Is privacy on decentralized, wireless communication even a thing?

[n1das]

P25 Phase 2 requires a trunking system so not likely.

OK. Got it. Was wondering about that.

 

[natedawg1604]

LOL, I guess I'm one of those few hams in the country with P25 (Phase 1) capability on the 2m and 440 bands. I wonder if any hams are experimenting with P25 Phase 2. I used to have some Kenwood NEXEDGE (NXDN) portables on UHF. I mostly use DMR and plain old analog on the 2m and 440 bands.

My 900MHz DTR radios are used for non-ham stuff as my professional quality digital replacement for GMRS/FRS for local on-site simplex type use with family and friends.

Wow that's cool. I'm gonna venture to guess there are a very small number of people you can actually talk to on that P25 radio, right?

I wouldn't mind getting one, but first I'd have to convince other people to get one too...

 

[CivSIGID]

+1. FHSS looks like a really cool technology. Sure, it's secure for now, but I have a feeling that within a few decades technology will exist to monitor those, too.

I've done some more reading on why the military and many agencies who are capable of encryption don't use it; it's a major barrier to interoperability. Any security measure likely will be, and that's something to carefully consider. Still, I think we ought to have more options to implement it as individuals and I've yet to hear an argument against it that doesn't rely on appeals to authority.

You do know that the courts have consistently held that there is no implied privacy while transmitting on the public airwaves, right?

No, I don't know that. I know what the regs are, and I know that law-making is intended to be the purview of the legislative branch and NOT the courts. Our increasing habit of using the courts to permit alternative interpretations of plain-language law is a problem.

We technically DO NOT have a constitutional right to transmit on the public airwaves. This has been upheld by the FCC and the courts in many cases involving pirate radio broadcasting. Pirate broadcasters often believe they have a constitutional right to transmit on the public airwaves, but they don't. Transmitting on the air is a privilege, not a right. The Constitution is not at issue here.

I'm aware. However, it was my understanding that the regulation is only necessary insofar as to prevent the limited spectrum from turning into an unusable free-for-all. I believe there should be certain allocations that are "right-to-use" however one chooses, again pursuant to regulations on interference (though I had thought that was what the ham service was). That's all I'm really arguing for.

Radio listeners are not being nosey.

I agree. I never said they were.

The bottom line is if you want communications privacy, you have no business making an electromagnetic emission. IOW, stay out the radio spectrum.

-opinion noted...

 

[CivSIGID]

There are local, regional, and nationwide systems you and your friends/group can subscribe to and use whatever encryption your little hearts desire.

What are you referring to?

 

[CivSIGID]

So which is it? If you got your license for the "ability to communicate person-to-person without the use of networks in remote environments and under adverse conditions", then maintaining the license maintains this ability.

If you got your license for that reason, but only if it's private, then you are likely correct that Amateur Radio is not for you. But that also raises the question of why you demand privacy in every aspect of your radio use? The gov't. BTW, shares this sentiment, which is why encryption is prohibited in many radio services.

For one I don't "...demand privacy in every aspect of [my] radio use." And which sentiment? Presumption of guilt? Look, I realize there are legitmate concerns for interop as well as the spirit of the Ham community. I also don't think my statements were contradictory. The HA/V service is given certain privileges that differ from IG, DT, FD, etc. One of the conditions of an HA license is that anyone is entitled to listen to you. I accept that for HA (because few people could give a hot rip about what is usually being discussed there or don't know about it), but would like to have a license for something equally as capable that can be run on existing part 97 equipment. I'd support an additional endorsement and fee for a Ham license that allows encryption, or just a separate service altogether.

I would be curious as well, because I have met few people who are as distrusting of other people and our government as I am, yet your concern still seems just a bit odd to me.

See my reply to 2IR473. We are in uncertain times revealing black swan after black swan. We may never need these capabilities, but you may also be incredibly glad to have them since they might make the ultimate difference someday soon. I'd like to be wrong, but things have only been going from bad to worse lately. Being in my mid-20s leaves me a lot of life under "worse" circumstances, should this continue.

 

[jeepsandradios]

Wow that's cool. I'm gonna venture to guess there are a very small number of people you can actually talk to on that P25 radio, right?

Lot more folks use P25 in the ham world than you would think.... Been using it for 15 years myself...Hope to get my new P25 repeater on the air this winter.

