Re:FCC Temporary Waiver Permits Higher Symbol Rate Data for ...
by userbinator on Monday August 30, 2021 @09:25PM
(#28362973)
I wonder what they think of steganography, the elephant-in-the-room of all anti-encryption debates.
Re:FCC Temporary Waiver Permits Higher Symbol Rate Data for ...
by second--shift on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @12:12PM
(#28369804)
This is basically my question.
Speaking in shorthand to be clear and concise over the radio is fine. Even using terms of art or abbreviations is likely fine. If you're explicitly coding your communication to obfuscate its meaning you're definitely going to run afoul on the ban of encryption.
Part of the reason for no encryption on ham bands is there's precious little bandwidth available and unintelligible signals (intentionally obfuscated) are tantamount to interference. As a listener I can't reasonably tell if an encrypted signal is noise or a genuine call. I also can't reasonably receive a call sign so I can't know who is transmitting.