet setup.. on 146.52...

I, personally, don't see a problem with crypto on the ham bands, provided that IDs are in the in the clear, or, are in some way tied to the radio, like a soft ID on P25, for example.

 

[jparks29]

why not do that via a microwave channel? It's going to be about as secure as it needs to be, it operates entirely and unambiguously within the rules, and it puts some spectrum to use that we badly need to defend.

Good suggestion, except MW is usually point to point, fixed site.

It has its uses, as a backhaul, or linking channel, but that's about it, IMO.

Hell, there's a local repeater system that ties in half of the state I'm in. Most sites are completely self contained, solar/battery/gen, co-located with commercial setups, and most on mountain tops/ridges.

It has its uses...

I would vote more for 220 for hidden in plain sight kind of stuff. Best of both VHF and UHF worlds, IMO.

 

[zz0468]

Good suggestion, except MW is usually point to point, fixed site.

It has its uses, as a backhaul, or linking channel, but that's about it, IMO.

You're grossly underestimating it's utility. Microwave is quite capable of being multipoint on non-line of site paths, particularly if the bandwidth is kept narrow. A SSB microwave circuit will be comparable to daytime 40 meter performance. A NFM (5 KHz dev) circuit will outperform 2 meter FM if the radios have decent performance. And secure? No scanner listener or SWL will ever hear it. They wouldn't think to.

I really don't understand why the ARES/emcomm types haven't embraced this concept yet. The weak signal guys have proven time and time again how well it can work.

BTW, there are two amateur television systems operating in southern California that operate on microwave frequencies with omni-directional antennas. They are the definition of multipoint operation, and work quite well.

I would vote more for 220 for hidden in plain sight kind of stuff. Best of both VHF and UHF worlds, IMO.

I'm not really sure that solves the "problem".

 

[PJH]

Measurements and calculations are all known. Pick up any white papaer from DVSI, Motorola, Harris etc and all the work has been done.

No one is "experimenting" with this stuff.

It all comes down to:

-The FCC filing was based off of misunderstood information
-Ham radio is not a replacement for public safety
-Ham radio does not require end to end encryption of the RF signal to support public safety
-Ham radio is not intended for tactical public safety communications
-Ham radio has survived for just over 100 years without encyption of the RF signal during major world wars, regional and local disasters while supporting health and welfare traffic

Ham radio is valuable to organizations in a support role for healh/welfare traffic
Ham radio can be utilitzed to help accomplish non-emergency administrative traffic
Ham radio can be deployed to areas that need supplemental non-emergency comms
Ham radio can work within established parameters under the unified chain of command as a support branch

None of the above requires emergency lights, traffic arrows, sirens, encypted radios, repelling gear, parachutes or the Easter Bunny. It is an AUXILLARY service of the ARRL and FCC rules to help out the fellow human being.

Its another version of the Boy Scouts for grown ups.

 

[PJH]

Want to talk about high freq use and coolnes, Dex (a retired Long Lines guy) does some outstanding work in the GHz.

W4DEX Radio Page

 

[jparks29]

You're grossly underestimating it's utility. Microwave is quite capable of being multipoint on non-line of site paths, particularly if the bandwidth is kept narrow. A SSB microwave circuit will be comparable to daytime 40 meter performance.

5Ghz?10Ghz? NLOS? At what power levels? GPS L1 is 1.5ghz, 25W with a 13dbi antenna, last time I checked, which is pretty much LOS, although ERP would be ~500W, but path loss is horrendous.

You make an interesting point, I'll have to research MW a bit more.

I'm not really sure that solves the "problem".

You haven't heard about the Motorola APX2200 yet? Blinks red/blue LEDs when receiving, comes with a bright orange vest holster.

 

[jparks29]

Measurements and calculations are all known. Pick up any white papaer from DVSI, Motorola, Harris etc and all the work has been done.

No one is "experimenting" with this stuff.

It all comes down to:

-The FCC filing was based off of misunderstood information
-Ham radio is not a replacement for public safety
-Ham radio does not require end to end encryption of the RF signal to support public safety
-Ham radio is not intended for tactical public safety communications
-Ham radio has survived for just over 100 years without encyption of the RF signal during major world wars, regional and local disasters while supporting health and welfare traffic

Ham radio is valuable to organizations in a support role for healh/welfare traffic
Ham radio can be utilitzed to help accomplish non-emergency administrative traffic
Ham radio can be deployed to areas that need supplemental non-emergency comms
Ham radio can work within established parameters under the unified chain of command as a support branch

None of the above requires emergency lights, traffic arrows, sirens, encypted radios, repelling gear, parachutes or the Easter Bunny. It is an AUXILLARY service of the ARRL and FCC rules to help out the fellow human being.

Its another version of the Boy Scouts for grown ups.

