Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

arrl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 312 posts

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#121

Post by throwaway09223 »

nimbius wrote: post #49
UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #35

Baofeng's, Baofengs everywhere. 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…

As a pinch of salt... If you can get a baofeng to last out of the box longer than a week, and manage to DX a handheld or a repeater further than a parking space away, you should at least win a QRP award and a discount on your technicians test before you get sent to the klink.

Nonsense. I bought a baofeng years ago and it works perfectly well. It's a basic, cheap radio well suited for beginners.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#122

Post by ASalazarMX »

ssimpson wrote: post #80
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #23

People who are intending to use radios to commit crimes aren't going to read this and go... "Darn." As a HAM, to the other HAMs who are worried the FCC will use this as justification to curtail your privilges -- they will, and they'll tell you it's necessary for your own safety. Will it make us any safer? Of course not. So where does the real problem lie? The people using radios to commit crimes, or the government us…

Ham isn't an acronym :D

For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio

> At the turn of the 20th century, the terms "ham" and "plug" were used by landline telegraphers to describe an operator "who lacks ability" or who had poor or "ham fisted" skills.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#123

Post by hnuser847 »

generalizations wrote: post #87
chmod600 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is reason to worry when the tools of defiance or rebellion are taken away. Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good. This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government. There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very…

> Rebellion is bad Not always. Not saying it is here, but I think it depends on the context. Arab Spring, for instance.

What's interesting to note is that the Arab Spring was largely organized on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. US media outlets were thrilled about this, and wrote article after article talking about how these platforms gave the common man the opportunity to vent about police brutality, corruption, election fraud, and unemployment in a way that simply wasn't possible previously. The general attitude at the time was that social media platforms, and the free speech they enabled, would be a force for good in the world, despite the Arab Spring involving a fair amount of violence and ultimately leading the upheaval of several countries.

Fast forward a decade later, and now the attitude is the complete opposite.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#124

Post by generalizations »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #119
generalizations wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no man wants...many do feel Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold. If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter o…

Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information? If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.

> If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.

It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good laws and bad ones.

From the outset, I said that there is a difference between saying that freedom of speech is something the government allocates to us, and something which the government ought to allow. Do you think the government gets to decide what we are, and are not, allowed to say?

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#125

Post by yodon »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #118
chmod600 wrote: post #16

Related: Mexican drug cartels using radios: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21109605 A lot of that is probably to reach areas the cartels need to operate that don't have other reliable communication, or have little enough that it would be easily surveiled. Not sure if it applies to urban criminal activity, which is what the ARRL is worried about.

Encrypted radios. Any radio store will sell those, IDK why the rioters skimped on that.

> Encrypted radios. Any radio store will sell those, IDK why the rioters skimped on that.

Key distribution.

Encrypted radios are useless if no one knows what key to use, and equally useless if everyone knows what key to use. Sharing encryption keys with people you've never met on an open forum is equivalent to giving everyone the keys, just like sharing encryption keys with random people you've never met at public riot is equally equivalent to giving everyone the keys. One of those people you share with will be on the other side, at which point it's game over for your encryption. That said, given the brain trust that invaded the capitol building, I guess you're right, it is surprising they didn't have that added layer of security theater in the form of useless encryption everyone in DC could have been listening to.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#126

Post by nimbius »

blhack wrote: post #108
nimbius wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a pinch of salt... If you can get a baofeng to last out of the box longer than a week, and manage to DX a handheld or a repeater further than a parking space away, you should at least win a QRP award and a discount on your technicians test before you get sent to the klink.

Strong disagree, and wish this sort of gatekeeping wasn't present. Go get one of these things. They're $20, and ham radio is a fun and useful hobby. I have many baofeng radios which have been in many forms of being thrown into boxes, backpacks, filled with dust, rained on, abused by drunks, dropped, etc. and they ALL are still working fine, albeit some with dest behind the LCD cover.

Oh its not gatekeeping. You get what you pay for.

My baofeng 5 died two hours into a 12 mile backpackign trip across catalina island. It couldn't do a quarter mile line of sight with an airport 2m amateur tower and when turning on the flashlight feature in my tent it died entirely and would not power back on. I was entirely reliant on it for ranger station as well as general comms and phone patch/weather. Packing this plastic trash couldnt have been more dangerous.

Programming is also a byzantine nightmare.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#128

Post by Blikkentrekker »

generalizations wrote: post #124
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information? If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.

> If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law. It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good la…

I don't believe in morality; it's an indefinable and unfalsifiable concept

I simply said that the claim of believing in “freedom of speech, except where one not” is an empty, useless, and trivial statement.

Everyone believes in “freedom of speech, except where he draw the line”.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#129

Post by Lammy »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #35

Baofeng's, Baofengs everywhere. 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.

It makes me uneasy to see how much commentary on recent events seems to focus on insulting these people instead of hearing how society has failed them and why they're upset even if we tend to disagree with their suggested fixes. I think their presence in DC and that "colorful" person they elected are all symptoms of this behavior.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#130

Post by generalizations »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #128
generalizations wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law. It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good la…

I don't believe in morality; it's an indefinable and unfalsifiable concept I simply said that the claim of believing in “freedom of speech, except where one not” is an empty, useless, and trivial statement. Everyone believes in “freedom of speech, except where he draw the line”.

Where freedom of speech falls in the hierarchy of rights is not my concern. What is my concern, is who gets to choose what that hierarchy is and where freedom of speech exists on it.

I'm arguing that the government is not who gets to determine what that hierarchy is, and thereby determine what gets to superceed freedom of speech.

Post reply on HN