 

[SmitHans]

If someone is running encrypted radios, how do you identify them out of the thousands of other radio signals out there to then find them?

It doesn't matter what they are transmitting, so long as they are transmitting, you can find the origin of the signal. An encrypted signal transmitting right next to me is going to swing my meter alot more than an encrypted signal 3 miles from me.

And if you can't hear their encrypted transmissions, how would you know they are something that needs finding? Then, what would you do once you found them, assuming they are the ones you are looking for even though you can't hear them?

Depends on your reasons for wanting to find them. Such as if a signal is causing interference to another source. For example, a local police dispatch center has complained that it has been difficult or impossible to communicate via radio because of interference. You find out that someone is transmitting encrypted communications at high power on the police dispatch frequency, and it is overpowering the dispatch center. It would be easy to find the source, and the source needs to be shut down due to interference with a legitimately assigned and used frequency. Doesn't matter that you cannot understand what is being said over the encrypted comms.

 

[SmitHans]

For one I don't "...demand privacy in every aspect of [my] radio use." And which sentiment? Presumption of guilt? Look, I realize there are legitmate concerns for interop as well as the spirit of the Ham community. I also don't think my statements were contradictory. The HA/V service is given certain privileges that differ from IG, DT, FD, etc. One of the conditions of an HA license is that anyone is entitled to listen to you. I accept that for HA (because few people could give a hot rip about what is usually being discussed there or don't know about it), but would like to have a license for something equally as capable that can be run on existing part 97 equipment. I'd support an additional endorsement and fee for a Ham license that allows encryption, or just a separate service altogether.

I asked which is it, because you first said that you got an Amateur license for "...the ability to communicate person-to-person without the use of networks in remote environments and under adverse conditions".

Then you went on about privacy, and the lack of it being a reason you won't renew the license. Two separate issues. As I said, if you got your license for the 1st reason, then you now have this ability, and maintaining your license will allow you to legally retain this ability and there's no point to further discussion. Apparently this was not your main reason for getting a license, as you have gone on about privacy & encryption, despite claiming to not want to start down that road. If the lack of full time privacy is a deal breaker for you, then you are right, an Amateur license doesn't do anything for you.

See my reply to 2IR473. We are in uncertain times revealing black swan after black swan. We may never need these capabilities, but you may also be incredibly glad to have them since they might make the ultimate difference someday soon. I'd like to be wrong, but things have only been going from bad to worse lately. Being in my mid-20s leaves me a lot of life under "worse" circumstances, should this continue.

I get it. But the gov't already knows everything it needs to know about you. And if the **** hits the fan, being licensed to use the radios you have, and using them legally will be the last of your concerns.

My advise to you is to keep and use the Amateur license, assuming you are interested in playing around with radios, as it does allow you to practice, experiment, & so forth. Get a GMRS license if you have family you want to include in your radio activities. Get some MURS radios.
The fact that these are unencrypted is irrelevant. 99% of the time, none of us says anything that anyone else cares about anyways.

I run radios on different services & different bands (Amateur, GMRS, MURS, CB) because sometimes one will be better suited than another for my needs at that moment. That gives me a whole range of frequencies & modes to operate on. I could care less if anyone hears. Chances are few people will.

But, if I were commanding a revolution against our government, or maybe commanding an escape from a tyrannical gov't, then yeah I'd want privacy, and I would be using full encryption on all my radios. Because I wouldn't care at that point what the regulations are.

If things really go to hell in this country, your licenses will be nullified and your radios will become illegal anyway. Then it's do as you please.

 

[ur20v]

And no other reason than; because we should be able to. The constitution really is law, and the spirit of that law is that we are free to conduct our lives as we see fit without suspicion of malice. You wouldn't tolerate the ability of strangers or of 'designated enforcement authorities' to peer over your shoulder or listen to every word you spoke in real world conversations, so I'm not sure why anyone would be content to tolerate it in electronic communications. I guess the ability of monitors to be "there" without really being physically present is pretty disarming to most folks.

I admire your idealistic view as I can relate. I was once young and dumb and thought I knew how the world worked (not calling you dumb; just turn of phrase). Hell, they taught us in elementary school everything we needed to know about the constitution, our legal system, and government, right? Insert sad trombone sound effect here. People have just been beaten down by a system adulterated and contaminated by those who work within it and manipulate it for personal gain or power over others. "You can't fight city hall" may seem old and cliché, but it's more true now than when it was originally spoken.

