1994-08-04 - Re: broadcast encryption

Header Data

From: snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 858c46b7eec6f4504f113d7690721aeb0dc90903ac189af85dc1c67a87c0672e
Message ID: <aa66a43b040210239d14@DialupEudora>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-04 15:28:22 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 4 Aug 94 08:28:22 PDT

Raw message

From: snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 94 08:28:22 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: broadcast encryption
Message-ID: <aa66a43b040210239d14@DialupEudora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 5:55 PM 8/3/94, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

>That kind of explains why encryption is not allowed on ham bands, but it
>doesn't satisfy me. The difference between ham and other bands, is to use
>other frequencies I've got to pay the FCC major money for a license, or
>pay some commercial service provider who payed the FCC major money.

Not quite.  As someone else noted, there are unregulated (except for power
and equipment) bands where no license at all is required.

>With ham, I don't have to pay no one nothing, except maybe $10 for a ham
>license. ham, or some other frequency reserved to work like ham, could easily
>serve as a poor man's connection to the internet. Anyone with a desktop
>PC can invest another hundred dollars or so, and have a really low
>bandwith (2400bps) direct connection to the internet. You can do IP
>over ham, although it's really dificult to do so currently without breaking
>the law and losing your license.

Doing IP over the amateur bands is easy, and is done by many people.  Doing
a connection to the Internet over amateur bands is hard.

>A public ham or ham-like radio band would seem to be something the cypherpunks
>would really like. It would definitely facillitate the creation of a sort
>of blacknet type thing. The government has given the public citizens band, and
>ham radio, if they're not going to open up ham so it can be used in the ways
>I'm thinking of, why not take another hunk of spectrum and give it to the
>public, specifically intended for digital transmissions (IP or otherwise).
>This seems to be something we should be campaigning for, and the EFF
>should be lobbying for.

I don't object to your goals, but honestly, I think the EFF should be
lobbying harder for some more important things, like killing the FBI's
wiretap bill and getting cryptological export control lifted.

Bob

--
Bob Snyder N2KGO                                     MIME, RIPEM mail accepted
snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu                       finger for RIPEM public key
         When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.







Thread