Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by crmd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

crmd

Question from a non-ham: how does the fcc define encryption?

Is it ok to speak in code, like a numbers station?

What about speaking in Navajo, like the Americans did in ww2?

What if it was a made-up tonal language with lots of clicks that sounded similar to a modem transmitting a bitstream?

View on HN

"messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning"

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-97#p-97.113(a)(4)

It's intentionally broad, and gives exceptions for controlling satellites as the only real exception.

People try to fight that publishing encryption keys would mean that you are within the intent of the law, I struggled decades ago trying to create a digital voice mode while every OM told me I was trying to encrypt things. sigh.

Awesome, thanks

What threeio said is right. Technically, encoding data digitally isn't encryption and is fine, and there are digital modes used by Hams. But if you were to come up with your own scheme I could see some sweaty old timers try to accuse you of encryption just because their $3k Yaesu can't decode it. There's a good reason why a lot of recent innovation in the hacker and maker spaces has been in unlicensed bands. The rules for the Ham bands were written decades ago when just trying to talk to people around the world was considered experimental. Now its trivial to do that with HF with the right equipment and a bit of reading. The FCC tends to neglect the ham space which is both a good and bad thing. Lack of attention means people are probably getting away with doing a lot of harmless things they technically shouldn't be. But it also means we are stuck with rules from the 1930's.

Define ‘trivial’.

It is not trivial to set up an HF antenna that can send a signal (halfway) around the world and be used to hear a response, and it is often not repeatable without the right sun / weather conditions. It is the nature of HF, which hasn’t changed since the 1930s (and will not).

Radios have become arguably cheaper, but electrons vibrating at 3-30MHz have not changed their behavior much.

Its trivial in that anyone with minimal reading online and inexpensive equipment can do it. There's also no new science or industry development coming from doing it. HAM analog HF is mature and established.

>which hasn’t changed since the 1930s (and will not).

And that's the crux of my point. It got about as good as it was going to get nearly 100 years ago. I have a ham training/reference book from the 30's. And long range HF was a much more impressive feat back then. But if you go to youtube today basically every Ham channel has at least one video on how to do it "cheap and easy" now. One of the stated purposes for Ham from the FCC's pov was to foster innovation and development of radio technology. If that's true then it needs to evolve with the times because that is a moving target.

> Is it ok to speak in code, like a numbers station?

Good question. Probably yes but don't pin me on it.

> What about speaking in Navajo, like the Americans did in ww2?

Definitely 100% ok as long as you transmit your callsign in NATO english or send it in morse code. A language is not encryption. The ham community is super international. It's not a US English only thing.

It might cause some grumbling in your local area but it's not illegal. Especially now that repeaters are often connected to the whole world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com