This also goes back to my understanding that the FCC manages a natural resource on the public's behalf. No other regulatory agency charged with protection and management of natural resources acts like they own said resources, and they sure don't monopolize the resource and sell select portions of it to the highest bidder while the common people are left to make do with restrictions on its use and steep penalties for its misuse. This is to say nothing of the un-democratic nature of executive branch bureaucracies.

I've got news for you - each and every "regulatory agency charged with protection and management of natural resources acts like they own said resources" and they all "monopolize the resource and sell select portions of it to the highest bidder while the common people are left to make do with restrictions on its use and steep penalties for its misuse." You've just described the Bureau of Land Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, United States Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and a whole slew of other federal alphabet soup agencies. The FCC isn't an outlier. This is the way it is across the board.

"I'm a peaceful, law abiding citizen, and I don't like it" ought to be reason enough.

That defense and a $400k+ worth of lawyers and legal work will still get you considerable time in Club Fed and denied certiorari by SCOTUS.

Now, I realize you aren't talking about committing felonies, but I'm using this as a parallel example to explain that your way of thinking is flawed. Work within the rules or work to change the rules. If you lack the fortitude and wherewithal to positively effect change, you're stuck with the same old rules, just like the rest of us suckers.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

A bit off topic. I wonder if the username DonQuixote has been taken?

 

[bill4long]

Loosely form a ham club and post your encryption key in the club welcome documents. If it's publicly out there,,, it's not private.

Hehe, no, this is not legal. I'd like to see you get that by the FCC.

97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (4) ... messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning,

Making a key available in club documents does not deflect from the fact that the "messages" whose "meaning" are being "obscured" while they are being "transmitted", which is clearly stated as not allowed.

And you are allowed to have a closed repeater that is for private ham use only.

Close repeaters are allowed, but transmitting obscured messages to enforce it is not allowed.

 

[ohiodesperado]

Hehe, no, this is not legal. I'd like to see you get that by the FCC.

97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: ... (4) ... messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning,

Making a key available in club documents does not deflect from the fact that the "messages" whose "meaning" are being "obscured" while they are being "transmitted", which is clearly stated as not allowed.



Close repeaters are allowed, but transmitting obscured messages to enforce it is not allowed.

The argument I would have is that it's a CLOSED repeater. I am keeping it accessible to the club members only by the use of encryption and providing them with the key. The fact that specific equipment is required to monitor the repeater is not germane to the discussion as D-STAR also requires specific equipment that also can't be monitored by some 1950's tube VHF receiver.

Yes, it's an argument of what's obscuring the content of the message. If I tell you I am going to the store for eggs and will be back around 8. You know that means the strippers are arriving at 8then I have obscured the message meaning with plain English. I realize they are both technically illegal but only one is sort of obvious. Truth is tell me how you are going to PROVE (as a ham not the FCC, they certainly CAN verify) that I am running a key on a P25 only repeater? Your scanner can beep at you. Your portable can show you there is a transmission in progress that you can't hear, but I can block an actual radio by not running a normal NAC. Lastly, say you do drop a dime on someone doing this. First off, WILL the FCC even bother to get involved with it? And if they do actually put someone in the field to investigate it, short of it being me personally and them SEEING this post. Are they gonna do anything more than send me a letter that I can simply reply that I had my radio programmed wrong and didn't realize it. I have other part 90 repeater systems that are encrypted and legally so and I must have had the switch flipped and didn't realize it... sorry for the confusion. What happens then?? They take my ham license???? Really? Sure it COULD happen...

There are different levels of being dumb on radio. Being REAL dumb is screwing around on a public safety frequency with your CCR or hammie radio that you clipped the TX block in "Just In Case". And this is something that gets argued about with as much bravado and personal self importance in ham circles as being really critical, which it's NOT, as encryption gets argued as being some sin against humanity if done ANYWHERE but especially on the ham bands. Another dumb move is firing up a commercial broadcast transmitter in the AM or FM band unlicensed and running a pirate radio station. These are high level No No's that WILL get the attention of the FCC. And quickly. Firing up a radio on P25 and flipping the switch for a short conversation is NOT gonna draw much attention. Remember I did say before. If you believe that every conversation you have with ANYONE on ham radio needs to be AES256 locked,,,, you should NOT be on ham radio. But if the local squirrel jumps on the repeater, and you are gonna QSY somewhere else with your buddy that also has your key, then flip the switch, let him know and be done with it.

