From: Do you know what's in the trunk?  23-Apr-1993 1646 <yerazunis@aidev.enet.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 13:45:17 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: subliminal channels on ham radio
Message-ID: <9304232045.AA27921@enet-gw.pa.dec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



KLB says:

>Hmm... if authenticating signatures can be transmitted, then some
>enterprising and patient cryptographers can also transmit messages,
>encrypted if desired, back and forth using one of the "subliminal
>channel" protocols!
[and goes on to explain such steganography]

yes, you could _theoretically_ use steganography in the authentication
block, but it would be illegal.  Very simply, you must not transmit a
message over the Amateur bands if that message contains information that
is not "in the clear".  

And I doubt any ham would knowingly transmit such a message... hams
would consider it "poor form".  Hams and amateur radio has been self-
policing since WW 1 and Hiram Maxim's passage of a congressional bill
*making* ham radio self-policing to the greatest extent possible.  That's
why the US hams were not silenced "for security reasons" during WW I, and
the tradition of self-policing ham radio has held up ever since.  

Besides, essentially *all* ham traffic is monitored- usually by other
hams, as well as by shortwave listeners, scanner groupies, and even,
occasionally, the FCC.  Hams will DF (direction-find) in on anybody
on their frequencies who break the rules with the ruthless efficiency
of Truly and Justly Annoyed Citizens, and the FCC has (at last!) agreed
to accept tapes made by hams as legal evidence in seizure proceedings.

Thus, the ham radio frequencies are "the wrong pool to piss in", if you get
my drift.
       
	-Bill, N1KGX