News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

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

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 ]