So if encryption is allowed/use on Ham Radio who is going to control the crpyto gear, and who is going to set the daily keys? Who says station K1XXX can have a setup up but K1XXZ can't, even though both are working encomm's. So of the reasons you give might be valid, but it is would be opening up another can of worms, just like the deal with the Red Cross is with their background checks. I say HR does not need encryption, and no it would not provide seamless capability.
My 2 cents Kurt K8YZK ----- Original Message ----- From: expeditionradio To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:07 AM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption > Bill N9DSJ wrote: > Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one > could provide an single example I would be interested...... Hi Bill, Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis. Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers. Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the over-the-air communication: 1. To shield private data 2. To shield private telephone numbers 3. To shield sensitive email addresses 4. To shield system passwords 5. To shield station remote control 6. To secure access to stations 7. To control satellites 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham 9. To protect medical information 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality 11. To control repeaters 12. To shield identities of children I'm sure there are more reasons... but that's some of the things I thought of in the few minutes it took to write this. Bonnie KQ6XA
