31–40 of 312 posts
What is the practical implication? I guess they are saying: "don't involve radios in your crime, or else the feds will be after you, too".
Just a note that listening in - even to police scanner frequencies - counts as legal use.
Not only that, but you actually are prohibited from encrypting ham radio transmissions. This means, practically speaking, no ham Internet, as everything mandates encryption online nowadays.
Whether or not that counts as encryption, I don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
tl;dr : How to turn a local or state crime into a federal one. It isn't particularly shocking that this is a statute. I wonder if ham radio was used in the capitol riot.
Of all the images I have seen of the attempted coup, I have only seen baofeng radios. These are very cheap ($20'ish) radios that work very poorly (they splatter all over the bands) even when equipped with decent antennas. They barely work when equipped with the stock rubber-duck antennas.
It's easy to be a snob about the type of radios that they are using, but that's not even the point.
These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online. There is already plenty of rules regarding what can/can not be said using amateur radios. There is however no requirement to provide identification before you purchase an amateur radio.
Anybody can buy them, and it's based on the honour system to use them according to the law. It's already against the law to use them in a manner that is against the law.
Id' like to see this used as a punitive measure against everybody who was using them during the coup. Maximum FCC fine for all of them.
This might be a dumb question, but is there any information out there about how much official monitoring goes on for amateur bands (and other bands, for that matter)? Are there strategically placed logging stations that allow triangulation of signal origin based on RSSI etc? I guess this stuff is super commonplace in SIGINT, I just don't know much about it.
But in a cost cutting move they handed over most of the monitoring of the ham bands over to volunteers organized by the ARRL. Testing was also turned over to volunteers and you no longer had to go to the local FCC offices.
As a result the FCC personnel lost contact with hams. This in my mind is the only reason that this letter could have been sent. If they have proof that these communications are taking place they should say so. Hams do a lot of volunteer work in their communities and it's like the federal government all of a sudden feels they are untrustworthy. This did not sit well at all with the hams I know in our local community.
Just a note that listening in - even to police scanner frequencies - counts as legal use.
Not only that, but you actually are prohibited from encrypting ham radio transmissions. This means, practically speaking, no ham Internet, as everything mandates encryption online nowadays.
Would a group call on WhatsApp/Signal be regarded as radio usage. When working over 4G/5G?.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge.
I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong.
There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.