Hacker News Reader

Comment by scotteric | Hacker News Reader

How would one distinguish legal traffic from illegal? If encrypted communications were to be allowed, what is stopping people using the amateur bands for commercial use? This is the main concern of hams, not that it's good that you can't have privacy.

View on HN

You can still have an In-The-Clear ID requirement, ie frame packets as:

AB0CDE--*UI93.8u[3u9,8husoa...

Sure you can. This still does not ensure that the communications embedded within the encrypted portion of the data does not violate amateur rules. Encryption of communications effectively removes the ability of hams (and government regulators) to monitor their service for rule breakers. It would invite commercial users to exploit hams' valuable bandwidth.

I would go so far as to say encryption is not needed in the amateur radio domain, outside of limiting access to the control and configuration of remote devices. The established goals of the amateur radio service can be achieved without encrypted communications.

My goal is to be able to privately communicate with other people at a distance without relying on cell phone carriers, ISPs, or other brittle corporate infrastructure.

Privacy is a human right, and that applies over radio.

If I need to register my public keys like a license plate, fine, but the content is only the business of the recipient.

Think of Ham like Usenet or posting to a forum. You are in the public square talking for all to hear.

If you want something more akin to private email, that is possible you just need a difference license. https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-divis...

I have frequency allocations (well technically a radio shop manages them for us) and use AES128 encryption with no issues.

So by this license only businesses are allowed to have private communications, not individuals?

Hypothetically you could get a license just for yourself, but only you'd be able to use it which might get kinda lonely. Using a LLC is much more practical as the entity can own the radios and assign them to authorized users acting on behalf of the company.

Forming a corporate entity and paying the frequency coordination fees are going to be minimal in comparison to the hardware costs to communicate at a distance (encrypted or clear) reliably.

Businesses are the only legal way to “group” people together and hold them accountable. Since you are purchasing a license for some spectrum, they need a way to hold that group accountable. A common business arrangement is to create a “co-op” to work together, usually owned equally by the members. For example, there are a couple of developer co-ops around here to get discounts on IDEs and resources by appearing as a large org. Almost like what you’d expect from a union, but most clearly not a union.

> So by this license only businesses are allowed to have private communications, not individuals?

The first words on that pages are "Individuals or entities desiring to […]".

You, as an individual, can get a license. It's probably just more common for legal persons [1] to go through the effort rather than natural persons [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person

That is something, I suppose, though every person I want to communicate with would need one which is a real pain.

Still, will explore this.

If anyone has any tips for encrypted voice comms using this path I would welcome it

Have you looked into laser?

> Privacy is a human right, and that applies over radio.

You do not have a right to use common space (e.g., radio spectrum) without regard to the rest of society. If are given permission to use a common space, you have to use it with the stated conditions.

Isn't that why you would use a letter and post system?

Why does that matter? I don't think it does.

I think because any commerce is visible (e.g. they register with Secretary of State, pay taxes etc).

If it's a tiny commerce, no-one would notice. Probably. Neither ham community.

But no one seriously would invest time and money in a business that's, well, illegal.

> But no one seriously would invest time and money in a business that's, well, illegal.

I ... what? That really doesn't jibe with my observations of the world.

FCC don't play when they assign fines.

Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic, encrypted traffic by definition would not be examinable by the FCC for determining whether to assign fines.

They don't have to know what you are sending to know you are sending in a way you shouldn't. It's not even about the content of the encrypted traffic at that point. They just see broadcasts (which...good luck hiding them from the FCC) and if they see the bandwidth being used but aren't receiving a usable audio/data stream from it, it's really easy to tell if the rules are being followed.

How would anyone determine whether 'a usable audio/data stream' exists in encrypted traffic?

Is the band you are transmitting over restricted in any way? If they say no encryption, it doesn't matter what you are encrypting. If you are caught broadcasting in that no encryption band, and they see broadcasts in that band that don't correspond with signals they can pick up, it's a red flag that it's encrypted traffic.

Think of it this way - hypothetically if I'm on an English only band, and it's illegal to speak Spanish because English speakers can't understand Spanish, and I get caught transmitting anything other than English it doesn't matter what the content is.

Encryption doesn't magically make the RF you are using invisible. It makes it unreadable. It's still broadcasting and can be picked up by sniffers that flag it as data it can't interpret. It is NOT a no-risk choice.

How does this relate to the potential opening up of ham radio bands to encrypted traffic?

My original comment was made with regard to someone being incredulous that illegality would prevent someone from starting a business using encrypted ham bands. I said that the FCC fines are quite steep, implying that the risk of FCC fines for running an illegal encrypted broadcast would explain why someone would not like to be involved with such a business.

Obviously if the FCC opens up ham for encryption, it would be legal and totally fine. Currently it is not (the whole point of our conversation), and starting a business like that would be risky. You implied that the FCC can't fine you if they can't prove that you were sending encrypted traffic, and I argued that they'll still see the broadcasts and be able to tell they are encrypted.

So this is kind of a strange question for you to ask now lol

> You implied that the FCC can't fine you if they can't prove that you were sending encrypted traffic...

Can you show where I implied that?

It sure doesn't seem to match my reading of the comment chain.

Your original reply to me saying the FCC gives out big fines:

>Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic, encrypted traffic by definition would not be examinable by the FCC for determining whether to assign fines.

If they can only fine unencrypted traffic, as you say in this comment, you posit that it is because they can't examine the contents of the encrypted transmission to know who to fine.

If you intended a different message, feel free to revise what you began our conversation with.

It appears you are confused by the wording? Or perhaps your own double negation?

> You implied that the FCC can't fine you if they can't prove that you were sending encrypted traffic...

The quoted comment clearly does not imply that, if anything the opposite.

You positively asserted that they can only fine unencrypted traffic. You positively asserted that by definition, encrypted traffic could not be decoded to assign fines. By the logic of your comment, the FCC must decode the encrypted broadcasts to assign fines, which is false. They don't care what the broadcast contained. It violated RF restrictions. It gets fined if detected.

If you believe your comment implies anything else, you're going to have to explain your argument in more words than "it clearly does not imply that" because if it clearly implied what you claim, we wouldn't be arguing about what it "actually" means.

> You positively asserted that they can only fine unencrypted traffic.

No? The FCC can implement a blanket fine on all encrypted traffic on ham radio bands, if authorized by congress, without doing any 'determining' at all.

It seems as if your reading your own opinions and thoughts into my comments.

That is categorically not what "Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic" means.

Says who?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com