Agree with all the above.

 

[zz0468]

5Ghz?10Ghz? NLOS? At what power levels?

A lot of interesting work is being done at 10 GHz, much of it at the 1 watt level. The heavy hitters run tens of watts and can work 400-500 miles and more without propagation help. 5.8 GHz would be similar. NLOS paths over 10,000 foot mountains is routine. Lower frequencies, particularly 2.3 and 5.8 would be useful because of plentiful hardware intended for the 802.11 market.

GPS L1 is 1.5ghz, 25W with a 13dbi antenna, last time I checked, which is pretty much LOS, although ERP would be ~500W, but path loss is horrendous.

It's also direct sequence spread spectrum, which artificially enhances system gain when it's re-correlated, which is how it can be so reliable with small receive antennas.

You make an interesting point, I'll have to research MW a bit more.

Like I said, I'm surprised the emcomm people aren't already doing it. It's not the answer to everything, but it's an undervalued resource that could answer a whole lot of concerns expressed in this thread without a change of rules, and without the controversy.

You haven't heard about the Motorola APX2200 yet? Blinks red/blue LEDs when receiving, comes with a bright orange vest holster.

LOL... that thing is hideous.

 

[MTS2000des]

Measurements and calculations are all known. Pick up any white papaer from DVSI, Motorola, Harris etc and all the work has been done.

No one is "experimenting" with this stuff.

It all comes down to:

-The FCC filing was based off of misunderstood information
-Ham radio is not a replacement for public safety
-Ham radio does not require end to end encryption of the RF signal to support public safety
-Ham radio is not intended for tactical public safety communications
-Ham radio has survived for just over 100 years without encyption of the RF signal during major world wars, regional and local disasters while supporting health and welfare traffic

Ham radio is valuable to organizations in a support role for healh/welfare traffic
Ham radio can be utilitzed to help accomplish non-emergency administrative traffic
Ham radio can be deployed to areas that need supplemental non-emergency comms
Ham radio can work within established parameters under the unified chain of command as a support branch

None of the above requires emergency lights, traffic arrows, sirens, encypted radios, repelling gear, parachutes or the Easter Bunny. It is an AUXILLARY service of the ARRL and FCC rules to help out the fellow human being.

Its another version of the Boy Scouts for grown ups.

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT....BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER.
This is EXACTLY what I would have said.

My apologies for any outbursts at certain others. Emotions aside, this issue is simple and PJH hit a home run.

I won't say another word because this post above is THE FINAL WORD(s) as far as I am concerned. I already submitted my comments to the FCC two weeks ago.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Again, you don't give us talking points on exactly why. The stuff you have brought up has already been covered and unnesseary/repetitive, etc.

Right now your just trolling.

Right now?

How about always?

LOL

 

[N4DES]

Measurements and calculations are all known. Pick up any white papaer from DVSI, Motorola, Harris etc and all the work has been done.

No one is "experimenting" with this stuff.

It all comes down to:

-The FCC filing was based off of misunderstood information
-Ham radio is not a replacement for public safety
-Ham radio does not require end to end encryption of the RF signal to support public safety
-Ham radio is not intended for tactical public safety communications
-Ham radio has survived for just over 100 years without encyption of the RF signal during major world wars, regional and local disasters while supporting health and welfare traffic

Ham radio is valuable to organizations in a support role for healh/welfare traffic
Ham radio can be utilitzed to help accomplish non-emergency administrative traffic
Ham radio can be deployed to areas that need supplemental non-emergency comms
Ham radio can work within established parameters under the unified chain of command as a support branch

None of the above requires emergency lights, traffic arrows, sirens, encypted radios, repelling gear, parachutes or the Easter Bunny. It is an AUXILLARY service of the ARRL and FCC rules to help out the fellow human being.

Its another version of the Boy Scouts for grown ups.

Absolutely!!!!

 

[alexmahoney]

Again, you don't give us talking points on exactly why. The stuff you have brought up has already been covered and unnesseary/repetitive, etc.

Right now your just trolling.

I will say it again,stop referring to me and others as TROLLS! This is downright nerve racking to say the least.

if you can't figure out the Good points to encryption then i don't know what else to do.

 

[alexmahoney]

Absolutely!!!!

Not quite people.

The above points are totally inconclusive and some are just downright wrong.

Hams are called upon to assist police, fire and govt organizations every day. You just don't hear about it thru mainstream channels.

Encryption on the ham bands is totally needed to get back at the public safety agencies and the govt so they can learn that they can't walk all over the general public like that.

Encryption also helps in plenty of emergency situations where it is needed that public safety radio can't go.

The FCC put that rulemaking process out there because they saw something positive in it that you guys do not see.

some of you still do NOT get that public safety agencies don't always have other backup alternatives to their main comms.