Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

dubose at texas.net dubose at texas.net
Thu Nov 4 20:53:27 UTC 2004


Who says you can't use encryption during and emergency?

Walt/K5YFW

> I was just using the Red Cross as an example.  As for
> the rest of it.  It was just a brain storm to explore
> another possibility.  The reason for using Part 15 for
> the local networks is for security.  Since Part 15
> doesn't have the encryption restrictions part 97 has,
> it opens the doors to a wide variety of options for
> securing the local network.  As for the backbone
> links, as stated, using a narrow angle parabolic, high
> gain antenna would, in itself, help secure the network
> link from unlisenced use.
> --- dubose at texas.net wrote:
> 
> > > If we want this to work then here's a course of
> > action
> > > that I think would be a good starting point.
> > > 
> > > 1 - Forget about which of the regulations to
> > operate
> > > under.
> > > 
> > > 2 - Devlope a "backbone" to the system.  This
> > would
> > > consist of central servers located at central
> > command
> > > centers.  In the event of Red Cross activities, a
> > good
> > > location would be the local Red Cross HQ.
> > > 
> > 
> > Your assumption is that the Red Cross is the HQ of
> > emergency communications and
> > disaster plans.  However, while this might have been
> > true a number of years ago,
> > today the Red Cross is a user of ARES/ham emergency
> > communications just as are
> > local governments and other disaster relief
> > organizations.  One should work with
> > the local emergency manager to see what emergency
> > communications are needed.
> > 
> > > 3 - Develop a small, portable and easily
> > configurable
> > > network infrastructure for field locations such as
> > > shelters.  This network would consist of a small
> > > server running a web server, mail server, ftp
> > server,
> > > and PHP applications to handle communications,
> > > bulletines, anything we can think of that pertains
> > to
> > > the local site.  Of course, all of this
> > ifnformation
> > > would have to be stored in a database.  The HQ
> > > permanent server would host this database.
> > 
> > Are these the  "services"  your customer's need? 
> > That's the first question to ask.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 4 - Local field sites would operate under part 15.
> > 
> > > Network links between sites would operate under
> > part
> > > 97.  This would allow local staff to communicate
> > with
> > > eachoter as needed.  Communication that needs to
> > go to
> > > ther sites would be relaed via the local server to
> > the
> > > local hams.  They would then foward the
> > information
> > > over the site link to the necessary site.  The
> > > receiving site would then relay the message over
> > their
> > > local network to the final destination.  
> > 
> > Why not have a local site with 20-30 PCs in a local
> > area operating under Part 97
> > and one or two hams be the control operator(s)?
> > > 
> > > 5 - Utilizing technology such as openH323 would
> > allow
> > > for voice and video communications.  Persons with
> > a
> > > handheld computer and a wireless card could send
> > live
> > > video feed of disaster areas for damage
> > assessment. 
> > > Communication between non hams at different sites
> > > would fall under standard 3rd party communications
> > > over the Part 97 Backbone.
> > 
> > Again, see what does the customer want/need.  This
> > may vary from customer to
> > customer.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Back to the Database.  Site servers would contain
> > > information for the local site.  That information
> > > could then be relayed to a central database at HQ
> > for
> > > permanent storage.  This would be a necessary step
> > to
> > > prevent information being sent by non hams over
> > the
> > > part 97 "backbone."  The database relay would be
> > > manually activiated by a Ham on duty.
> > > 
> > 
> > Walt/K5YFW
> > 
> > > So, there's a rough idea of what I'm thinking of.
> > > --- "Eric S. Johansson" <esj at harvee.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Steven Phillips wrote:
> > > > > I have decided to use this topic as a research
> > > > project
> > > > > for my sociology class.  Here's a question
> > that I
> > > > have
> > > > > come up with.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my opinion, one of the major uses of this
> > type
> > > > of
> > > > > system would be for emergency use in disaster
> > > > > situations.  With the exception of long range
> > > > > communciation, is really necessary to use WiFi
> > > > under
> > > > > part 97?  What I"m getting at, is this.  In
> > the
> > > > event
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > I've often argued that the best interface for
> > > > emergency communications 
> > > > is a browser, and a standard e-mail client. 
> > Which
> > > > means amateur radio 
> > > > becomes a pipe over which non ham originated
> > > > messages pass.  Therefore, 
> > > > we should concentrate on building tools that
> > work
> > > > with standard Internet 
> > > > protocols on one side, transport messages across
> > RF
> > > > links, and then 
> > > > interoperate with standard Internet protocols on
> > the
> > > > other side.  I've 
> > > > often suggested that UUCP is a good conceptual
> > model
> > > > for this environment.
> > > > 
> > > > before you get your part 97 undies in a bunch,
> > yes I
> > > > know there are 
> > > > content restrictions which I believe should be
> > > > waived for the 
> > > > circumstances.  One could argue for this on the
> > > > grounds that we're not 
> > > > providing general access, we're providing a
> > publicly
> > > > beneficial service 
> > > > to the agencies servicing disasters zones.  One
> > > > could use tiered 
> > > > services to allow individuals to send "I'm alive
> > and
> > > > OK" messages 
> > > > outside but not accept any traffic back except
> > under
> > > > very special 
> > > > circumstances.  This traffic obviously would
> > have to
> > > > go through the part 
> > > > 97 scrutiny process.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sheesh I'm long winded. 
> > > > 
> > > > comes with a territory.  I've had to go to water
> > > > cooled finals I talk so 
> > > > much.
> > > > 
> > > > ---eric
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > George Bush makes me long for the honesty of
> > Richard
> > > > Nixon
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ham-80211 mailing list
> > > > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around 
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ham-80211 mailing list
> > > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> > >
> >
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ham-80211 mailing list
> > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> >
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ham-80211 mailing list
> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> 






More information about the ham-80211 mailing list