$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi devices (2015)

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by punnerud on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:51AM (#13316488)

I wouldn't trust the "<callsign 1> QRT DE <callsign 2>" if it didn't contain a secret message, that couldn't be produced by a 3. party

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by Sanddancer on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:41AM (#13316672)

In Ham radio, you can't use any sort of secret message like that. Everything needs to be plaintext.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by ryan-c on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @08:37AM (#13318106)

I don't think that's correct. Cryptographic authentication of messages should be allowed (ARRL agrees with me[0]), the language specifies you cannot "obscure the meaning" of the communication.

0. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520928844.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by nickodell on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:35PM (#13331113)

That's correct. There's one exception to the encryption rule, which is when sending commands to a space station. (That does not allow you to encrypt the responses, though.) See 47 CFR 97.211, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.211

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by ptaipale on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:30AM (#13316623)

Well, I think then you'd be breaking protocol, because afaik, in ham code you must obey procedure, and QRT tells you to stop transmitting.

[ Parent | on HN ]