Re: The un-BBS

Evidence, how did the cases the FCC brought turn out?

If the network had used commercial radio licenses, how much more
would it have cost them (per node; I have a vague idea of the
size and power of a random Amateur Packet Radio node (in computer
terms and cost))?

Would this have given them greater immunity in prosecution?

(Hmm.. if you're passing it on, you're broadcasting it? Could
encryption tech be used to "enhance" APRN to give sysops "plausible
deniability?"

Phil

On Mon, 25 Apr 1994, Phil G. Fraering wrote:

> Evidence, how did the cases the FCC brought turn out?
> 
I don't really remmeber.  I think they ended up settling-- the guy got a 
small fine in return for a guilty plea.  But, that is just a guess!


> If the network had used commercial radio licenses, how much more
> would it have cost them (per node; I have a vague idea of the
> size and power of a random Amateur Packet Radio node (in computer
> terms and cost))?
A lot more.  Commercial licenses are expensive, and the number of
frequencies available is smaller.  Also, commercial equipment is more
expensive.  Finally, if it were on commercial freq's, then Amateur Radio
Op's couldn't use it... What would be the point?

> 
> Would this have given them greater immunity in prosecution?
> 
Yes, the FCC reg's against commercial transmission only apply to amateur
radio.  If they had been using commercial freq's, it would not have
been illegal.



> (Hmm.. if you're passing it on, you're broadcasting it? Could
> encryption tech be used to "enhance" APRN to give sysops "plausible
> deniability?"
> 
No, the FCC interpretation was that Amateurs have an obligation 
to make sure that all transmissions from their stations conform
to the requirements of the FCC Part 97 rules.  Broadcasting encrypted
communcations on amateur radio is itself a violation of the rules.
That's right!! the government has already banned encryption.... on
Ham Radio.

Evidence Inc.
Evidence@Nowhere.Nil

<In mail Evidence Inc. said:>
> 
> No, the FCC interpretation was that Amateurs have an obligation 
> to make sure that all transmissions from their stations conform
> to the requirements of the FCC Part 97 rules.  Broadcasting encrypted
> communcations on amateur radio is itself a violation of the rules.
> That's right!! the government has already banned encryption.... on
> Ham Radio.

Not entirely true...

  The rules governing amateur radio operators says that you can not
  use any secret codes or ciphers whose intent is to obscure meaning.
								  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ASCII is a code but it is used in packet and such to convey information
  in an agreed upon format, not to obscure the meaning of the message.

  My contention is that a signature, while encrypted, is not encrypted
  to obscure the meaning.  It says it is a sig, it is a sig, and contains
  no other information that is not readily available (email addresses can
  be included, but it is retrievable with a commonly available program PGP.)

  Oh, and don't let the 2 by 3 format of my callsign mislead you.  It's my
  original callsign... I didn't want to bother with making everyone learn
  a new one.

  [If anyone has specific ham radio questions not relating to crypto,
   please feel free to write email to me.]

-- 
 Tantalus Inc.			Jim Sewell      Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ
 P.O. Box 2310		    Programmer           Internet: jims@mpgn.com
 Key West, FL 33045	    C-Unix-PC          Compu$erve: 71061,1027
 (305)293-8100 						     PGP via email on request. 
 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3  C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73

My prior post should have been:

   use any secret codes or ciphers whose intent is to obscure meaning.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry for the format problem... I hate tabs.

-- 
   Tantalus Inc.        Bringing people together     Jim Sewell-KD4CKQ
2407 N. Roosevelt Blvd.   to have a little fun.  Internet: jims@mpgn.com
Key West, FL  33041                                   CIS: 71061,1027
  (305) 293-8100    "We keep coding and coding and coding..."

On Wed, 27 Apr 1994, Jim Sewell wrote:
> 
>   My contention is that a signature, while encrypted, is not encrypted
>   to obscure the meaning.  It says it is a sig, it is a sig, and contains
>   no other information that is not readily available (email addresses can
>   be included, but it is retrievable with a commonly available program PGP.)

A randomized signature or signature with random padding can be used as a 
subliminal channel...  (insert creepy music here :-)


-- Rolf



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolf Michelsen         Phone:  +47 73 59 87 33
SINTEF DELAB           Email:  rolf.michelsen@delab.sintef.no
7034 Trondheim         Office: C339
Norway                 "On the internet nobody knows you're a dog"
----------------------------------------------------------------------