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

171–180 of 312 posts

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#171

Post by nikitaga »

some_random wrote: post #115

I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for this, but honestly FCC regulation of ham radio is at best antiquated cold war bullshit (ie, crypto bans) and at worst gatekeeping for a bunch of old men who can dox themselves in order to get exclusive access to some bands. Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.

> Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.

Your cell service provider holds the license.

Ham radio exam is not hard, and does not require special training, just some basic knowledge of how radios work and what the regulations are. I don't see what the issue is.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#172

Post by wglb »

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #58

Meanwhile, over on the amateur radio boards, the old dudes are saying this is all a conspiracy theory to take hams off the air, in preparation for... something. Something nefarious the Biden administration is planning. And they wonder why the kids aren't going into amateur radio.

Avoid the sideband frequencies except during contests

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#173

Post by imroot »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #5

Just a note that listening in - even to police scanner frequencies - counts as legal use.

Except in Kentucky (in a motor vehicle), unless you're a ham:

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id...

When I chatted with a SRO about this when programming the schools radios a few years ago, I was told that he didn't know anyone other than the State Police to issue citations for that law, and it would only be a 'secondary' offense (if you were pulled over for speeding, and they saw the scanner, then you'd likely get a citation, but, they wouldn't pull you over if you had an antenna on your car).

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#174

Post by xenadu02 »

stretchcat wrote: post #153
xenadu02 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "riot" to eject a dictator vs a "riot" to stop Congress from certifying the winner of the election/install Trump as dictator are - to my eyes - entirely different in character. People do what it takes to survive. Trump usurping power and ending 230 years of US democracy represents an existential threat. Don't be shocked that a lot of people and companies are not on-board with that idea and are willing to take extre…

When the dictator operates a secular government and the alternative is an ochlocratic theocracy, I don't think the morality of the situation is so clear cut.

I didn't mean to imply the result is always ideal or even good. That's one of the dangers of revolutions and suppression of dissent.

I'm saying there is no reason to be surprised when you're asking platforms to ignore Trump's attempt to end democracy and they decline.

To give a hypothetical: if Trump's followers were harassing Matt Prince's family every day at home, work, and school there wouldn't be any hand-wringing about "free speech" or "censorship" from Cloudflare. Anyone related to Trump would find themselves banned in short order. That would be purely a move of self-preservation.

Similarly a lot of platforms (and donors) realize these people are no longer useful idiots but deluded to the point of ransacking the house of Congress in an attempt to overturn the election. That's really dangerous and could destabilize the country and even the world. When faced with an existential threat don't be shocked when people are unwilling to sit down and debate on behalf of MAGAs/Fox News acting in bad faith.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#175

Post by morganvachon »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #120
blhack wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people complain about Baofengs so much. I have a bunch of baofengs that I bought to pass out as emergency radios at burning man. They have saved at least one person's life, because it meant we were able to call the emergency services when somebody had a heart attack and collapsed. I'm sure that guy is glad that that crappy $20 radio was there and a ham operator had configured it for the 911 service i…

People mostly complain about Baofengs because they leak a bunch of RF interference everywhere. Not obvious to the Baofeng user, but obvious to radio operators on other frequencies.

It's hit or miss in my experience. My first Baofeng was well behaved as far as RF interference, but it was so shoddily built that it literally fell apart on me a couple of years into ownership (the battery latch, belt clip, and TX button all broke within a week of each other).

My second Baofeng was more physically sound but had issues with RF harmonics on UHF so it was useless on the band I wanted it for.

I've since gotten a Radioddity DMR handheld and it's both physically and functionally sound. It cost the same as four Baofengs but it's worth it, not to mention the ability to talk on DMR groups.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#176

Post by claudiawerner »

generalizations wrote: post #154
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very well, who gets to determine that hierarchy and how will they enforce their determinations?

Not the government. And why should anyone inflict their view of morality on anyone else? I really don't want anyone - liberal, conservative, Christian or radical Islam - enforcing their determiniation of moral hierarchy on me. Do you?

> Not the government. And why should anyone inflict their view of morality on anyone else?

To be clear, are you taking the position of the anarchist here? I mean no disrespect, I only wish to understand your position. I think most people would say, with various exemplars, that the government can legitimately have a blacklist maintained over certain speech, very much in the same way it can have one over certain actions.

This is not an appeal to popularity, it is a statement of the non-anarchist position. You may think it is invalid, but by the same token, I think that consistently you'd have to see laws against murder or child rape to be invalid.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#177

Post by schoolornot »

jMyles wrote: post #165
some_random wrote: post #115

I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for this, but honestly FCC regulation of ham radio is at best antiquated cold war bullshit (ie, crypto bans) and at worst gatekeeping for a bunch of old men who can dox themselves in order to get exclusive access to some bands. Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.

> I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for this My experience in the amateur radio community is that hate is exceedingly rare, although disagreement is common. > Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone. So let's have a discussion: do we really want these kickass bands to become another cell phone band? I think it's useful to have a part of the spectrum on whi…

Use it or lose it in my opinion. The bands are underutilized and the barrier of entry, regardless of what most people think, is too high. Joe Shmoe should be able to watch an hour long video and then get a call sign the same day after passing an exam. Why a tech needs to understand antenna theory, space transmissions, and ionosphere reflection is beyond me. Cool, sure. Essential, c’mon.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#178

Post by Lammy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #144
paxys wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people at the Capitol riot/insurrection were all relatively well off. This "economic anxiety" argument is tired and completely fake.

> The people at the Capitol riot/insurrection were all relatively well off. “All” probably overstates the case, but it certainly seems that they were disproportionately so. Certainly, those that have been arrested or identified from video (sets that seem to converge over time) seem to be largely employed (prior to the attack, less so after) and not poor.

TIL rich people can afford to travel more than poor people :)

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#179

Post by blahyawnblah »

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…

I know people who use them because they will transmit and receive on pretty much any frequency. Not because they're cheap.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#180

Post by pnw_hazor »

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…

The warning applies to GMRS walkie-talkies too. I doubt folks were using HAM bands.
Post reply on HN