broadcast encryption
The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure meaning."
So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their signals, while individuals are not? Another example where corporations have greater rights than individuals? --Paul
The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure meaning."
So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their signals, while individuals are not? Another example where corporations have greater rights than individuals?
Well, it is a bit complicated and involves a bit of obfuscation, but there is a little bit of info regarding this in the August Wired issue (pg 127). For starters, a treaty that the US may sign is not "law" in the formal sense of the word, Congress must do a bit of legislative juggling to codify the treaty into the USC. So, for the prohibition on encrypting wireless transmissions we go to the 1934 Communications Act which banned the use of encryption and scrambling for wireless communications. Skip forward 50 years to the 1984 Cable Communications Act; this set of laws makes private communications secure and allows one to encrypt private communications outside the "hobby" bandwidths. This bill basically defined satellite broadcasts as private communications because thier primary purpose (at the time the bill was written) is to provide a communication channel to the local cable companies. Of course, since the time the bill was passed things have changed quite a bit. How something like the the direct broadcast satellite tv system will fit into this is also unclear. jim
Jim McCoy says:
For starters, a treaty that the US may sign is not "law" in the formal sense of the word, Congress must do a bit of legislative juggling to codify the treaty into the USC.
Actually, a treaty, once ratified by the Senate, is "the supreme law of the land", ranking with the constitution in superceeding all other law. If Congress does not pass enabling legislation, the courts will happily enforce the treaty. This has nothing to do with cryptography, however, so I'd suggest that further discussion of this should take place in private mail. Perry
On Wed, 3 Aug 1994, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:
So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their signals, while individuals are not? Another example where corporations have greater rights than individuals?
--Paul
I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong, since my only claim to HAM knowledge is a couple of freinds and attendance at countless midwest HAM-fests... I believe a HAM license allows you to transmit on certain semi-publicly allocated frequency ranges. Companies encrypting their satalite uplink/downlink have paid for an exclusive license for that particular frequency, and can therefore scramble transmissions to protect their commercial interest. So, do I get flamed now? -ck
The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure meaning."
So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their signals, while individuals are not? Another example where corporations have greater rights than individuals?
--Paul
My recollection is that scrambling/encrypting over the broadcast spectrum is allowed if the key is provided to the authorities. (I have no idea how this works, if and how they would take a PGP key, etc.) Clearly the satellite scrambling people (who operate from 22,500 miles out, which makes this story have other interesting ramifications) can trivially show what they are actually broadcasting, merely be providing to FCC/WARC/UN/etc. a decoder box. With the rapid rise in wireless LANs, radiomail, and dozens of other wireless systems, I'm not sure how any of this ban-on-encryption stuff is meaningful or enforceable. Compression looks like encryption, and vice versa. And a thousand different formats make interceptions and understanding a challenge. (I've heard specifically that wireless LANs have no restrictions on encryption. Wonder what this means for Teledesic, which is targetted for computer communication?) I'm not a ham person (except as Klaus! or Shabbaz), nor am I lawyer. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Wed, 3 Aug 1994, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:
The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure meaning."
So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their signals, while individuals are not? Another example where corporations have greater rights than individuals?
--Paul
Who are these satellite companies? I work for a major international record carrier and I have no encryption on any of the earth stations in my inventory. --Matt
Who are these satellite companies?
I work for a major international record carrier and I have no encryption on any of the earth stations in my inventory.
CBS, HBO, etc, either already are encrypting their satellite distribution signals, or they are in the process of doing so. so they can force people to license the signals for a fee. The satellite receivers now have provisions for loading a decryption key. --Paul
Paul, After I sent my reply I realized you all were speaking of video. We are not encrypting any of the data or voice we are pumping up to overseas. Matt
On Wed, 3 Aug 1994, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote:
The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure meaning."
So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their signals, while individuals are not? Another example where corporations have greater rights than individuals?
--Paul
They can do this because the FCC has SOLD part of our airwaves to the company. They can do pretty much anything they want to do with it. The deceptive signals rules apply to Amateurs only. I'm currently studying for my no-code ham license so that I can start playing with on air TCP/IP and my Linux system. Maybe they'll changes the rules if enough 'new' hams could get together. I say 'new' because there are alot of old hams who like things the way they are - they even fought the change in rules that allow no-code users to get a license without having to take morse code(a waste of time in my opinion). Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linux : The choice of a GNU generation | finger blane@free.org witty comments pending | for PGP key and subLit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Brian Lane -
Chris Knight -
Matthew D. Finlayson -
mccoy＠io.com -
Perry E. Metzger -
pstemari＠bismark.cbis.com -
tcmay＠netcom.com