Article View: bit.listserv.skywarn
Article #1636Re: Codes and SKYWARN Nets
From: Hank
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 00:00
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 00:00
61 lines
2653 bytes
2653 bytes
In Article<2.2.32.19960404132521.006880f4@norden1.com>, <rdale@NORDEN1.COM> writes: > > Does that mean when I tell someone over the air that "I'm making a run for > the border" instead of "eating lunch at Taco Bell" I'll lose my license? I > think you would have a hard time proving that spotter ID numbers, which are > used to speed the flow of information from us to the NWS, are used to > "conceal" information. > > Rob > Rob the original question contained the following > In certain circumstances it is useful to code information. Some examples > include: > > -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. > > 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. > Rob, There are no codes or ciphers involved in your transmission saying you are going to "run for the border", and there is no intent to conceal the meaning of your transmission. The examples above are obviously the intentional use of codes to conceal the meaning (content) from the listener who is deemed to be an unwanted listener. I still say that is a blatant violation of FCC regs -- regardless of whether it protects them from misinterpretation of communications or anything else. It is not legal to intentionally conceal information by the use of codes in any ham radio transmission -- for any reason. The question that comes up is whether or not the "INTENT" of the ham makes any difference as far as legality. I haven't found where the regs make any allowances for good intentions. 73, WB4EXQ -- Hank
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<NEWTNews.828743657.2649.wb4exq@wb4exq.scott.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<2.2.32.19960404132521.006880f4@norden1.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1048cc,46caebd1f8035ef9 X-Google-Attributes: gid1048cc,public From: Hank <wb4exq@scott.net> Subject: Re: Codes and SKYWARN Nets Date: 1996/04/05 Message-ID: <NEWTNews.828743657.2649.wb4exq@wb4exq.scott.net> X-Deja-AN: 145997612 references: <2.2.32.19960404132521.006880f4@norden1.com> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: Scott Network Services, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: bit.listserv.skywarn