| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 09.01.00 11:23l 199 Lines 8102 Bytes #-9622 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_2C
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/2C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<IN3TRX<IN3TTI<IW3FPP<IV3AVQ<IW3EFI<IW9EXL
Sent: 1000109/0900z @:IW9EXL.ISIC.ITA.EURO [Catania] UNICTeam #:67348 Z:95100
Message-Id: HD_2000_2C
From: sv1aaw@iw9exl.isic.ita.euro
To: hddig@eu
R:1000109/0800z @:SV1AAW.ATH.GRC.EURO [Athens] TNOS/U $:HD_2000_2C
R:000109/0645Z @:SV1AAW.ATH.GRC.EU #:34149 [Athens] FBB $:HD_2000_2C
R:000109/0635Z @:EA7URC.EACO.ESP.EU #:38731 [Cordoba] FBB $:HD_2000_2C
R:000109/0601Z @:PE0MAR.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:40844 [HvH]-LINUX- FBB
R:000109/0551Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:43105 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24 $:HD_2000_2C
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA28219 ; Sun, 09 Jan 00 03:48:18 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00017491 ; Sun, 09 Jan 2000 01:07:56 MET
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 00 01:04:08 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_2C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/2C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:...messages in codes or ciphers
intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided
herein...
Webster's New World Dictionary defines scrambling thus:
"Electronics to modify (transmitted auditory or visual signals) so as to
make unintelligible without special receiving equipment"
The general assertion that scrambling, as defined by Webster's, is useful to
hams clearly flies in the face of CFR 97.113. It is illegal.
The originator of the thread asked for a software scrambler, a rather
amorphous term, given the terseness of his post. He did not ask for
information on clock recovery techniques in synchronous data streams
(presumably the "useful" (and legal) type of scrambling to which you refer).
Thus D. Stussy posted:
"These aren't legal for amateur radio (at least here in the U.S.)..."
A not unreasonable response.
And this was posted by Ms. Gibbons:
"In fact, with the ubiquitous availability of the internet for encrypted
communications, Ham radio as a medium of transmission for secure
communications and it's subsequent illegality is a moot point.."
Note that the issue of secure communications over ham radio had now become
firmly planted in the thread by Ms. Gibbons. Thus my response, which was to
HER point, is accurate and within the context of the thread.
4. Criminal activity using radio, (LMR, ham, or otherwise), exists at all
levels. The major drug cartels have access to military and other equipment
with a high degree of communications security. They may indeed have the
wherewithal to employ "disreputable engineers." Others, however, will use
whatever they can get their hands on.
In the last few years, ham radio equipment has become much more available to
the general public, at least here in the US. It is now as easy or easier to
acquire ham radios than it is to buy LMR equipment. Ham equipment is now
carried by mass marketeers, and is often advertised in widely distributed
flyers, sometimes without even cursory mention of the licensing requirements.
It is clear that some percentage of this equipment is getting into the hands
of criminals. These days there are fairly frequent news media reports of
criminals employing "walkie talkies." These reports seldom give technical
details on the radios that were used, so it is impossible to tell what
percentage are ham rigs, but certainly some of them must be. Indeed, one use
that I have personally come across locally is non hams employing ham radios
while hunting game, an activity that violates most, if not all, state's game
laws, as well as CFR part 97.
Low level criminals do not have the means to employ "rogue engineers." But
they very well may try to obscure their transmissions if a means were readily
available. Combine this with its inherent illegality, and any request for
information on how to "scramble" a ham radio is highly suspect.
5. Ham radio exists simply because national governments perceive it to be
useful. There is no constitutional right to operate a ham rig. Our
frequencies are under constant assault by commercial interests who would
appropriate them for their own uses. We are able to resist this assault
simply because, in the main, our government agrees that there are national
interests that are served by our hobby's continued existence.
Ham radio's continued good relationship with the government depends on hams
NOT acting in a manner contrary to law and/or regulation. This includes not
modifying our radios to operate out of band, not employing encryption, or
otherwise obscuring our transmissions, and by employing good operating
practices.
Sadly, some in the hobby, and those unlicensed individuals illegally using
ham equipment, seem determined to drag ham radio into the abyss. Those of us
who care about our hobby are determined not to let this happen. When
individuals propose operation that is or appears to be illegal, we will
continue to point this out. And we will continue to lobby other hams to do
the same, as I did with Ms. Gibbons, WA6UBE.
You may not be aware of any of this. My assumption is that you are not a
ham. You did not post a call sign with your sig, and the FCC call sign
database does not list a John Wiley with an address near George Mason
University (this assumes you are the John Wiley that GMU's database lists as
being employed in physics department tech support).
6. The assertion that some form of censorship is being proposed won't wash.
The suppression of knowledge is something undertaken by governments and other
institutions with great power to control people's behaviour. Neither
individual hams nor hams as a group have that power. But we do have the
right to refuse to point people in the right direction when they ask for
information how to use a ham radio for illegal purposes. You will note that
my point to Ms. Gibbon's post solely addressed this singular issue.
7. The tone of your post was boorish and immature. The use of "(sigh)" and
"(clue)" is childish and defames the very institution whose facilities you
use to gain access to this newgroup.
Ham radio is a hobby. As such it is enjoyed by individuals with markedly
different levels of knowledge. Some are employed in technical fields
directly relating to amateur radio. Many, probably most, are not. Thus ham
radio discussions tend to vary widely in the usage of technical terms. It is
highly inappropriate for anyone to denigrate a poster simply because he posts
something which YOU think is stated incorrectly. Much of the ham radio
newsgroup traffic has left usenet precisely because of such behaviour.
Regards,
Malcolm, WX4YZ
(To reply via email, remove all between rudder and @)
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 01:09:04 GMT
From: John Miles <jmiles@pop.removethistomailme.net>
Subject: What's the state of art in packet nowdays?
Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> John Miles wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> >... (Frankly I am not sure I understand how 2.4 GHz
> >can go through building materials so much more readily than 10 GHz
> >does!)
>
> If it was just the wavelength, 10 GHz would win, but then there are a
> lot more reflectors at the centimeter waves that create havoc with
> multipath, and the noise level. I have an old speed radar from the
> state police that picks up every fan in the car, and you can hear
> each one, especially the defroster fan at variable speeds.
>
> Steve
Good point re: greater susceptibility to reflections.
-- jm
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 00:29:28 -0600
From: "Mark Bone" <markbone@accessus.net>
Subject: What's the state of art in packet nowdays?
Whats the modem that your talking about that can handle the equiv of 6 T1
lines? Thats got my attention
Mark
>.
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V2000 #2
******************************
Both my XYL and myself wish you a very
happy and prosperous New Year. Adam PA2AGA.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
