From: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 03:41:05 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
Message-ID: <199603121028.FAA08674@UNiX.asb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


jim bell wrote:

> 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 

I re-read the bill... it notes "wire" communications, as opposed to 
all forms.  It also allows for previous restrictions to keep in 
effect, I think.

Still, the distinction between wire and wireless is not clear anymore 
with new technologies.  Certainly if enough HAMs pester Sen. Leahy 
about this 'oversight' positive changes could be made.

[..]
> 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.

Interesting point... 


 
Rob. 

---
Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in
quotes) to <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.