- cross-posted to:
- technology@midwest.social
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@midwest.social
- technology@lemmy.ml
Orig title: We Tested the Off-Grid Radio That Scares Cell Companies
Orig title: We Tested the Off-Grid Radio That Scares Cell Companies
While I take your point, I’d like to observe that you’re not quoting from the actual legislation which doesn’t talk about encryption, instead it describes the notion of “obscuring the meaning of the signal”. (13.2.d.iv)
See: https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2023L01648/asmade/text
Before you tell me that this is describing encryption, consider Morse code, which requires you to know that a “dit-dah” means the letter “A”. This is like having a code to represent something else, just like the word “Alpha” means the letter “A” and “QTH” means your operating location.
In other words, if there’s a common understanding of the meaning, it’s not obscured, but it can still be encrypted.
I realise that this is a fine line, but the word encryption doesn’t require that nobody knows.
I understand what you mean, but I’m not sure that is meant by obscuring the meaning of the signal.
Morse code is a way of sending unobscured information, everyone who listens in and knows how to interpret it can see what is transmitted - so the transmission is not obscured. SSTV is gibberish if you listen to it, but everyone can decode it into a picture if they use the public known way on how to do it. It’s even worse when you think about what obscuring the meaning entails. You are not allowed to run a number station, because everything you send doesn’t mean anything, since your number codes are obscuring the meaning of the message.
Also law is interpreted by the government and if the agency in charge says they see that as an interdiction of cryptography the only way to challenge that would be in court since they would just fine you or take away your license for encrypting anyway.
I think we’re agreeing that the notion of encryption is subject to interpretation and you are absolutely right in pointing out that the regulator gets to decide what it means unless challenged in court.
I like the SSTV example because it’s not obvious how to decode it, requiring tools to do so. The same is true for ft8 and Olivia for example.
I don’t exactly know where the line is and based on my experience with this, I think that it was written like that on purpose.
I’m totally with you on that, but I think the encryption ban also was/is also actively supported by the bigger ham radio organisations. There is some open communications culture, which is fine, but it shouldn’t hinder people to encrypt their traffic if they want to.