Is compression “encryption” under FCC regs?Signing of messages transmitted over ham radioWhy do Amateur...
Why was Goose renamed from Chewie for the Captain Marvel film?
meaning and function of 幸 in "则幸分我一杯羹"
How can The Temple of Elementary Evil reliably protect itself against kinetic bombardment?
How did Alan Turing break the enigma code using the hint given by the lady in the bar?
weren't playing vs didn't play
Getting bad quality map when exporting as PDF?
Bash script should only kill those instances of another script's that it has launched
Can Mathematica be used to create an Artistic 3D extrusion from a 2D image and wrap a line pattern around it?
How does NOW work?
Why would one plane in this picture not have gear down yet?
Is it possible to avoid unpacking when merging Association?
Reversed Sudoku
How can I ensure my trip to the UK will not have to be cancelled because of Brexit?
An alternative proof of an application of Hahn-Banach
Is it "Vierergruppe" or "Viergruppe", or is there a distinction?
Do items de-spawn in Diablo?
Database Backup for data and log files
What are some noteworthy "mic-drop" moments in math?
Can you reject a postdoc offer after the PI has paid a large sum for flights/accommodation for your visit?
In the quantum hamiltonian, why does kinetic energy turn into an operator while potential doesn't?
Coax or bifilar choke
How are showroom/display vehicles prepared?
Can one live in the U.S. and not use a credit card?
What problems would a superhuman have whose skin is constantly hot?
Is compression “encryption” under FCC regs?
Signing of messages transmitted over ham radioWhy do Amateur Radio organizations in the United States oppose the relaxation of encryption prohibitions?How far from earth do FCC regulations apply?How can I know whether a radio is FCC approved?FCC tracking of unlicensed FRS/GMRS transmissionsWhy does the FCC put restrictions on symbol rates?legal - Do FCC regulations only apply in U.S.A?What are FCC/Industry Canada certification requirements for amateur radio related products?How to get professional or official clarification of FCC Part 97 rules for specific complicated situations?Is there any point to keep the CSCE after the FCC registers the upgrade?Do FCC regulations limit digital data rate?
$begingroup$
I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.
If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.
It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?
united-states legal digital-modes encryption
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.
If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.
It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?
united-states legal digital-modes encryption
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.
If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.
It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?
united-states legal digital-modes encryption
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
$endgroup$
I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.
If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.
It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?
united-states legal digital-modes encryption
united-states legal digital-modes encryption
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
edited 3 hours ago
Kevin Reid AG6YO♦
16.2k33170
16.2k33170
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
asked 3 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
52919
52919
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.
To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.
The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.
Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).
On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.
Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "520"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13009%2fis-compression-encryption-under-fcc-regs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.
To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.
The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.
Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).
On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.
Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.
To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.
The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.
Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).
On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.
Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.
To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.
The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.
Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).
On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.
Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
$endgroup$
For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.
To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.
The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.
Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).
On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.
Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
answered 1 hour ago
Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ
16.5k11146
16.5k11146
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
$endgroup$
As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
answered 3 hours ago
Mike Waters♦Mike Waters
3,4272635
3,4272635
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Amateur Radio Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13009%2fis-compression-encryption-under-fcc-regs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
