Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 05:21 AM 3/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote:
>jim bell wrote:
>
>> Even so, it isn't clear that this new law WON'T change the rules under which 
>> hams operate.  An affirmative statement of the right to use encryption would 
>> seem to pre-empt prior bans, except if there was some sort of explicit 
>> exception for over-the-air transmissions.  After all, the law was written 
>
>I re-read the bill... it notes "wire" communications, as opposed to 
>all forms.  It also allows for previous restrictions to keep in 
>effect, I think.

Perhaps.  But I would hope that this bill would also contain protections for 
good-old-paper storage and communication (as admittedly useless as it may 
appear) and infrared and radio communication (such as satellite feeds, 
including uplinks, point-to-point microwave, IR links, PDA (personal digital 
assistant) links, cell phone connections, cordless phone connections, fiber 
LANs ("wire" and "fiber" might arguably be legally identical, but I wouldn't 
count on it) and various forms of electronic and magnetic and optical storage.

>Still, the distinction between wire and wireless is not clear anymore 
>with new technologies.  Certainly if enough HAMs pester Sen. Leahy 
>about this 'oversight' positive changes could be made.

I think it's going to take a LOT of pestering.  I didn't see a single 
concern of Mr. Junger that sounded inappropriate, and there are a lot of 
protections that could be added to this bill if people like him had the 
opportunity.  A substantial load of stuff needs to be REMOVED, as well!  All 
that key-escrow crap, at least with regard to the escrow holder.  If key 
escrow is VOLUNTARY, then the key user and key holder can come to whatever 
VOLUNTARY agreement they'd care to.  The only "key escrow" material that 
needs to be put into law are unavoidable criminal penalties for GOVERNMENT 
AGENTS who induce people to violate their contracted obligations, and 
requirements that any key-user be informed immediately if his key escrow 
agent is approached on any matter related to his escrow agreement, 
especially if this approach is done by a government agent.

>[..]
>> Not that such an interpretation will necessarily be welcomed by some hams:  
>> Part of the reason for maintaining the ban on encryption would be the fear by 
>> hams that ham bandwidth will be surreptiously used by commercial services 
>> masquerading as ham users.  Encryption would make such usage difficult to 
>> detect.
>
>Interesting point... 

Hams have been allocated a lot of (now!) very valuable spectrum space.  The 
orginal arguments for that were probably:

1.  It's there and we're not using it.  (not so true anymore!)

2.  Hams drive technology (although admittedly that it's really so true 
anymore, either.)

3.  Hams provide valuable community services, for example in case of 
emergencies.  (still true)

But what law giveth, law can also taketh away.  A few years ago, a 2-MHz 
portion of the 220-225 MHz ham ban (220-222 MHz) was taken away and given to 
UPS, yes, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.  Ostensibly, the reason was that hams 
weren't using it adequately, a claim which might or might not have been true.

Hams "police" themselves and their spectrum space fairly well, because abuse 
(or merely lack of use!) may lead to the loss of the space.

Jim Bell, N7IJS
jimbell@pacifier.com