[HamWAN PSDR] Encryption on HamWAN

[Edmund Leavitt]

My experience with microwaves is limited almost entirely to the unlicensed 2.45 GHz system in my kitchen that thaws food and reheats coffee.  So please forgive the fundamentally ignorant question.   

Is it feasible to switch to something other than 47 CFR 97 freqs without obsoleting the existing hardware?
______________________________________________

Edmund Leavitt              
K7EFL  /  AFZ0AH                      USNG: 10TET36292223
______________________________________________ 


---------- Original Message ----------
From: Bart Kus <me at bartk.us>
To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>, Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel at nigelvh.com>
Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Encryption on HamWAN
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:54:30 -0700

I think it's important to recognize that the Internet has changed 
significantly since the project's inception in 2012.  Two very important 
things came to pass, that impact the HamWAN use case arguments in 2012:

1) HTTPS became universally deployed, instead of being reserved for 
specific pages.
2) Browsers have removed support for null-cipher HTTPS.

Even the use case of surfing Wikipedia can't be done on HamWAN these 
days.  Heck, you can't even do a Google search for anything.

Is there a point to powering a network that's so useless?  As Thom 
points out, it can't even be used for WebEOC emcomm either.  People need 
to regularly test + practice emcomm tools for them to be usable in a 
real emergency.  This is not allowed right now.

Part97 is incompatible with modern computing life, and we might be 
better off having a smaller footprint that offers actual utility.

Or we can just wait a couple years for StarLink / OneWeb.

--Bart


On 7/19/2019 12:27 PM, Nigel Vander Houwen wrote:
> Thom,
>
> This is something we’ve thought about as well. The FCC is explicitly permissive in the case of a real emergency, though that doesn’t really cover the use case during the rest of the time. This is one of a number of reasons why we (the network admins) have specifically avoided blocking anything but blatant abuse (mostly virus type stuff). We want to leave the possibility open in terms of the network for these sorts of cases, but that comes with users needing to take on the responsibility to maintain their own compliance.
>
> The team is discussing ways we can help with this, while leaving things as flexible as possible. One of the current front running ideas is adding instructions to the client node configuration page that everyone uses to set up their modems, to block HTTPS at your modem. That leaves you the option to disable it if required (unlike if we implemented the block on the network side), but helps to maintain compliance during regular activities. It’s still very much an active discussion at this point, but if folks have ideas we’ll certainly welcome them.
>
> Thanks,
> Nigel
>
>> On Jul 19, 2019, at 12:17, Thom Wescott <thom.wescott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nigel,
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder, I'm not one to argue that, but it does bring up a question.  There is not much of the web left that is not HTTPS, I'm thinking particularly of emergency management sites such  as WebEOC. Is this violation likely to be excused when providing communications support in a real public emergency?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thom Wescott
>> KI7EFG
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSDR mailing list
>> PSDR at hamwan.org
>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR at hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr