mathew davis wrote:
Here is an article I stubled upon while reading slash dot.
http://news.com.com/Feds+snub+open+source+for+smart+radios/2100-1041_3-6195102.html?tag=nefd.lede
<http://news.com.com/Feds+snub+open+source+for+smart+radios/2100-1041_3-6195102.html?tag=nefd.lede> It
doesn't affect the neo1973 coming to america does it?
No - it's not got an opensource radio.
I'd have to say, that in this case, open-source, or more precisely,
radios with transmitters in which the user can alter the code, they
should be licensed _much_ more restrictively than ones which cannot be
altered.
Basically as the consequences of misbehaviour are very bad.
You cannot 'work round' a phone transmitting on an unallocated timeslot,
or doing phone-phone comms in the shared band.
It simply destroys the performance of the network for everyone else.
This is apart from the possibility of people doing intentional jamming,
or attempting to get free calls.
This is _NOT_ security by obscurity.
This is an attempt at making transmitters that can do very bad things in
the hands of users harder to obtain.
The target in this case is not someone who's 26, and can pay $1000 for a
wideband software radio.
It's keeping it out of the hands of the masses, who may be 12 year olds,
with poorly developed senses of ethics.
_______________________________________________
OpenMoko community mailing list
community@lists.openmoko.org
http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
