Post by thread:[EE] Encryption Over Amateur Radio Frequencies

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Michael Watterson <spam_OUTmikeTakeThisOuTradioway.org> wrote: > However a few mW at 2.4GHz is all a balloon needs if it's a HAP. At > 144MHz you can talk to ISS with a rubber duck hand held with a few watts > as it passes overhead. > > Some malicious can easily jam your signal. I still find the "no encryption" ridiculous. So what if I talk normally over an amateur frequency in pig Latin? Is that considered encryption? What if I speak in my own made up language? Is that encryption? What if I'm autistic and my words don't make sense? Is that encryption? You can see the point I'm trying to make here. At what point is it considered encryption? What if I'm trying to control a a device at long range and I send it "commands" like this: 0010101010101010101010100101101010 - you get the idea. To the remote node, the command makes perfect sense. But someone listening in wont really understand what it is. Is that considered encryption? What if I add some more complexity to the protocol so acknowledgment is required on each command? For example, I would send a specific command A, and along with the command, I would send a certain mathematical function of A that corresponds to A. The device would then verify that mathematical relationship for validity (also helps to ensure that the command isn't corrupted for some reason). Is that illegal too? To send mathematical formulas/numbers over the air? In itself there is no "meaning" and therefore the "meaning" can't be obscured. Again, at what point does it become "encryption"?

> > You can see the point I'm trying to make here. At what point is it > considered encryption? > > What if I'm trying to control a a device at long range and I send it > "commands" like this: > > 0010101010101010101010100101101010 - you get the idea. > > To the remote node, the command makes perfect sense. But someone > listening in wont really understand what it is. Is that considered > encryption? > See www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/97/215/ www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/97/217/ www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/97/113/ http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/97/111/ Harold -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising opportunities available!

part 1 2202 bytes content-type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 (decoded quoted-printable) On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, solarwind wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Michael Watterson <mikeKILLspamradioway.org> wrote: > > However a few mW at 2.4GHz is all a balloon needs if it's a HAP. At > > 144MHz you can talk to ISS with a rubber duck hand held with a few watts > > as it passes overhead. > > > > Some malicious can easily jam your signal. > > I still find the "no encryption" ridiculous. So what if I talk > normally over an amateur frequency in pig Latin? Is that considered > encryption? What if I speak in my own made up language? Is that > encryption? What if I'm autistic and my words don't make sense? Is > that encryption? > > You can see the point I'm trying to make here. At what point is it > considered encryption? > > What if I'm trying to control a a device at long range and I send it > "commands" like this: > > 0010101010101010101010100101101010 - you get the idea. > > To the remote node, the command makes perfect sense. But someone > listening in wont really understand what it is. Is that considered > encryption? > > What if I add some more complexity to the protocol so acknowledgment > is required on each command? For example, I would send a specific > command A, and along with the command, I would send a certain > mathematical function of A that corresponds to A. The device would > then verify that mathematical relationship for validity (also helps to > ensure that the command isn't corrupted for some reason). Is that > illegal too? To send mathematical formulas/numbers over the air? In > itself there is no "meaning" and therefore the "meaning" can't be > obscured. > > Again, at what point does it become "encryption"? > You are so missing the obvious :-) If you want to talk to your weather balloon and have it ignore third party commands, JUST sign the message so that the balloon knows it really came from you. Send the message in the clear and sign it. People do this all the time with email. Regards Sergio Masci part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM, solarwind <.....x.solarwind.xKILLspam.....gmail.com> wrote: > "obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive > messages, signals or identification." > > You gotta be kidding me, right? I read through those links. I couldn't > believe what I was reading. > > I think the better question to ask is, what CAN we transmit? > I suggest you to build or buy a receiver (and definitely _not_ a transmitter), and start listening conversations. You will see that amateurs are concentrating on few things. Some people do not build radio, they buy of those, so they just want to make challenges, like a contact (QSO) to a remote site, or see how is the reception in different weather conditions etc. Some others are do building stuff and they would like to see how good is that, how can they improve, what others build and how and how can they adopt thos things on their station etc. This is where I thought would fit to you, however, I might be wrong. And again, HAM it is _not_ for commercial purpose, including remote controllers! I have never heard of any HAM channel that would be used for RC operation, only CW, RTTY, SSTV, pocket radio etc but all of these are concentrating on the radio station only and the communication protocol, which if you like is pointless. It is like understanding what is the point of skiing? Going up and down and in the meanwhile you are not carrying anything, so what's the point? :-) Why would you build a radio for not using it for a good? :-) I think I can't say anything more than that if you are interested on building radio station, then you should just go for HAM. If you are interested only on RC, then you should simply just buy a remote. Do not just build a transmitter for any frequency, as it then can make noise on other frequencies as well! So maybe it is legal to use CB channels at a certain dB, if your station is not measured and approved by FCC then it is still illegal. Maybe you can build an RC transmitter on RC frequencies, but then again, you need that approval, and also the max power is very limited including antenna used etc. It is very hard to get a job designing and playing with high power radio transmitters, so weather you like it or not HAM is the only reasonable way to do it with all the rules and regulations you need to follow (like it or not). I think I am off from this subject now, because I just can't add anything more. Thanks, Tamas -

