All: I'll start with Jack's response. Since there are already exceptions in Part 97 that do permit "obscuring the meaning" of a transmission, it's not quite accurate that Hams may not use any form of encryption. I've admittedly stretched the definition of "obscuring the meaning" in my request since I believe it's arguable that there is a difference between meaning and content. If the meaning of the transmission is known but the particulars contained in the transmission are not sent in an easily decoded form, does this fit the spirit of Part 97? That's clearly what is going on for satellite control and it's because there is good reason for doing so.
Also note that Part 97 permits the use of "unspecified digital codes" as long as they are not intended to obscure the "meaning" of the transmission (there's that word again). It also establishes the District Director as the person responsible for assuring compliance and provides options for such compliance, including maintaining a record convertible to the original information. Again, I perhaps pushed the letter of that part of the rules, but believe my request was within the spirit of those rules. As you can see, Part 97 does permit encryption in limited cases and does permit transmissions that may not be decipherable by other hams or the public. It should not be much of a stretch to apply these concepts to public service when it makes sense to do so. Unfortunately, nobody who read my request saw it that way or they simply made the (rather rash) assumption that existing professional communications would be available to provide that capability. In response to Joel's comments, I think it's clear that you need to take disaster communications very seriously. There's several reasons for this. One is that there is a clear need and that has been proven again and again in real disasters. We also see this time and time again even in simulations where the professional emergency services have trouble with their communications, their systems become overloaded, and there's things that need to be communicated that aren't central to their important tasks. Another is that unless you take disaster communications seriously you can't possibly be prepared to perform in that capacity, won't know how to interact with the professional emergency services, and certainly won't know what you're going to need or have it ready when the need arises. Yet another reason is that the professional services need to understand what Ham Radio can do for them, have some level of confidence that their local Ham organizations can perform. None of this happens without taking disaster communications very seriously. To function during a disaster, you must have some prior concept of what communications will be required. While Hams are particularly adept at making things work in a pinch, and we've had to do that numerous times in exercises, it's best not to be fudging things together if you can avoid it in the heat of a disaster. Since we had identified a clear need to provide confidential communications (other than the typical patient info stuff you hear people reference), we felt it was important to explore how we might be able to do this. We know we can apply public-key cryptography in a disaster and won't hesitate to do so if it's a matter of life or property, but it would be best to practice exactly that and to formalize the procedures to be better prepared and avoid squabbles after the fact. We can probably still do that without sending actual encrypted transmissions, but that leaves open the possibility that we're practicing a flawed procedure. Note also that I was not proposing routine use of encryption, but rather it's use in exercises and with specific limitations. I don't think the parameter of my proposal risked crossing a barrier to routine use any more than encryption for satellite control does. As for overlap with the public safety services communications capabilities, I think that's exactly what we're working to achieve--and then some. Those communications assets and capabilities are vulnerable to overload, failure, and unavailability in a disaster. Also, public safety personnel are not focused on communications as a primary task. It's a struggle simply to keep them trained and familiar with common communications tasks. A disaster is certainly not a time to ask them to adapt to unfamiliar procedures, assuming that they even have the ability to do so. It's also a given that there just isn't enough money to build a fully fault-tolerant communications system that has adequate overflow capability to cope with any disaster anywhere it might occur. They may think so, but we know better and exercises and real disasters show this time and time again. I really don't think I'm trying to solve problems that don't exist (as Joe M. suggested). I'm trying to be realistic. My overriding consideration for preparation is that I never want to be in the position of disappointing our professional emergency management when they turn to us for help. If our local E.M. tells me that I need to help them with communications for transport and distribution of critical medications and leaking the details of that to the general public would jeopardize those operations, I don't want to fail him. If, for whatever reason this happens (perhaps all professional emergency communications is already overloaded in support of riot control during a pandemic and the National Guard is stretched thin) who else is going to fill this need. Why not the Hams. I just want to be prepared. Chuck - N8DNX jack wrote: > OK > > Lets look at this from the legal stand point. You MAY NOT use ANY form of > ENCRYPTION on ham radio! The short is do it and you risk your license as > well as a fine and or jail time. > > > > PLEASE read part 97.113 sub 04. > > .... > Joel Koltner wrote: > Hi Charles, > > I suspect you're correct that your request was > probably kicked around a fair deal with no one really taking that much > time to read and understand it, but in the end I agree with the > response your were given. I think you're suffering from the problem > that many hams who are particularly interested in EMCOMM tend to face > -- while ham radio holds itself out and very much does provide many > emergency services in times of disaster, it's only one part of why the > amateur radio service was created, and when you start getting "really > serious" about EMCOMM you find that what you're trying to do is > overlapping with what the various public service agency > frequencies/services were intended to do... and on those frequenciese > people can and do use encryption routinely. Of course, I realize the > frustration here is that in some areas hams have considerably better > infrastructure set up for emergencies than public service agencies do, > so just being told, "if you need to > transmit some sensitive > personal information, go grab an agency radio" can be a step down in > the level of service you can provide. > > Some random thoughts: > > ... >
