I am afraid many of them don't really care what you and I think about it.
In this atmosphere of fright, many think that if we DON'T do as they are
planning, we will loose our freqs totally. I think if we do it, we indeed
WILL loose our freqs. Thus it turns out to be a catch-as-catch-can
situation. WE have just got to convince the powers that be, that this is
NOT a viable path to the result they want.
As a professional communicator of some 29 years service, working with
encryption equipment I understand its use, why and how it is used and that
once it is in service, it is NEVER going to be removed from service, except
to be replaced by more advanced equipment.
There will be absolutely no way that any other ham can ever read the
traffic, unless he/she has the same algologrythms, and the same key. The
more people that have that key, the more likely you are to have a resulting
"leak" of the information. Thus, government, and private services normally
use point-to-point keying material, where only two stations have the same
key, resulting in high security, but very little capability of sending the
message to someone else, without another set of keys being held by the final
two stations.
Who will supply the key materials? Who will insure that this material is
kept under high security situations, both during storage, and under use?
This opens up a whole other problem. Are all these hams going to have to
have a security clearance? Who would issue that?
Right now, the NSA supplies ALL government crypto key material, and does all
the testing, engineering, buying of government agency crypto devices, and
keying materials. Will the equipment and keying materials have to be
procured the same way?
Just the part of the crypto question alone is a staggering job.
Frankly, if the government wants and needs (and they do) additional
radio/communications personnel for emergencies, and certain hams wish to
volunteer for the assignment, that is just fine. Please just leave the rest
of us out of it and don't force us to change our ways, or loose our present
capabilities, in order for them to do so. Go ahead step up as hams, but
only because hams are the semi-trained communicators of the day. It is like
WWII. Hams stepped forward and taught CW, ran circuits, etc. But they used
military equpment, after they were trained by the military to do so. No
different than today. Step up with your knowledge, learn their way of dong
things, use their equipment, AND THEIR FREQS.
Meanwhile, if we have another Madison county flood, I will again go down to
the fire/rescue station and set up a radio and sit there until the
Navy/Coast Guard arrives. Of course, being the only HF ham active in the
county, there arent too many more to talk to. The one or two on UHF/VHF
were busy trying to protect their own. The other HF ops, has passed on to
other pastures, and it turned out that he and I were on the same side of the
rivers, and no hams were on the other side that were flooding. I wonder how
many small towns in the US, indeed how many counties have no hams?
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk
----- Original Message -----
From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption NOT!
> Thanks for your frank discussion. As far as encryption for the items
> like casuality lists. Does anyone think that since at least WWII
> amateur radio hasn't been able to send encrypted info on CW or RTTY?
> Hell, the military sent plenty of it in this fashion. So what is the
> new driver?
>
> In every case I can find there is one justification. Our clients and
> customers are demanding it. Hmmmmm, clients and customers, customers
> and clients. What does this sound like? Oh, I know, a BUSINESS.
> These folks are wanting to turn amateur radio into a common carrier
> business that is allowed to carry encrypted third party traffic. Keep
> in mind that in most cases, these "customers and clients" don't even
> want a ham to do the encrypting, they simply want us to carry it over
> our frequencies. This isn't what amateur radio is about and should
> not be allowed.
>
> There has been an excellent discussion on authentication techniques in
> prior messages. Let it suffice to say that encrypting content is not
> required to authenticate a message. You can even send repeater
> commands, satellite commands, etc. in the clear but only have them
> acted upon if proper authentication techniques are used. Heck, you can
> even use encryption techniqes of signatures for non-repudiation. That
> means if you shut down a satellite by mistake, there is a verifiable
> trail that shows YOU were the one to do it. You can't blame it on
> someone else. There are several discussions on qrz.com about this if
> you want to read up about it.
>
> What John, k8ocl, is recommending (using part 15 wireless routers
> under part 97) really consists of using power amps on a part 15 device
> for increased range and as a byproduct to assume full control of the
> spectrum. What he doesn't tell you is that it is a dangerous game for
> widespread use. Just wait until a ham on Long Island, New York fires
> up a high powered wireless router and wipes out a bunch of Wall Street
> firms. Or someone in a high density residential neighborhood that has
> a bunch of rich and powerful folks does the same. Do you really think
> the FCC is going to come down on ham radio's side since we are the
> primary users? How do you think they will resolve it? Very dangerous
> game indeed.
>
> As far as amateur radio wireless internet service goes there is one
> big problem I see. Amateur radio allocations are based upon personal
> conversations between two or more hams on a frequency. Amateur radio
> wireless internet connections changes this to ONE ham on a frequency
> passing 100 percent third party traffic. This reduces spectrum
> efficiency by 50%. If you assume 3 per frequency by adding net and
> roundtable uses, you end up reducing it by 66%. Add in wider
> bandwidths and the spectrum efficiency becomes even less. Think about
> the 100 kHz bandwidths on 2 meters. You are reducing users to 10 per
> mHz, 40 for the whole band! To me this is a selfish use of amateur
> spectrum nor will it even support the number of digital elitists
> wanting to increase this service. Overall, I doubt the current
> allocations would support over 50,000 US hams total.
>
> I ask you to make the folks pushing this to explain in detail some of
> these problems and their ramifications.
>
> Jim
> WA0LYK
>
>
>
> ==================================================================
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "N6CRR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Champa" <k8ocl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow! N6CRR stated that very, very well... Congrats!
> >
> > Wowser right back.
> >
> > Guess I'm just one of those simple folks that call a spade a spade,
> > and point out the attempt to back door change the nature of amateur
> > radio into something it is not. I've read a few of the minutes of the
> > HSSM, and seems like no one was asking the question of "should the
> > amateur service even be moved in this direction". The HSSM, the league
> > and those that are pushing multimedia content, first mile email
> > connectivity, and other parts of the brave new future as they see it
> > might actually ask the community what they think of that future.
> >
> > The crap fest over the proposed rule making on bandwidth regulation
> > reflected a general unease with the ARRL, and those folks that think
> > they know what is best for the future of Amateur community, all
> > without asking. The league, and those that seek to drag the rest of us
> > Luddites into the next century fail to ask if we want to be drug there.
> >
> > Your comments down tread in regards to uses of Amateur radio to report
> > causality figures (hence the need for encryption) presupposes that
> > Amateur radio should be utilized for that sort of effort in the first
> > place and that appropriate state, local or federal services are not
> > available, while also trotting out the old/new turnip of this is a new
> > world post 9/11. Is Karl Rove advising you on this stradidegry? I
> > suppose as part of the Wantabe radio service that would be appropriate.
> >
> > Please keep your adult beverage, it might go well with the flavor aid
> > on this topic you seem to be swilling and dispensing, might cut the
> > flavor a bit.
> >
> > If you can manage to work around the ()*(&*(& Pactor III MBO's
> > stepping all over your live QSO, I can usually be found up on HF
> > working DominoEX, Olivia or Contestia. Love to carry on the
> > conversation on a live human to human basis, which is what I think
> > Amateur radio is at it's very core, not a first mile extension of the
> > internet.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/778 - Release Date: 4/27/2007
1:39 PM
>
>
