From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:18:33 +0800
To: Ed Carp <wb8foz@nrk.com>
Subject: Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
Message-ID: <m0twCzp-0008yoC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:36 PM 3/10/96 +0000, Ed Carp wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 1996, David Lesher wrote:
>
>> > 
>> > Subject asks it. I'm not a HAM, but still curious. Wonder if anyone
>> > has brought this to Leahy's attention...
>> > 
>> > Comments from the packet folx on the list?
>> 
>> Non-cleartext has been forbidden for last 60 years anyhow.
>
>Not quite.  Anything intended to hide the meaning of the message is 
>banned.  Compression isn't banned, because the intention is to make more 
>efficient use of the frequency, not to hide the meaning.
>--
>Ed Carp, N7EKG    		


Even so, it isn't clear that this new law WON'T change the rules under which 
hams operate.  An affirmative statement of the right to use encryption would 
seem to pre-empt prior bans, except if there was some sort of explicit 
exception for over-the-air transmissions.  After all, the law was written 
broadly, and presumably is to be interpreted broadly.  It if doesn't list or 
single out any particular medium (text on paper; Internet; modem/telephone; 
etc) then it may reasonably be assumed to apply to all media.

Not that such an interpretation will necessarily be welcomed by some hams:  
Part of the reason for maintaining the ban on encryption would be the fear by 
hams that ham bandwidth will be surreptiously used by commercial services 
masquerading as ham users.  Encryption would make such usage difficult to 
detect.

However, I happen to believe that hams should be entitled to use good 
encryption, for voice and data communication.

Jim Bell, N7IJS


jimbell@pacifier.com