Hi Charlie, "We also see this time and time again even in simulations where the professional emergency services have trouble with their communications, their systems become overloaded, and there's things that need to be communicated that aren't central to their important tasks."
I agree, but I guess I figure that in these situations it's better to try to help those professional organizations shore up their own infrastructure rather than having ham radio try to provide all the backup if at all possible. This is particularly important in that public service agencies typically have access to far more potential funding sources and far more flexibility in how they use radio communications than hams do. "We know we can apply public-key cryptography in a disaster and won't hesitate to do so if it's a matter of life or property, but it would be best to practice exactly that and to formalize the procedures to be better prepared and avoid squabbles after the fact. We can probably still do that without sending actual encrypted transmissions, but that leaves open the possibility that we're practicing a flawed procedure." Actually I think you can practice public-key encryption all day long if you make the private key and encryption algorithm well-known -- since "encryption" where the key is known isn't encryption at all, now, is it? At that point it's just a form of digital communication, and since you're made the private key and method public, anyone who cares to can decode the messages, and you're clearly not trying to obfuscate the meaning of those messages either as you're just testing your communications infrastructure. In other words... transmit the private key in the clear. Next transmit an encrypted block. Announce again that what you just sent was encrypted with a key, and announce that key again. Repeat as necessary until you're comfortable with your formal procedures. :-) "As for overlap with the public safety services communications capabilities, I think that's exactly what we're working to achieve--and then some." Yeah, and while I applaud your efforts, I really do think they're a bit misguided too. Some of this is undoubtedly from my own experience with ARES -- it's filled with a bunch of older guys who have all the best intentions, but realistically the vast majority of them are "appliance operators" and only a few have enough technical know-how to be able to, e.g., reconfigure radio programming on the fly, set up ad-hoc TCP/IP networking, etc. The problem then is that -- generally speaking -- a served agency doesn't really need the "appliance operators" as they have plenty of their own... ;-) While having a half-dozen guys who can take down notes and then relay them over a repeater to the outside world is valuable, these days it's no more technically difficult to get a 128kbps D*Star or (some Mbps) WiFi connection going from a command site to a repeater and provide an entire staff with full Internet access. (I've given a similar example before... if you're in a diaster area, and you can either provide people with a WiFi link and a handful of computers to let people access e-mail, etc. -- however slowly -- vs. having a bunch of guys at a table who'll take messages and relay them to a specified phone number or e-mail address, the vast majority of younger people are going to prefer the "just give me my own Internet access" option.) "It's a struggle simply to keep them trained and familiar with common communications tasks." ARES, in my experience, has the same problem. "It's also a given that there just isn't enough money to build a fully fault-tolerant communications system that has adequate overflow capability to cope with any disaster anywhere it might occur." Sure, but if you're going to provide *some* degree of backup, the PSAs generally have more money to throw at the problem than hams do. "My overriding consideration for preparation is that I never want to be in the position of disappointing our professional emergency management when they turn to us for help. If our local E.M. tells me that I need to help them with communications for transport and distribution of critical medications and leaking the details of that to the general public would jeopardize those operations, I don't want to fail him." You're not failing anyone if you're informing that that you're unwilling to break the law to comply with their request. "If, for whatever reason this happens (perhaps all professional emergency communications is already overloaded in support of riot control during a pandemic and the National Guard is stretched thin) who else is going to fill this need. Why not the Hams. I just want to be prepared." Well, take my suggestions... practice sending "encrypted" messages where you've included the private key immediately before and after each transmission, so you're operating within the current rules, and then if there is a diaster, tell your served agency that if absolutely necessary, you can send encrypted traffic, although there is some question of the legality that might have to be settled later on. At worst you're risking your ham radio license, but if we're talking life and death situations anyway, does that really matter so much? ---Joel