This is honestly, to me anyway, as the arguments about hearing msuic on hold when using the autopatch, or calling and ordering a pizza via the repeater back in the day. It was a dumb argument then. But repeater trustee's would shut the repeater down, drop the autopatch and raise cane with the operator if they did EITHER of these things. I mean God forbid you order food, from a commercial business on the radio. Or get placed on hold and hear elevator music. Yes, it violated the letter of the regulation pertaining to prohibited transmissions. But how many FCC Report and Orders of NAL's were ever issued to repeater trustee's or ham operators for EITHER of these things? I am betting it NEVER happened.

 

[bill4long]

The argument I would have is that it's a CLOSED repeater.

It doesn't matter what your argument is. Encryption is not allowed except in a very limited case. 97.211(b)

As for repeaters being "closed." That term "closed" (as in "private" or similar meaning) is not used in Part 97. What the text says is:

97.205(e) ... Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible.

This is not, nor ever has been, a justification for encryption contra 97.113(4), nor is it, nor has ever has been, a right to keep other hams from listening to a repeater. Anyone may listen. Period. The only permissible limitation regards transmitting through the repeater or using its facililities by transmitting to it. (Telemetry control etc.) In other words, making a transmission that affects the repeat in some way. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you contact Laura Smith. She'll set you straight on this matter. I promise.

Nobody is allowed to obscure the meaning of transmissions. Encryption is not allowed. Fergeddaboudit.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

The argument I would have is that it's a CLOSED repeater. I am keeping it accessible to the club members only by the use of encryption and providing them with the key. The fact that specific equipment is required to monitor the repeater is not germane to the discussion as D-STAR also requires specific equipment that also can't be monitored by some 1950's tube VHF receiver.

Yes, it's an argument of what's obscuring the content of the message. If I tell you I am going to the store for eggs and will be back around 8. You know that means the strippers are arriving at 8then I have obscured the message meaning with plain English. I realize they are both technically illegal but only one is sort of obvious. Truth is tell me how you are going to PROVE (as a ham not the FCC, they certainly CAN verify) that I am running a key on a P25 only repeater? Your scanner can beep at you. Your portable can show you there is a transmission in progress that you can't hear, but I can block an actual radio by not running a normal NAC. Lastly, say you do drop a dime on someone doing this. First off, WILL the FCC even bother to get involved with it? And if they do actually put someone in the field to investigate it, short of it being me personally and them SEEING this post. Are they gonna do anything more than send me a letter that I can simply reply that I had my radio programmed wrong and didn't realize it. I have other part 90 repeater systems that are encrypted and legally so and I must have had the switch flipped and didn't realize it... sorry for the confusion. What happens then?? They take my ham license???? Really? Sure it COULD happen...

There are different levels of being dumb on radio. Being REAL dumb is screwing around on a public safety frequency with your CCR or hammie radio that you clipped the TX block in "Just In Case". And this is something that gets argued about with as much bravado and personal self importance in ham circles as being really critical, which it's NOT, as encryption gets argued as being some sin against humanity if done ANYWHERE but especially on the ham bands. Another dumb move is firing up a commercial broadcast transmitter in the AM or FM band unlicensed and running a pirate radio station. These are high level No No's that WILL get the attention of the FCC. And quickly. Firing up a radio on P25 and flipping the switch for a short conversation is NOT gonna draw much attention. Remember I did say before. If you believe that every conversation you have with ANYONE on ham radio needs to be AES256 locked,,,, you should NOT be on ham radio. But if the local squirrel jumps on the repeater, and you are gonna QSY somewhere else with your buddy that also has your key, then flip the switch, let him know and be done with it.

This is honestly, to me anyway, as the arguments about hearing msuic on hold when using the autopatch, or calling and ordering a pizza via the repeater back in the day. It was a dumb argument then. But repeater trustee's would shut the repeater down, drop the autopatch and raise cane with the operator if they did EITHER of these things. I mean God forbid you order food, from a commercial business on the radio. Or get placed on hold and hear elevator music. Yes, it violated the letter of the regulation pertaining to prohibited transmissions. But how many FCC Report and Orders of NAL's were ever issued to repeater trustee's or ham operators for EITHER of these things? I am betting it NEVER happened.

