Re: hamradio/satellite

On 2024-07-30, news@zzo38computer.org.invalid wrote:

Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:

 
 
On 2024-07-18, rek2 hispagatos wrote:

>
Hello anyone has any active/updated info on radio/satellite on gemini?

 
It'd be questionable at best (at least in the US), due to the integral
encryption.

>
[...]
>
If you are concerned about if the file is correct, one possibility is that
you can use the cryptographic hash of the file when accessing it to check
that it is correct (e.g. the "hashed:" scheme that I had written about, or
you can just do it manually instead if you prefer). (I don't know if this
prohibition of the "encryption" is including cryptographic hashes, but it
is not significant to this since the hash does not need to be sent to the
server in order to use it.)

The specific (US FCC) rule is that an amateur radio operator is
prohibited from transmitting a message in such a way that the intended
meaning is obscured.

So a checksum / optional file hash (digital signature, etc.) is fine by
the rule, since the "encoded data" is merely a way to validate a
previously sent plaintext message made it across the network as you
intended.  There's no "obscured meaning" if you've got a HTTP server
accessible via radio that includes a listing of "file:checksum" pairs,
providing that you indicate what the checksums are (e.g. MD5, CRC32,
etc.) 

Likewise a new code for CW transmissions, general data transfer, etc. is
perfectly fine, PROVIDED THAT the method of encoding/decoding is public
knowledge before you start using it.  There are some caveats to what
constitutes "public knowledge", but I think they're to the effect of "a
provably dated article in your club's newsletter" (or post-dated mail,
etc.).


--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860