Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickodell | Hacker News Reader

I think this is the exception that swallows the rule.

Let's say I observe two ham radio operators having a morse code communication. I decide to stop them from communicating, so I transmit "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>", where callsign 1 and callsign 2 are the callsigns of the two ham radio operators.

Is this harmful interference, or did one of the ham radio operators just misinterpret my signal?

View on HN

  I decide to stop them from communicating, so I transmit "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>"
  Is this harmful interference?

On amateur radio, you're obliged to identify yourself, so this would be a breach of licence: failing to identify your station, or misrepresenting your station.

True. But let's say that didn't apply. Would this be harmful interference?

Let's suppose that the Earth is flat... :)

I wouldn't trust the "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>" if it didn't contain a secret message, that couldn't be produced by a 3. party

Well, I think then you'd be breaking protocol, because afaik, in ham code you must obey procedure, and QRT tells you to stop transmitting.

In Ham radio, you can't use any sort of secret message like that. Everything needs to be plaintext.

I don't think that's correct. Cryptographic authentication of messages should be allowed (ARRL agrees with me[0]), the language specifies you cannot "obscure the meaning" of the communication.

0. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520928844.pdf

That's correct. There's one exception to the encryption rule, which is when sending commands to a space station. (That does not allow you to encrypt the responses, though.) See 47 CFR 97.211, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.211

Reply on news.ycombinator.com