John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

No sense in attempting to efficiently send data anywhere, unless methods
are used which employ efficient data compaction and the use of CRC
checksums... it is only there that HS data transmission comes alive...

Encryption is good also, unless you want the whole world to know what you
are sending...

John

Uhhh . . John you hopeless noclue check out what Part 97 has to say
about hams encrypting their transmissions.

w3rv

Kelly:

There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by
american citizens" that I am aware of...

It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and
in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same
activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio
before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to
stop.)

Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone
and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do
this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can
also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is
not a "crime.")

I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to
prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major
constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think
stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is...

Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but
only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it
only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction
algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to
compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods.
Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can
be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private
conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place
on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive,
evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today...

This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for
themselves, they can act as they so choose...

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:38:13 -0700, kelly wrote:


John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

No sense in attempting to efficiently send data anywhere, unless methods
are used which employ efficient data compaction and the use of CRC
checksums... it is only there that HS data transmission comes alive...

Encryption is good also, unless you want the whole world to know what you
are sending...

John

Uhhh . . John you hopeless noclue check out what Part 97 has to say
about hams encrypting their transmissions.

w3rv

John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by
american citizens" that I am aware of...

It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and
in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same
activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio
before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to
stop.)

Typical freebanders mindset.

Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone
and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do
this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can
also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is
not a "crime.")

I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to
prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major
constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think
stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is...

Fine "John": Toss some encrypted traffic into the ham bands and get to
meet Riley the lawyer who will explain it all to you in excruciating
detail as he slaps you with an NAL and cancels yer ticket. Not that you
have a ham license of course.


Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but
only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it
only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction
algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to
compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods.
Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can
be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private
conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place
on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive,
evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today...

This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for
themselves, they can act as they so choose...

Anarchy and black helicopters. Got it. 10-4 on that Good Buddy?


John

w3rv

Kelly:

"Freebander mentality?" Hmmm, I have always taken keen interest in the
unique, rare, unknown and unconventional. But, I imagine you might just
be correct, and maybe I got all those traffic tickets, when I was younger,
because of a "freebander mentality" (or, freethinker mentality--might
have just been because of the foolishness of youth!) I am just wondering
if I will have to consult a shrink or Sylvia Browne if I have to seek
professional help on "freebander mentality?"

Unless I am gravely mistaken, there are others running
compaction/encryption out there (I don't know what to do with those
digital packets, I can't read them, by any algorithms I know!), must have
the "radio police" on a constant run. Or, maybe they are going to get the
"compacting encrypters" just after they finish rounding up all the illegal
cb'ers and freebanders--if so, probably have at least another month before
anyone has to worry.

Actually, you may not hear it that often, I suspect mainly because it
must be all homebrew equip and helps to know a programming language,
and ability to read schematics and run a soldering iron. But, it is there.
Of course you can find it on the Ghz's--but it is not all that rare on
VHF. Don't believe I have ever heard it on HF... could have a lot to do
with ages you find on those freqs too...

Like I say, I think that law looks a bit ridiculous at this day and age...
but then, in some areas there is a lot of that going around, ridiculous
chit.

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:59:39 -0700, kelly wrote:


John Smith wrote:
Kelly:

There has been no challenge of data encryption on amateur bands "by
american citizens" that I am aware of...

It is quite obvious that data encryption on the internet is both legal and
in heavy use. How you can allow one medium and prosecute the same
activity on another is insane (the law was constructed for amateur radio
before they knew the internet would be developed, and it impossible to
stop.)

Typical freebanders mindset.

Indeed, I can place a digital voice encryption device on my phone
and a friends and hold private conversations (corporations used to do
this all the time--BEFORE the internet--now they use the internet), I can
also do it on a cell phone (as far as I have been able to determine it is
not a "crime.")

I am NOT a lawyer, but common sense says that "crime" would be hard to
prosecute to get a conviction... also, I'd say there are major
constitutional grounds the gov't would have to defeat to convict. I think
stand alone encryption is NOT a crime... treason, etc is...

Fine "John": Toss some encrypted traffic into the ham bands and get to
meet Riley the lawyer who will explain it all to you in excruciating
detail as he slaps you with an NAL and cancels yer ticket. Not that you
have a ham license of course.


Me, I have ignored and encrypted in the past, I continue to do so, but
only if it makes sense. Encryption does nothing to speed transmission, it
only places an increased burden on it. However, a data compaction
algorithm can be choose which naturally encrypts as a secondary effect to
compaction, however, not even close to PGP, etc encryption methods.
Someday there may come a court case to test if this is a "crime" which can
be successfully prosecuted... I feel I have a right to private
conversations, no matter what the medium is the communication takes place
on. But then, I believe in inalienable rights... one day a repressive,
evil gov't may be able to deprive me of those rights... not today...

This is simply a matter for each and every individual to decide for
themselves, they can act as they so choose...

Anarchy and black helicopters. Got it. 10-4 on that Good Buddy?


John

w3rv