[52012] in Cypherpunks
Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deranged Mutant)
Tue Mar 12 05:42:53 1996
From: "Deranged Mutant" <WlkngOwl@UNiX.asb.com>
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 05:21:48 +0000
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
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.
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.
[..]
> 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...
Rob.
---
Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in
quotes) to <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.
