Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: hamradio/satellite
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:46:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <slrnvalflu.28a.dan@djph.net>
References: <v7bm3n$l9k4$2@matrix.hispagatos.org>
 <slrnv9j4ok.nch.dan@djph.net> <1722360409.bystand@zzo38computer.org>
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:46:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0454582062edbc0e24421d43e8d918e0";
	logging-data="1889272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YFkj03rVgCVMGht91sNDfPacoCSVD8i0="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RPyFYMyzBaYvYE5QUMDQTcVCQHE=
Bytes: 2842

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