If you have a legal Part 90 repeater that is encrypted, why do you need to use encryption illegally in Part 97? You have destroyed your own argument.

 

[ohiodesperado]

If you have a legal Part 90 repeater that is encrypted, why do you need to use encryption illegally in Part 97? You have destroyed your own argument.

And this is something that gets argued about with as much bravado and personal self importance in ham circles as being really critical, which it's NOT, as encryption gets argued as being some sin against humanity if done ANYWHERE but especially on the ham bands.

 

[krokus]

... tell me how you are going to PROVE (as a ham not the FCC, they certainly CAN verify) that I am running a key on a P25 only repeater? Your scanner can beep at you. Your portable can show you there is a transmission in progress that you can't hear, but I can block an actual radio by not running a normal NAC.

A P25 capable scanner does not require the NAC. It will pass all traffic, just like CTCSS is ignored by an analog scanner that is just using CSQ.

I'm not if the encryption flag bit is only on trunked systems, or inherent in the standard, and applied to any/all encrypted traffic. (Being encrypted by the radio, as external encryption is beyond the scope of the discussion.)

 

[ohiodesperado]

A P25 capable scanner does not require the NAC. It will pass all traffic, just like CTCSS is ignored by an analog scanner that is just using CSQ.

I'm not if the encryption flag bit is only on trunked systems, or inherent in the standard, and applied to any/all encrypted traffic. (Being encrypted by the radio, as external encryption is beyond the scope of the discussion.)

Your right, the scanner don't care about the NAC. And you can program a subscriber to a F7C NAC (if memory serves) and that will listen to all NAC's on the frequency. The point I am trying to make is that There are technical reasons besides it being encrypted that would keep you from hearing a transmission on the frequency that could be used to mount a defense if it went to a court room. Now if the monitoring station is the FCC, then all bets are off. If it's Joe Hammie or Scanner Steve calling about it because they are butt hurt that they can't head whats being broadcast, then there are a number of technical things that can be brought up to bring into question the validity of the idea that it was an encrypted transmission.

But we really need to get back to the statement I made before. If you THINK you need to be encrypted all the time,,, ham radio is not the place for you. If you need to pass something to a buddy or other club member that not everyone needs to hear, you switch and pass that traffic and then go back to clear comms.

 

[03msc]

If it's encrypted (like, by actual encryption in the radio(s)) then it is illegal on the ham bands. Period. No way around that. Some would argue that using code words, etc., is also illegal. I know there's a question or two on the ham licensing exams about that, though I think that could be argued with more luck than arguing actual encryption.

Some try to argue that "well, you won't get caught" and perhaps not. Still doesn't change whether it's illegal or not.

You may drive 15mph over the speed limit everywhere you go and not get stopped for a long time. Still breaking the law. In the event that you do get stopped, saying "well I just did it this one time because I really needed to" most likely won't get you out of a ticket, but if it does it still doesn't make it legal.

If I followed the train of thought of a couple here, it seems they are thinking encryption is OK on ham bands if they come up with a clever way of explaining it away.

"But officer..."

If someone really needs encrypted comms, get a commercial license and have at it. Since we're in the GMRS subforum then I'll say I'm not sure it's allowed there, either, but I know it isn't on ham.

In a true SHTF situation, who knows...you would be more likely to get by with it, yeah.

 

[Chrontius]

The 900MHz Motorola DTRs and DLRs are a good way to go for local simplex ops with digital radios. While technically not encrypted, they can be made very secure and are completely scanner proof.

I am also curious about why the concern for privacy in the first place.

For me, not a party to the original request, it started out as aa refusal for family to use "open" radios even for stuff like "I'm over by the dairy cooler, do we need half-and-half?" combined with an inability to use cell phones in some stores. While cell service has improved where I shop (most of where I shop) and my family has mellowed out about unencrypted transmission, it proved to be a fun rabbit hole to explore.

Like, can I use a Midians AES-256 speaker-mic with a Motorola DTR? That would be fiendish to try to eavesdrop on… I've discovered another optimization game. D: