I’ve written here before about encryption and whether or not amateur radio operators should be allowed to use encryption. I’d like to throw another log on the fire.
I just read an article in RadioWorld that describes the goTenna, a device that uses Bluetooth and the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS) to allow users with smartphones to text one another even if there’s no WiFi or cellphone link. The goTenna device communicates with the smartphone via Bluetooth and then transmits in the MURS band (151 – 154 MHz).
The goTenna manufacturers claim a range of a half mile to three and a half miles. That’s probably reasonable. In the city, you’ll get a half mile or so range, while out where it’s more open, you’ll get more range.
Among the “key features” are the following:
- Automatic message retry & delivery confirmation
- Individual & group messaging
- ”Shout” broadcasts to anyone within range
- End-to-end encryption (RSA-1024) & self-destructing messages
I have often thought that handhelds should include some kind of text-messaging feature. I suppose you can send text messages using D-STAR, but it seems like an awful expense to do that. It seems that adding this functionality to something like a BaoFeng would make it very appealing.
Also note that this device encrypts the messages. If goTenna can encrypt, why shouldn’t hams be allowed to do so? I’m really not convinced by the arguments put forth by those who are anti-encryption on my previous blog post. I think that someone—someone more knowledgeable about the topic than me—should petition the FCC to allow encryption in certain situations.
Paul Stoetzer N8HM says
How can the amateur radio service be self policing if we cannot view the content of the communications of other amateurs? How can the FCC police the amateur radio service if they cannot view the content of the communications of other amateurs?
If you must communicate securely, the amateur radio service is not the communications service you are looking for.
Martin Freebie says
The FCC dosen’t “police” the airwaves now, except in cases involving interference to public services/police or FAA frequencies. Then there are the cases involving interference to broadcast radio or television – we all know that the FCC is loaded with people from the broadcast industry! Look at the current situation on 75 meter phone band…the FCC claims that “..the cases have beeen turned over to an Administrative Law Judge for prosecution..” yeah, right! I doubt encryption would change anything in this regard. The only possible excuse for disallowing encryption on Amateur Radio is to deny such spectrum to potential terrorists. 73!
sinclair says
There is a difference, goTenna is for profit, while Hams are for fostering good will and open communication. Encryption will stop the open communication, IMHO. PL tones and such are already bad enough when not used only to help control traffic in busy air waves. If you are really worried about someone hearing what you have to say, then ham radio is not the communication means for you.
Jeff, KE9V says
The better question is, why should hams want to encrypt their transmissions? One terrorist act, coordinated by encrypted messages using the amateur bands would be “lights out” for ham radio. So what’s the compelling use-case to do it?
Dan KB6NU says
Why would a terrorist group bother to get amateur radio licenses to do this? If they wanted to use the amateur radio bands, they’d just go ahead and do it.
Jeffrey Davis, KE9V says
My reply wasn’t meant literally. My point is I see no valid use case for encryption – I can only imagine nefarious use of encrypted messages via ham radio. Terrorists, criminals, anyone with a desire to use “secret” two-way radio. Who else needs to encrypt via the ham bands?
C says
Encryption is used for more than just ensuring a message cannot be read. Encryption can also be used to authenticate the identity of a sender. As-is, anyone can hop on the air and claim to be KE9V. Using simple encryption principles (along with the trust that you can keep a private key private) I can validate that the person claiming to be KE9V really is KE9V. Identity authentication is probably like… really really important in a broadcast medium…
This is just one of many applications of encryption which goes beyond “I don’t wan’t big brother spying on me”. You should study encryption.
Spencer says
I like your response… jumping immediately to worst case senario intention prevention is a very weak argument against the idea of allowing ham radio encryption… additionally, having worked with comms personnel in the military, encryption isn’t even the best way to hide communications… we hack and intercept encrypted “terrorist” communications regularly… and with modern technology at work, there are far less complicated and more efficient means of hiding communications over longer ranges then would regularly be used by amateur radio enthusiasts
KB1FUA says
YES!!!
Best answer, so far!
Thank you!
KJ6ZZD says
I’m a big fan of allowing amateur radio operators to use encryption for non-voice communications. For instance, if I convert my WiFi router to a Part 15 device to use more power, I should still be able to use the standard WiFi encryption schemes. I also think that RACES members should be able to utilize encryption for voice communications for the same reason many police and fire departments encrypt their communications.
kf5oio says
Amateur radio is explicitly not for traffic that needs to remain private. It exists for limited purposes not including routine communication that can be served by other means (e.g. a phone or ordinary internet connection). It is chiefly for education and research/experimentation in radio. It is not for general personal communications or commercial use.
The applicable rule in the US[1] says:
“(a) No amateur station shall transmit: […] messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning”
This serves to ensure the amateur radio service is not used in violation of its rules and purpose.
The rule has exceptions elsewhere in the rules. For example, remote control of satellites and model aircraft. And FCC rules as a whole pretty much go out the window when transmissions are for the purpose of protecting the immediate safety of life or property.
The rules are also susceptible of a particular interpretation: You can use encryption, provided the algorithm is documented, and you keep a record of the keys used. This has been used to block non-amateur access to WiFi access points operating within the ordinary WiFi band, but under Part 97 rules (e.g. non-FCC-approved equipment, or higher power than allowed for unlicensed users).
The rule also does not in any way prevent use of authentication and message integrity mechanisms, e.g. HMAC, because they are not intended to obscure the meaning of the message, merely authenticate it.
If you need private communication, there are other avenues available than the amateur radio service. And if you want greater freedom for unlicensed use of the airwaves than now exists, you’ll have my support in principle (there are real problems with a free-for-all, but there are myriad ways FCC rules and spectrum allocation practices could be greatly improved in this regard).
Dan KB6NU says
The argument about self-policing is a good one, but amateur radio is also supposed to be about experimentation, and these rules explicitly prohibit any experimentation. What about allowing encryption for experimentation and for low-power, short-range applications?
Jeff Phillips says
During periods of domestic tranquility there will always be less support for encrypted communications. However, if HAMs intend to be that ready means of communication during a time of their greatest need then I can think it only wise to likewise be prepared–not just in terms of current equipment but also in terms of advocacy for correct public regulatory policy frameworks–for that frightful day in which there is massive civil unrest or civil war. With certainty the voluntary need for encrypted communications will be quite obvious but the preparedness will be insufficient to deliver such even when the conditions greatly demand it.
Matthew says
:) agree. Less fluff next time?
Moe Knight says
Dan,
While goTenna claims encryption and claims retransmission through a network, I’ve been unable to locate any FCC approval of their devices to date (16 April 2015). Setting aside the ham encryption issue as an entirely different issue, Part 95 does not provide for encryption in MURS, does not provide for DATA transmission in MURS, and specifically PROHIBITS repeaters in MURS. On that basis alone I see problems for goTenna coming to market. On a more practical side of things, the 5 MURS frequencies are shared with nearly every Home Depot, Lowe’s, Sam’s Club, Walmart, and Costco in the nation. Driving from Kansas City to Texas/Oklahoma state line and monitoring MURS, it seemed active everywhere.
Moe Knight says
Dan,
I stand corrected, the modulation scheme of 9k6F1D is permissible for MURS. However,
95.1307(d) requires monitoring to avoid interference to others. – goTenna’s user manual says nothing about monitoring, nor does there appear to be monitoring capability of activity on the MURS channel.
95.1311 MURS stations are prohibited from operating as a repeater station or as a signal booster. This prohibition includes store-and-forward packet operation. – While goTenna claims not to ‘store and forward’ what is it if you receive on 2402 MHz and rebroadcast on 151 MHz and vise-versa?
goTenna proudly touts its patent application which requires public access, but demands permanent secrecy for their FCC application on the basis of protecting technical secrets. That sounds contradictory to me.
tom says
There is an interesting exclusion in the FCC definition of a repeater so as not to include intermediate “local ISM” transmissions between devices operated by the same person. e.g. a wireless microphone is thus not considered a repeater if used “locally” to carry voice to armature transmitter under the “direct Local” control of the operator. The encrypted GoTenna ISM BlueTooth to smart phone Link fits solidly in that category. However GoTenna are not allowed to automatically forward msgs using the MURS band. WiFi fits in the same category. just ask the WiFi Packet Boys in Texas ;). There are many legal ISM mesh repeaters on the ISM bands above 1GHZ. But no “automatic” forwarding on the cellular network or the Murs BAND;) “for now” gotenna has already recieved an FCC experimenters permit to perform proof of concept for interference model verification by the FCC. first step in proving v.alue in poor terrain and thus a greater public good where cellulat coverage is not available
Matthew says
This is the most ridiculous thread on communications I’ve ever read.
If terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever you want to call them want to use HAM for com, they will. Nothing that the FCC can do will stop them.
Experimentation? Bits are bits and bytes are bytes, encrypted or not. This is basic physics between analog and digital systems. Experiment all you want with the radio, but you can choose any darn digital protocol you want. Won’t matter.
So, this is really about public vs private communication on the air waves. Make your own decision.
Thayne says
I agree. I am reading these comments and laughing. These people can’t be serious. But, scary thing is, they are…
Bp_968 says
I think the ability to do things like gotenna does are vital to keeping HAM relevant in the future. The ability to send GPS locations and interface with other digital devices and send basic text messages should be something that’s really easy to accomplish using HAM and instead the regulations seem to be keeping it locked decades behind commercial communication. Most of the “hacker” style experimentation I see online is happening in the ISM bands or in “extra legal” ways instead of through the HAM community. I can only guess that’s the case due to “rules mongering” and excessive self policing. I can see why the rules exsist, to stop commercial usage and to stop people from taking all the bandwidth for private personal communication killing the “community” aspect. But I suspect there is room for some changes to better handle modern communication methods.
As for gotenna using Unlicensed frequency, I do take issue with them being able to use patented/closed communication methods. I would gladly support rules forcing any commercial applications in those frequencies to use open standards. As it stands gotenna will never really grow like FRS or wifi have because they use a closed standard. It might be fine for them as a business but it’s a definite negative for the users and society at large. If they were required to use open standards then we would see other equipment providers releasing similar products that could all communicate with each other. I’m not sure I see a problem with “store and forward” either as long as it stays on the network and isn’t just using the network as a long range data leg/pipe. What I mean is its my understanding that in most mesh networks each node knows who it’s neighbors are so if user A wanted to message user C and they were not in range but their friend, user B was in range then they could hop their message through user B and in effect have a much larger range as long as a friend was within radio range.
Brian Bulkowski says
Great conversation here, let me give you a valid reason for encryption that is not terrorism.
Many modern web services are encrypted-only. They believe that the internet is a wild and wooly place, with terrorists and the NSA and the chinese and russians crawling around. Some of these web services involve payment gateways, some involve benign but fun multiplayer games. Some are communications platforms used for personal messaging that promote security, but are often used for non-secure purposes.
Take GMAIL – I’m not sure if GMAIL allows me to turn on unencrypted checking and sending of my email. If they don’t, I can’t use any form of HAM frequency for gmail, which is probably a very robust communication system in the advent of global upheaval ( except to china ).
I find the discussion about terrorism surprising. I can code a message by saying “The bread is ready for baking”, ( instead of the “cookies”, which might be a different target ), and that has a certain meaning. If a terrorist wanted to encrypt, they would, over voice, using code words. No monitoring system would catch them, and it’s even unclear if the regs would prohibit that kind of encryption.
Anyway, I appreciate the discussion because I know understand better the purposes of frequency use and the model of community thought involved.
Cal H. says
Naa … you won’t see encryption on the ham bands in todays world of threats … not in the US at least. Too easy for the hateful to blend into the crowd. Since more and more disaster aid people are now required to handle Protected Health and Personally Identifying information, the role of amateurs in disaster preparedness and aftermath will be quite limited. If you want to play with encryption systems and software, SHARES or the new updated MARS is the way to go …. or just help police the parking lot that the actual players in a disaster recovery scenario are gonna use. Sorry if this sounds crass, but we should really begin talking about the real instead of whining about why “they can, but I can’t”.
John Knight says
Have you listened to a 2m repeater lately? They’re virtually dead. Have you scanned the 2m band? Nothing there. If HAM doesn’t move into the digital and often encrypted world we’ll be watching documentaries about the bandwidth that used to be reserved for amateur radio in a generation.
Bob says
OMG – simply because your allowed your privacy and simple as that ..
Most people are happy to hear there email is encrypted or use vpns ..
Murs allows digital data and encryption legal !!
Surprises me more people don’t use it ..as a licensed ham I hate knowing people can look up my call and find out where I live and even zoom a map in lol
Not because I’m hiding something ,just feels creepy lol
Murs n cb with no license at least leaves you this privacy ..to say as much or little about yourself as you want ..
KB1FUA says
I have two Chinese radios that have “Scramble” in them. They are by different mfg’s. They both have 8 different scramble codes. But there is one (listed as #3 on one, and #5 on the other) so they can communicate. Scramble, is not the same as encryption-but we aren’t supposed to use it either.
I think that Amateurs should be able to use encryption. Experimenting with encryption could be interesting. It could open up some very eye opening ideas!