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

71–80 of 312 posts

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#71

Post by fredophile »

dschuler wrote: post #39
WJW wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.

I think avmich is getting at the idea that some actions may or may not be legal until determined to be a crime, at which point there would be two: the original crime, and using radio to facilitate it. 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 whil…

My understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#72

Post by jMyles »

kmeisthax wrote: post #11
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #5

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.

Is this a sideways slight against AREDN? Because I still think AREDN is pretty cool.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#73

Post by chociej »

damnyou wrote: post #65
jjoonathan wrote: post #8

I can already hear the cries of censorship. "What do you mean crimes aren't protected speech?"

There were times when being in an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was a crime, and a lot of sex work is still criminalized, so I'm actually quite bothered by (particularly) the prohibition against using encryption. Obviously I have no sympathy for white nationalists, but "crimes" in general tends to cover both things that are bad and things that aren't.

Concealing the meaning of transmissions is contrary to the purposes of the amateur radio service. There are perfectly serviceable radio bands, modes, and services for those wanting to transmit encoded messages, just like there are for those wanting to broadcast, transmit music, engage in commerce, etc.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#74

Post by damnyou »

WJW wrote: post #21
avmich wrote: post #15

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.

That is very definitely not how common law systems work. Common law systems rely very heavily on past precedent and case law, not merely the words in a statute.

Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#75

Post by damnyou »

chociej wrote: post #73
damnyou wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were times when being in an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was a crime, and a lot of sex work is still criminalized, so I'm actually quite bothered by (particularly) the prohibition against using encryption. Obviously I have no sympathy for white nationalists, but "crimes" in general tends to cover both things that are bad and things that aren't.

Concealing the meaning of transmissions is contrary to the purposes of the amateur radio service. There are perfectly serviceable radio bands, modes, and services for those wanting to transmit encoded messages, just like there are for those wanting to broadcast, transmit music, engage in commerce, etc.

Personally I think private individuals should have a fundamental right to encryption regardless of the medium.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#76

Post by jacquesm »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #67
mindcrime wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using my Baofeng for a couple of years now and have no problem working many repeaters here in the Triangle (NC) area. YMMV.

Similarly, my Baofeng has no problem on the many repeaters in the Northern Nevada area. Definitely YMMV.

Ah, but are you getting your replies on the band that you are transmitting at ;)?

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#77

Post by samizdis »

kmeisthax wrote: post #11
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #5

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.

I wonder where the borders lie between encryption and deliberate obfuscation - say, by native speakers of a little-known language (which was done for some WWII radio transmissions by the US [1]) and also to a far lesser extent by old-time London gangs using Cockney rhyming slang and variants thereof. [2]

[1] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-indi...

[2] https://romanroadlondon.com/cockney-rhyming-slang-history/

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#78

Post by chociej »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #59

“messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.” The language is troubling, but the laws on the books in US are already ridiculously broad and overbearing. Usually, the question is more along the lines of what stick you want to use. Just in case you never had a chance, "Three felonies a day" gives will give you an idea where US is now.

The meaning is clear in context. Anything you transmit should be done so with the intent that anyone could receive and easily decode it to understand its meaning. That's fundamental to the purpose of the amateur service. And it's the tradeoff that hams make for having broad swaths of spectrum and liberal freedom to experiment. Plenty of other bands & services exist if one needs privacy.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#79

Post by bashcoder »

chmod600 wrote: post #3

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".

By way of documentation, this refers to FCC Part 97 rules, specifically §97.113(4):

"Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification."

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#80

Post by ssimpson »

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
Post reply on HN