| |
N1URO > SYSOP 29.08.20 16:05l 65 Lines 3018 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 52120_N1URO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: AL0Y > JNOS BID CHANGING
Path: IW8PGT<IZ3LSV<DB0ERF<DB0RES<ON0AR<OZ5BBS<CX2SA<PE1RRR<PY2BIL<OK2PEN<
N1URO
Sent: 200829/1352Z @:N1URO.#CCT.CT.USA.NOAM #:52120 [Unionville] $:52120_N1URO
From: N1URO@N1URO.#CCT.CT.USA.NOAM
To : SYSOP@WW
> I am not sure how the FCC or any other person can mistake compression for
> encryption. Those are two totally different things.
You know there's a difference between the two, *I* know there's a major
difference between the two... but to really mess things up requires
liberal government.
> An encryption is when me and you use a key to encode a decode a message
> where noone can understand the meaning of message without that key.
> According to CFR 97.113 about the prohibited transmission, the FCC states
> that "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" are
> prohibited.
The FCC however does not use that definition. Their definition if you
read between the lines of how part 97 is drafted is that encryption is
anything that is NOT in plain eye view. There was a linked repeater
system in NY I believe that was using IP w/ssl to link with via RF and
the FCC ordered them to drop the ssl or cease operations because another
ham could not decode the messages even though the meanings weren't
changed. If you'd like to hire legal counsel to battle the feds, by all
means I'm sure we'd all enjoy a comedy show. Those of us who've been doing
this for decades know better.
> However, this is not the case for compression. As compression, on the other
> hand, is simply still readable by ANYOME who knows how to uncompress the
> message.
This is where the issue lays. A field observer is not required to have a
3rd party utility to "decode" anything. If they do it's considered to be
encrypted by governmental definition. (NOT technical definition)
> In your text above you refer to the compressed message as being
> "un-readable", this -however- is because the compressin in this case is
> using a different encoding (I think 6-bit) instead of the normal 8-bit
> based which your terminal is still trying to use to "read" the compressed
> transmission.
The compression used in mail forwarding is 8-bit.
> According to CFR 97.113, the FCC states that "messages encoded for the
> purpose of obscuring their meaning" are prohibited. FBB compression is NOT
> obsecuring the message meaning, as it only encodes it in a publicly known
> format and hence they are no illigal.
Again, while you raise a good technical argument this is not the way our
(and perhaps other) governments view this. An obscured text is one that
can NOT be viewed and read with the naked eye without any 3rd party
utility to decode the text... not to mention that there is also a need of
original source to compare this to of which in a transfer of mail is never
shown.
As an educated guess, I would safely assume (which I hate to do) that the
reason you don't hear of those forwarding compressed mail have ever been
prosecuted in this country - I don't know about others. BTW; I have
proposed this question to the FCC, I know how they answer this... and I have
shared their view with you in this reply.
73
---
SendBBS v1.1 by N1URO for LinFBB
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