Actually, there are legacy RC operations on the 6M band, but most RC enthusiasts are up on 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum these days. Maybe that is the best place for the balloon ops, too. Joe M. On Sat 03/04/10 9:14 PM , Tamas Rudnai EraseMEtamas.rudnaispam_OUTTakeThisOuTgmail.com sent: {Quote hidden}> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM, solarwind arwind.xspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote: > > "obscene or indecent words or language; or > false or deceptive> messages, signals or > identification."> > > You gotta be kidding me, right? I read through > those links. I couldn't> believe what I was reading. > > > > I think the better question to ask is, what CAN > we transmit?> > > I suggest you to build or buy a receiver (and definitely _not_ > a transmitter), and start listening conversations. You will see that > amateurs are concentrating on few things. Some people do not build > radio,they buy of those, so they just want to make challenges, like a contact > (QSO) to a remote site, or see how is the reception in different > weatherconditions etc. Some others are do building stuff and they would like to > seehow good is that, how can they improve, what others build and how and > howcan they adopt thos things on their station etc. This is where I > thoughtwould fit to you, however, I might be wrong. > > And again, HAM it is _not_ for commercial purpose, including remote > controllers! I have never heard of any HAM channel that would be used for > RCoperation, only CW, RTTY, SSTV, pocket radio etc but all of these are > concentrating on the radio station only and the communication protocol, > which if you like is pointless. It is like understanding what is the > pointof skiing? Going up and down and in the meanwhile you are > not carrying anything, so what's the point? :-) Why would you build a > radiofor not using it for a good? :-) > > I think I can't say anything more than that if you are interested on > building radio station, then you should just go for HAM. If you are > interested only on RC, then you should simply just buy a remote. Do not > justbuild a transmitter for any frequency, as it then can make noise on > otherfrequencies as well! So maybe it is legal to use CB channels at a > certaindB, if your station is not measured and approved by FCC then it is > stillillegal. Maybe you can build an RC transmitter on RC frequencies, but > thenagain, you need that approval, and also the max power is very limited > including antenna used etc. > > It is very hard to get a job designing and playing with high power > radiotransmitters, so weather you like it or not HAM is the only reasonable > wayto do it with all the rules and regulations you need to follow (like it > ornot). > > I think I am off from this subject now, because I just can't add > anythingmore. > > Thanks, > Tamas > > > --

In general, the regulations have been interpreted to prohibit the use of any encoding (encryption is an encoding) whose purpose is "to obscure the content" of the communication. That said, waivers have been granted for years for the various ham radio earth orbital satellite command/control links. The amount of spectrum granted licensed amateur radio operators is, literally, worth many millions of dollars, and in return for that use we comply with the rules set forth. Tamas, one correction. I am not sure about other countries, but under Part 97 in the US we have specific allocation channels in the 6 meter band (50-54 MHz) for Radio Controlled aircraft models, as well as allocations in UHF and up for remote control activities of all kinds. On Apr 3, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > And again, HAM it is _not_ for commercial purpose, including remote > controllers! I have never heard of any HAM channel that would be used for RC > operation, only CW, RTTY, SSTV, pocket radio etc but all of these are > concentrating on the radio station only and the communication protocol, > which if you like is pointless. It is like understanding what is the point > of skiing? Going up and down and in the meanwhile you are > not carrying anything, so what's the point? :-) Why would you build a radio > for not using it for a good? :-) -- cheers ... 73 de brian riley, n1bq , underhill center, vermont <http://web.mac.com/brianbr/> Tech Blog <http://www.wulfden.org/TheShoppe/> Home of the K107 Serial LCD Controller Kit FT817 Power Conditioner Kit Tab Robot Laser Tag Kit MSP430 Chips and Connectors Propeller Robot Controller SX48 "Tech Board" Kit PICAXE chips and accessories Freeduino systems

