I think Section 97 is what you're referring to. If so, it's not obstruction of purpose the FCC forbids; it's obstruction of meaning.
Section 97: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
Throughout the part 97, there is a repeated prohibition of transmitting "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." If I understand it correctly, there are many accepted ways to encode a message, but those encoding methods are (and must be) published and publicly accessible. I think that encrypting a message so that only certain people could decipher it would fall under the category of "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." Yes, you could encrypt a message with a published standard, but to be legal I think there would have to be some specific exceptions made to allow it because it ultimately runs afoul of the spirit of that rule.
If the idea is an “if you have a license, send whatever data you want because it’s encrypted” limited allocation then I might be into that. Sharing the spectrum would be complicated.
Whether that space is used for meshtastic, AREDN, etc is up to the local band plan. Leave some for experimenters.
Even APRS (which I realize is usually vhf) would benefit - sms over aprs meant all your phone numbers were public.
IIRC there's more bandwidth in just the 2.4GHz ISM band than all of the ham bands combined. If you want to blast noise (what your encrypted signal appears as) use ISM bands. Don't blast noise on ham bands.
But I'd also bet a dollar that someone fails to understand the difference and gets their undies in a massive twist about it.
How so?
It's like pre-https internet basically.
This also means winlink shouldn't be used for PII (which is sort of important in an emergency!).
If you can at least key exchange and encrypt between you and the next node, you have some safeguards and your messages aren't in the clear - but that is currently prohibited by the regs.
Digital signatures are permissible under the current rules and in principle avoid this issue although the software tooling around it isn't there. Similar example: Debian packages are transmitted over HTTP, but this isn't a problem because they are authenticated with GPG.
You miss the point, it is not about communication as in having a conversation. HAM radio is about testing technical skills of setting it up and being able to test those technical skills to set up communication channel.
If you want to have encryption go to enterprise solutions and restricted bandwidths. Encryption will make asshole companies to use bandwidth for their use without paying and will make all spectrum suck.
That is why you have call signs and all communications open for everyone to listen to because it is for public experimentation not for some private chats or data exchange.
Yes, but, running a "yep, I can hear that" test is a lot less interesting and motivating, for most people, than being able to actually do something quasi-practical with the radio link.
I think it'd open up the possibilities of like, weather balloons streaming their telemetry openly, while ensuring the data they're reporting hasn't been forged, or letting anyone send random commands to it.
That's already allowed, and commonly done.
97.113(a)(4) doesn't say "no cryptography", it says (in part):
>> No amateur station shall transmit [...] messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.
The scheme you're describing doesn't obscure the meaning of your transmissions, so it is perfectly legal.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D...
Rhetorically speaking, what does one do with the fox once it's caught? In particular one experimenting with TAK?
I don't see any real push for a public service like ham to allow outright encryption. Channels feel like they should be for public use. We can get many guarantees, if we need them, without obfuscating the messages.
I disagree: with a finite, shared resource like radio spectrum (and especially the amateur bands), I think it would be too easy for people to abuse if other folks couldn't inspect it.
As it stands, many find it annoying that PACTOR (as useful as it is) is able to keep hidden their proprietary encoding secret (though generally used on marine bands, which doesn't necessarily have the same open-ness restrictions):
* 2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20386875
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACTOR
* https://www.bwsailing.com/bw/ssb-email-and-weather-made-easy...
That's exactly the reason why encryption is banned. The authorities, as well as amateur radio representatives don't want ham radio to become yet another internet channel, with all the commercial activity that happens there.
There are many ways of sending secure messages, but few truly public spaces.
I would also love to see some (not all) uhf band allow encryption. While amateur radio service is about communicating with others, services like winlink and digital messaging are hampered without encryption and become unsafe for the operators. This would also make internet relay possible and legal in uhf.