Re: [44net] Test New Tool - APRS Code Recovery

KB3VWG et al, The FCC disagrees with your statements on encryption. The concern is regarding the ability of others to receive your transmission's content. A PL tone does not block the ability for an external party to receive the message. Quoted from FCC DA13-1918, released on 18 September 2013: "Section 97.113 is intended to help maintain the non-commercial character of the amateur radio service by prohibiting certain types of transmissions. The primary protection against exploitation of the amateur service and the enforcement mechanism in the amateur service is its self-regulating character. [...] amateur stations must be capable of understanding the communications of other amateur stations. The content of messages that are encoded, however, are known only to those stations that have the code used to encode the message. In the case of encrypted messages, the message content is known only to stations having the encryption algorithm or key." It is reasonable to believe that if a third party cannot reasonably determine the contents of a message (eg, more than just metadata), that transmission is in violation. Also a few posts prior, KB3VWG stated "US Part 97 never says 'encryption is prohibited'". While this is true, it is unwise to interpret that loosely. The phrase "prohibition on encryption" is used multiple times in FCC order DA13-1918. While this is not as unequivocal as a statement in CFRs, it does provide insight to their intent of part 97, and we should act accordingly. Note that authentication mechanisms are not part of the identifying character of a transmission's nature. In the same petition, the ARRL submitted comments that stated "the ARRL has previously advised members, following discussions with Commission Enforcement Bureau and Wireless Bureau staff, that encoding exclusively for authentication purposes does not violate Section 97.113(a)(4)". These remarks were not addressed in the FCC's order, but other parts of the comment were referenced and quoted directly. We should continue to operate with the understanding that the use of encryption for the purpose of authentication is permissible and certainly not a gray area. Luckily the FCC recognizes that this ban on encryption (and other "impediment"s to hams) is an issue suitable to be resolved in administration rather than legislation. I remain hopeful that this may be resolved in petitions. As always, I am not a lawyer, you should not act on my opinion, and you are wise to completely ignore my message. Cheers, K0RET On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:38 PM, <lleachii(a)aol.com> wrote: -- Ryan Turner