Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes • Hacker News Board

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#301

Post by MrMorden » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 5:54 AM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #289

MrMorden wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely do that, and there are several potential license and license-free options. None of them are amateur radio, however.

I'm curious what the license-free options are that you're referring to. I thought I'd done my research, but I missed that.

U-NII, mostly. The drawback from amateur radio or another licensed service is that you won't be able to use anything like the same power output. Whether that works for you depends on your definition of "long distance".

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#302

Post by generalizations » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 6:51 AM UTC

MrMorden wrote: post #301

generalizations wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what the license-free options are that you're referring to. I thought I'd done my research, but I missed that.

U-NII, mostly. The drawback from amateur radio or another licensed service is that you won't be able to use anything like the same power output. Whether that works for you depends on your definition of "long distance".

Yeah, that doesn't really fit the bill. I'm talking about HAM radio definitions of 'long distance', where one of the shorter hops is ~150 miles. I might as well stick with Part 15 as use U-NII.

That's the problem - hn regularly has threads talking about how decentralized infrastructure is so important. Having a (dialup speed) p2p network that is built on long range connections would be insanely reliable and would probably revolutionize what we think of as the Internet.

- ISPs would be optional

- access to the internet would be the one-time cost of the hardware

- a totalitarian government trying to shutdown the internet would have to hunt down portable repeaters over hundreds of square miles

- the infrastructure would be in the hands of the people, not megacorps like verizon and comcast.

But that requires encryption, and spectrum allocations that can cover the distance.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#303

Post by nec4b » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:08 AM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #297

nec4b wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they have. https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...

There is some disconnect here. These are violent right-wing rioters storming a state capitol building. The allegation of OP was that BLM protestors were doing something like that.

Yes you are right, I posted the wrong link. Here is the correct one:

https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#304

Post by nec4b » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:12 AM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #298

nec4b wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BLM vandals stormed Oregon State Capitol. They also established autonomous zone where they had their private security shooting two black teenagers.

Are you sure about this? The link you yourself shared shows photos of people carrying "thin blue line" flags. The quotations inside the article you shared says "Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem". Here is the link you shared in a sibling comment: https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-en…

Thanks for noticing, you are right, i mixed the two events. The BLM rioters breached a court house in Portland [1], while the other side attacked the state capitol in Oregon.

[1] https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#305

Post by kelnos » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:58 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #255

kelnos wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on how protestors should be treated, but take issue calling the people at the Capitol "protestors". Some certainly were simply protestors, but quite a few -- those we are talking about now -- crossed the line from protesting into breaking and entering, vandalism, and in some cases violent behavior.

I think "protester" is appropriate for people who are protesting a political process in a political building - even if some of them exceeded acceptable behavior, committed crimes, were violent etc. Using BLM as an example, is it still fair to call them protesters though they sometimes fight with police (violent behavior), graffiti or break windows (vandalism), loot (breaking and entering)?

Sure, I agree. But this thread is specifically talking about the subset of the protestors who were committing crimes. No need to call that subset "protestors".

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#306

Post by some_random » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #292

some_random wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, my problems with ham is 1: For stupid legacy reasons, I can't use crypto 2: In order to get and hold a license, I have to provide my full name and address, which is then PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

It sounds like what you'd approve of is something entirely different than Amateur Radio. Neither of the things you mention is an accident or "legacy" restriction.

Ah yes, what would amateur radio be if my name and address weren't published for all to see.

No, I don't care about ham, I care about the many other things you need a ham license for, such as flying drones in some configurations. I never said any of this was an accident, and the cryto stuff is absolutely cold war legacy bs.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#307

Post by some_random » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

schoolornot wrote: post #177

jMyles wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Joe Shmoe's name and home address are published for everyone to see. To some people that is an insurmountable barrier to entry.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#308

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #306

justin66 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like what you'd approve of is something entirely different than Amateur Radio. Neither of the things you mention is an accident or "legacy" restriction.

Ah yes, what would amateur radio be if my name and address weren't published for all to see. No, I don't care about ham, I care about the many other things you need a ham license for, such as flying drones in some configurations. I never said any of this was an accident, and the cryto stuff is absolutely cold war legacy bs.

[deleted]

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#309

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #306

justin66 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like what you'd approve of is something entirely different than Amateur Radio. Neither of the things you mention is an accident or "legacy" restriction.

Ah yes, what would amateur radio be if my name and address weren't published for all to see. No, I don't care about ham, I care about the many other things you need a ham license for, such as flying drones in some configurations. I never said any of this was an accident, and the cryto stuff is absolutely cold war legacy bs.

[deleted]

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#310

Post by angry_octet » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 11:08 PM UTC

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #281

JamesBarney wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 100% do believe in objective reality. But they're being lied to by everyone they trust. Look at the number of nurses refusing the vaccine. There aren't the only people having trouble discerning truth from fiction. Recording yourself committing sedition is pretty dumb though...

There are a lot of comments and replies to my statement but you are the only one I've seen that has understood exactly what I was thinking about when I made the comment. Don't record yourself breaking the law. It doesn't matter which side of history you end-up on. It doesn't matter if in 10, 50, or 400 years, history decides that you were right. Right now, the authorities will find you guilty.

Peaceful protests often involve visibly breaking the law. Rosa Parks even did it without cameras! Gandhi, MLK, suffragettes, conscientious objectors, Thoreau etc.

There is a long history of police and intelligence services surveilling and infiltrating peaceful protest movements. Authorities of the day definitely will imprison people.

The big difference is that the QAnon/Trump/etc crazies are planning violent criminal action. Those people end up grouped with IRA/UVF, Nazis, ISIS, Hezbollah, mafiosos etc.