broadcast encryption

> The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union
> (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for
> different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part
> of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure
> meaning." 

So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
corporations have greater rights than individuals?

	--Paul

On Wed, 3 Aug 1994, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:

> > The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union
> > (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for
> > different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part
> > of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure
> > meaning." 
> 
> So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
> signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
> corporations have greater rights than individuals?
> 
> 	--Paul
> 
> 

Who are these satellite companies?

I work for a major international record carrier and I have no encryption on
any of the earth stations in my inventory.

       --Matt

> Who are these satellite companies?
> 
> I work for a major international record carrier and I have no encryption on
> any of the earth stations in my inventory.

CBS, HBO, etc, either already are encrypting their satellite
distribution signals, or they are in the process of doing so. so they
can force people to license the signals for a fee.

The satellite receivers now have provisions for loading a decryption key.

	--Paul

Paul,

After I sent my reply I realized you all were speaking of video. We are
not encrypting any of the data or voice we are pumping up to overseas.

Matt

> 
> > The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union
> > (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for
> > different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part
> > of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure
> > meaning." 
> 
> So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
> signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
> corporations have greater rights than individuals?
> 
> 	--Paul

My recollection is that scrambling/encrypting over the broadcast
spectrum is allowed if the key is provided to the authorities.

(I have no idea how this works, if and how they would take a PGP key,
etc.)

Clearly the satellite scrambling people (who operate from 22,500 miles
out, which makes this story have other interesting ramifications) can
trivially show what they are actually broadcasting, merely be
providing to FCC/WARC/UN/etc. a decoder box.

With the rapid rise in wireless LANs, radiomail, and dozens of other
wireless systems, I'm not sure how any of this ban-on-encryption stuff
is meaningful or enforceable. Compression looks like encryption, and
vice versa. And a thousand different formats make interceptions and
understanding a challenge. (I've heard specifically that wireless LANs
have no restrictions on encryption. Wonder what this means for
Teledesic, which is targetted for computer communication?)

I'm not a ham person (except as Klaus! or Shabbaz), nor am I lawyer.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Wed, 3 Aug 1994, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:

> So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
> signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
> corporations have greater rights than individuals?
> 
> 	--Paul
> 


I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong, since my only claim to HAM 
knowledge is a couple of freinds and attendance at countless midwest 
HAM-fests...

  I believe a HAM license allows you to transmit on certain semi-publicly 
allocated frequency ranges.  Companies encrypting their satalite 
uplink/downlink have paid for an exclusive license for that particular 
frequency, and can therefore scramble transmissions to protect their 
commercial interest.

  So, do I get flamed now?

-ck

On Wed, 3 Aug 1994, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:

> > The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union
> > (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for
> > different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part
> > of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure
> > meaning." 
> 
> So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
> signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
> corporations have greater rights than individuals?
> 
> 	--Paul
> 
> 

  They can do this because the FCC has SOLD part of our airwaves to the 
company. They can do pretty much anything they want to do with it.  The 
deceptive signals rules apply to Amateurs only. I'm currently studying 
for my no-code ham license so that I can start playing with on air TCP/IP 
and my Linux system. Maybe they'll changes the rules if enough 'new' hams 
could get together. I say 'new' because there are alot of old hams who 
like things the way they are - they even fought the change in rules that 
allow no-code users to get a license without having to take morse code(a 
waste of time in my opinion).

  Brian


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Linux :  The choice of a GNU generation    |  finger blane@free.org
    witty comments pending                     |  for PGP key and subLit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union
> > (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for
> > different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part
> > of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure
> > meaning." 
> 
> So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
> signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
> corporations have greater rights than individuals?

Well, it is a bit complicated and involves a bit of obfuscation, but there 
is a little bit of info regarding this in the August Wired issue (pg 127).
For starters, a treaty that the US may sign is not "law" in the formal
sense of the word, Congress must do a bit of legislative juggling to codify
the treaty into the USC.  So, for the prohibition on encrypting wireless
transmissions we go to the 1934 Communications Act which banned the use of
encryption and scrambling for wireless communications.  Skip forward 50
years to the 1984 Cable Communications Act; this set of laws makes private
communications secure and allows one to encrypt private communications
outside the "hobby" bandwidths.  This bill basically defined satellite
broadcasts as private communications because thier primary purpose (at the
time the bill was written) is to provide a communication channel to the
local cable companies.

Of course, since the time the bill was passed things have changed quite a
bit.  How something like the the direct broadcast satellite tv system will 
fit into this is also unclear.  

jim

Jim McCoy says:
> For starters, a treaty that the US may sign is not "law" in the formal
> sense of the word, Congress must do a bit of legislative juggling to codify
> the treaty into the USC.

Actually, a treaty, once ratified by the Senate, is "the supreme law
of the land", ranking with the constitution in superceeding all other
law. If Congress does not pass enabling legislation, the courts will
happily enforce the treaty. This has nothing to do with cryptography,
however, so I'd suggest that further discussion of this should take
place in private mail.

Perry