Len:

Well, it is going to be difficult to argue with you, we seem to be in agreement
on a couple of points, and not so far distant on a couple of others where we
could not work out some common grounds, however, since you answered the "call
of the WILD TROLL" (don't be afraid--just kidding here goes...

I just turned over my wireless lan, and yep, there is a type acceptance tag
with an VERY impressive FCC notation on it and some VERY impressive numbers, I
am in awe! (like a war, all shock and awe, yep, that is me.) But, and back to
the real world, I communicate over this device in "encrypted code" so that
others cannot read the data off my wan/lan, or gain access and send data over
it... I choose a key for all of this and it is a 2048 bit code (million years
or so and a bank of supercomputers could gain access to my net, if they got
lucky, avg time.)

Now, the important question here, just what kind of felony am I guilty of here,
feel free to list titles, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs--heck, if I am going to
be a criminal here, I'd enjoy hearing about it in vivid detail. If possible,
make it read like a Jessie James novel from the wild west! PLEASE!!!! I am a
sucker for old westerns! grin

Well, murder mysteries are good to...

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "John Smith" on Thurs 28 Jul 2005 09:45

Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes"
(encryption/decryption) on radio.

Only in the applicable parts of Title 47 C.F.R.

It seems insane that encrypted data is exchanged freely on the internet and
yet
regulations prevent its use on amateur radio, how such can be prevented on
one
specific form of communications seems insane.

The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA)
handles the specific formats and contents of the Internet.
The FCC can only govern the "common carrier" aspects of ISPs
and data line tariffs.

As to "codes," the FCC has sometimes (by some) been considered
"insane" for requiring a morse code test for any license having
below-30-MHz operating privileges. Especially so when the same
FCC did NOT require those privileged to operate using morse code
over and above any other mode. That, in itself, is a bit daft.

In Part 97 you will find TRULY DAFT requirements on Spread
Spectrum...STILL there. [Hans Brakob will furnish the correct
Parts and sub-parts for the edification of all]

Very sophisticated means are even used to embed text/voice data in video and
binary pictures which is virtually impossible to detect/decrypt with the even
the fastest computers--within practical time periods (like millions of
years--let alone lifetimes.)

Radio amateurs and the "amateur community" have for yarns and yarns
considered themselves very legal. They OBEY THE LAW. The LAW
says that encryption is a no-no for radio amateurs.

Hold up example: The late Colonel Rudolph Abel of the KGB, under
a cover name as an "artist" with a "hobby of amateur radio"
operating in NYC around the late 1950s-early 1960s. His HF radio
was used to send-receive encrypted information from the KGB. He
was exchanged for Francis Gary Powers, the missle-shot-down pilot
of a U-2. Abel used "one-time pads" for encipherment, virtually
unbreakable by anything since the encryption key was obtained from
natural random noise (or of "noisy" KGB clerk-typists)(take your
pick).

It's irrelevant whether Abel actually held any sort of amateur
radio license (he probably had a cover for one, no details on
that) but that was his cover excuse for having/using an HF radio
when arrested. Amateur radio in espionage activities! Not a
good PR thing but so long ago that most have forgotten it or
never knew.

The FCC just doesn't "trust" radio amateurs. :-)

To radio amateurs those "spies" are really "CBers," the spawn
of satan and are all responsible. :-)

bit bat