🚀 go-pugleaf

<chris@LIB.SIU.EDU> writes:
> 
> I have real mixed feelings about this issue.  There are some subtle
> points that need clarification.
> 
> In certain circumstances it is useful to code information.  Some 
examples
> include:
> 
> --Nets with large numbers of spotters and a high volume of traffic.
>   Here, coding information makes dispatching more efficient.
> 
> --Nets covering large areas or rural areas where pre-determined site
>   names are much easier to transmit than exact locations.
> 
> -Nets operating in areas where the broadcast media has proven to be
>irresponsible and "run with" information that has not been  confirmed
>or only tells part of the story (like listening to a single hurricane
>recon aircraft report and proclaiming "the storm is weakening").
> 
> -Protecting sensitive information or avoiding a rush of 
thrill-seekers
>  such as in the case of VORTEX reports or after a bonefide disaster
>  when scene protection and information embargoing are necessary.
> 
> I am not saying that coding information is *always* the best 
solution....
>   Further, if the information
> is coded, the public and media may make false assumptions (guesses) 
leading
> to secondary problems like false evacuations or diverting of 
disaster relief.
> 
> I'll stop here and solicit more comments.  ..Chris..
> 
*====================================================================*
> Chris Hayes Novy - WA9V   Internet: chris@siu.edu


Since you are soliciting comments.....

I agree that codes are useful for a number of reasons -- BUT, the regs
explicitly prohibit codes and ciphers.  I don't have my copy of part 
97 in front of me at this time, but if I remember correctly somewhere 
it lists exceptions - baudot, ASCII, Morse code, international Q 
signals, etc.  I don't remember seeing skywarn codes listed.

Whatever you may argue as to the "intent" of the regulation, the FCC 
does not enforce the intent.  If and when they decide to enforce, it 
is by the letter of the law.  Furthermore, some of the examples you 
cite imply intentional concealment of information, which I am sure 
would be considered a violation even by the most liberal 
interpretation.

We are licensed to be communicators.  We are not licensed to be judges 
of the intent or ability of the news media, nor to be censors of what 
sensitive information should be broadcast publicly.  That's not to say 
these are not issues to be dealt with, just that in these cases 
discretion has always been the rule, not codes and ciphers.  If it 
isn't suitable for others ears -- don't broadcast it, use the 
telephone, or since Morse code is explicitly allowed - use CW.

73 es BK

--------------------------------------------------------
Hank Montgomery         WB4EXQ          wb4exq@scott.net
PACKET - wb4exq@w4cue.#al.noam    or   wb4exq-1 via SHL1
--------------------------------------------------------
Life Member ARRL           Member: SCARC / BARC / TPARCA
--------------------------------------------------------