Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- From: "an old friend" <kb9rqz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jul 2005 15:41:07 -0700
John Smith wrote:
> Len:
>
> So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government
> can understand it (decrypt it.)
The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing
the state of ARS rules
>
> Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush
> on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor
> need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling
> "fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if
> they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can,
> depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose...
>
> Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on
> my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like
> they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the
> citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and
> prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win
> my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"...
>
> ... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such
> an necessity, wouldn't I?
>
> Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign
> influence is in some kind of control of this country...
>
> ... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would
> like ...
>
> When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER
> the citizens...
>
> John
>
> <LenAnderson@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1122758446.520615.74780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02
> >
> >
> >>LenAnderson@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
> >>> >"an old friend" <kb9...@xxxxxxxxx> 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
> >
> > That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings.
> > IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough
> > known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties
> > into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall
> > not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret'
> > codes).
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >
> > I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is
> > trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or
> > "cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for
> > many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code"
> > of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of
> > morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is
> > IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English
> > alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks.
> >
> > That morse code is an "international language" is more
> > nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply
> > STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being
> > the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to
> > a "language" other than being a representation of the
> > English language characters.
> >
> >
> >>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
> >
> > Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation
> > which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes
> > one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect -
> > altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and
> > bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect
> > on spectral content which can't be done in here without
> > some pictures or whiteboard sketching]
> >
> > Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as
> > very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that
> > gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics
> > knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed
> > CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple
> > hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver.
> > Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified
> > at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and
> > will have NONE of that!
> >
> > As long as a message/communications is being sent, the
> > transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always
> > present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that
> > this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky,
> > not counting on the added electronic stress on the power
> > supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the
> > primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous
> > rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical
> > imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM]
> >
> >>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
> >
> > FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation
> > spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of
> > the spectral components are considered (the difference is
> > in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier
> > phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state)
> > modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement
> > on a transmitter than FSK.
> >
> > But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the
> > "public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they
> > reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy
> > as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference
> > the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus-
> > parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed
> > up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new
> > due to extensive publication in Europe for years before
> > it was published in QST.
> >
> > On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in
> > the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater
> > range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence
> > spreading (than the original regs) but they still require
> > some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later"
> > use! [that's the interpretation of that very general
> > regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty
> > in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial
> > SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry
> > fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs*
> > to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions
> > of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO
> > regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings!
> >
> > * I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones
> > to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN
> > category...that's a few million or so more devices.
> >
> > LenAnderson@xxxxxxxx
> >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- From: John Smith
- Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- References:
- Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- From: LenAnderson
- Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- From: John Smith
- Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- Prev by Date: Re: We can end it all right here
- Next by Date: Re: We can end it all right here
- Previous by thread: Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- Next by thread: Re: PGP encryption of data on amateur radio?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
