|
K4YZ wrote: an old friend wrote: John Smith wrote: Anyone aware of any court challenges to the FCC banning the use of "codes" (encryption/decryption) on radio. No I am not 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. As I understand the matter it comes in part from concerns that Spies would use Ham radio to do thier deeds Today with al queada I can't see the FCC budging on this one 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.) I have heard of this never studied it could something like that be used to embed same in something like SSTV John OTOH Your mention PGP I suppose based on the discusions of the USE of PSK 31 and other modes you could argue the use PGP would be legal is the non encoded parts of the tranmision in addition to your Call sign contained the addresses where both of the keys could be found. The addresses would have to be acesable over say the internet but it should be legal You're only problem here, Mark, is that PSK31 is not an encryption technique. Otherwise I agree with your above assessment (esp w/reference to Al-Queda) PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method as is morse encoded cw both legal becuase they are published (and morse is of course enshined by name in the rule book) the rules are rather vague on where the line drwn in these matters esp as technolgy advances so fast to make one year unbreakable code, todays public key Alothough the FCC is liable to try to make a fight of it, one that isn't worth it to me at anyrate Probably true. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"an old friend" wrote PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method PSK31 is a modulation method, not an encryption method. No cryptography is involved. Good luck on this one now! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote PSK31 is an encryption/encoding method PSK31 is a modulation method, not an encryption method. No cryptography = is involved. gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it and when are you going to stop taking things out of context? never? =20 Good luck on this one now! =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For t= he simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) they found it nessary to to say why it was not an Ilegal method of encryption and the subject of enryption comes up about anytime anyone discusses the mode in detail esp when it was introduced and nobdy but you is talking about crptology=20 =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"an old friend" wrote they found it nessary to to say why it was not an Ilegal method of encryption ..... Well there you have it! It's not a method of encryption. The developers agree with me! Thanks for making my case. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) =20 dit bit |
wrote: From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For = the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set =20 dit bit |
an_old_friend:
Really, deep inside, I am a decent human being, or would like to think I am. Your text has degraded here old friend, if you live alone, time to see a doctor and get a check-up, you may have suffered a light stroke... I am not being flippant about this, and all joking has been set aside, but I really do get a sense something is wrong, and fear for your health... You may ignore my advice if you choose, but I have a real concern... If I had just sat here without mentioning this, and something undesirable would happen to you, it would truly cause me great grief to know, so no need to flame me back. I really have considered my own mental health in all this too... Warmest regards, John "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: K?B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm "an old friend" wrote gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the simple reason that no cryptology is involved.) Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you] You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs. On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery or even Hellschreiber. and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an ilgeal code Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as "the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-) indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other threads to Hans a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31 When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I know)and the letter set One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh ARS the very specail mode/letter set dit bit |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com