Specifically for 6M RC, 50.800-50.980 in 20 kHz steps, 53.100/200/300/400/500/600/700/800/900 MHz. It's also specified in the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) rules. There are no other specific RC frequencies in the ham bands (don't confuse RC with Control Links). Again, though, while there is some 6M RC activity in the USA, most has migrated to 2.4 GHz Spread Spectrum. Joe M. On Mon 05/04/10 12:53 AM , "Brian B. Riley" KILLspambrianbrKILLspammac.com sent: {Quote hidden}> Tamas, one correction. I am not sure about other countries, but under > Part 97 in the US we have specific allocation channels in the 6 meter band > (50-54 MHz) for Radio Controlled aircraft models, as well as allocations > in UHF and up for remote control activities of all kinds. > On Apr 3, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > > > And again, HAM it is _not_ for commercial > purpose, including remote> controllers! I have never heard of any HAM > channel that would be used for RC> operation, only CW, RTTY, SSTV, pocket radio etc > but all of these are> concentrating on the radio station only and the > communication protocol,> which if you like is pointless. It is like > understanding what is the point> of skiing? Going up and down and in the > meanwhile you are> not carrying anything, so what's the point? :-) > Why would you build a radio> for not using it for a good? :-) > > -- > cheers ... 73 de brian riley, n1bq , underhill center, vermont > Tech BlogHome of the > K107 Serial LCD Controller Kit FT817 Power Conditioner Kit > Tab Robot Laser Tag Kit MSP430 Chips and Connectors > Propeller Robot Controller SX48 "Tech Board" Kit > PICAXE chips and accessories Freeduino systems > > > > > --

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Brian B. Riley <RemoveMEbrianbrTakeThisOuTmac.com> wrote: > Tamas, one correction. I am not sure about other countries, but under > Part 97 in the US we have specific allocation channels in the 6 meter band > (50-54 MHz) for Radio Controlled aircraft models, as well as allocations in > UHF and up for remote control activities of all kinds. > Here in Europe there are many channels in 35MHz for airplane models only. For surface vehicles there are other frequencies (27MHz and 40MHz). But that is not in amateur range, so you do not need a license to own a transmitter. However, if you build the transmitter by yourself or just make any modifications, then above certain power output you should meet some sort of regulations or standards otherwise it is still considered as illegal not only operating it but owning it as well? I can't find any valuable info on it at the moment so I might be wrong? Tamas {Quote hidden}> > On Apr 3, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai wrote: > > > And again, HAM it is _not_ for commercial purpose, including remote > > controllers! I have never heard of any HAM channel that would be used for > RC > > operation, only CW, RTTY, SSTV, pocket radio etc but all of these are > > concentrating on the radio station only and the communication protocol, > > which if you like is pointless. It is like understanding what is the > point > > of skiing? Going up and down and in the meanwhile you are > > not carrying anything, so what's the point? :-) Why would you build a > radio > > for not using it for a good? :-) > > -- > cheers ... 73 de brian riley, n1bq , underhill center, vermont > <http://web.mac.com/brianbr/> Tech Blog > <http://www.wulfden.org/TheShoppe/> > Home of the > K107 Serial LCD Controller Kit FT817 Power Conditioner Kit > Tab Robot Laser Tag Kit MSP430 Chips and Connectors > Propeller Robot Controller SX48 "Tech Board" Kit > PICAXE chips and accessories Freeduino systems > > > > > -

Tamas Rudnai wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Brian B. Riley <spamBeGonebrianbrspamBeGonemac.com> wrote: > > >> Tamas, one correction. I am not sure about other countries, but under >> Part 97 in the US we have specific allocation channels in the 6 meter band >> (50-54 MHz) for Radio Controlled aircraft models, as well as allocations in >> UHF and up for remote control activities of all kinds. >> >> > > Here in Europe there are many channels in 35MHz for airplane models only. > For surface vehicles there are other frequencies (27MHz and 40MHz). But that > is not in amateur range, so you do not need a license to own a transmitter. > However, if you build the transmitter by yourself or just make any > modifications, then above certain power output you should meet some sort of > regulations or standards otherwise it is still considered as illegal not > only operating it but owning it as well? I can't find any valuable info on > it at the moment so I might be wrong? > > Tamas > > Nearly correct. In most EU / CE / ETSI signatory Countries, Licence free *ONLY* applies to CE or ETSI marked equipment. You are technically illegal to use *ANY* power with home made even on "Licence Free" bands. In all Europe, I think, not just EU / CE / ETSI / Nordic, only Amateurs can use unapproved home made equipment,. as long as they comply with their local Regulators Rules (mostly harmonised via CEPT). The SRD (toy walkie talkies and cheap RC toys) is 49MHz in most of Europe. 50 to 52 is "Amateur band". In most EU countries, ownership isn't illegal, but use may be. Sales are a more complex area. In some countries ownership may be considered evidence of use. c.f. TV licence where you need to store the TV out of living area and cut plug off to be convincing that you are not using it.