Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

dubose at texas.net dubose at texas.net
Thu Nov 4 21:46:14 UTC 2004


For NORMAL day-to-day ham radio use, encryption to obscure the meaning of a
message id NOT permitted.

During an EMERGENCY, you do what is necessary to get the information across.

I am not telling you to use or that you can or cannot use encryption during an
emergency; however, I AM going to use encryption during emergency communications
if that becomes necessary and I WILL be operating on the ham bands.

Walt/K5YFW


> You can as long as it doesn't obscure the meaning of a
> message, the WEP codes have to be made public.  i.e.
> the WEP keys on the arrl hsmm page.  Using part 15, we
> can use any key we want and keep it private to protect
> personal/confidential information.  Atleast until it
> goes over the backbone.
> --- dubose at texas.net wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ham-80211 mailing list
> > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> >
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
> www.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