Is compression “encryption” under FCC regs?












3












$begingroup$


I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.



If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.



It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.



    If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.



    It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      1



      $begingroup$


      I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.



      If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.



      It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I read this question about digital signatures and FCC prohibitions on "obscuring" messages in amateur transmissions, and it cause me to think of something: the difference between encryption and compression is small.



      If I send a file in compressed form via digital radio (say, a Mesh running on firmware-modified wifi routers, to support data rates that don't make this silly), the contents are easily decompressed by anyone who receives the file in error-free form (and most compression systems include redundant error correction codes to reduce the likelihood that the file will fail decompression) -- but without attempting decompression, there's no simple way to tell whether the file is encrypted within the compressed archive.



      It would obviously be a no-no to send an encrypted archive by amateur radio, I think, but where is the line drawn? Does compression itself count as "obscuring" the contents?







      united-states legal digital-modes encryption






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 7 hours ago









      Kevin Reid AG6YO

      16.2k33170




      16.2k33170










      asked 7 hours ago









      Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon

      53419




      53419






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.



          To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.



          The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.



          Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).



          On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.



          Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander
            1 hour ago



















          0












          $begingroup$

          As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            -1












            $begingroup$

            Compression is not encryption. You don't have to use a standard compression method.



            By FCC rules, even encryption is not encryption if you publish the key (and the algorithm).



            It doesn't matter how you encode the signal if you publish the method to decode it.



            However, if you spoke plain words but used special words for special meanings in ways that is not published, that would be illegal, as it obscures the meaning.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
              StackExchange.schematics.init();
              });
              }, "cicuitlab");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "520"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13009%2fis-compression-encryption-under-fcc-regs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.



              To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.



              The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.



              Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).



              On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.



              Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
                $endgroup$
                – Alexander
                1 hour ago
















              2












              $begingroup$

              For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.



              To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.



              The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.



              Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).



              On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.



              Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
                $endgroup$
                – Alexander
                1 hour ago














              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.



              To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.



              The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.



              Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).



              On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.



              Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              For governments around the world to continue to trust that amateur radio has no nefarious purpose, it is essential that everyone that wishes to, can "listen in" to any amateur radio communications. Anything that hints at eroding this capability will likely be struck down in time through regulation.



              To pass the FCC legal hurdle regarding obfuscation, it must first be evident that the purpose is not to obscure the message. Part of this test would likely be that the technique must accomplish some useful level of compression if that is really its purpose.



              The legal second test would likely be that can anyone readily decompress the message to return it to its clear text form. This must be very easily achievable due to broad publication or acceptance of the compression method.



              Both tests are important. For example, consider a symmetric encryption scheme using an industry standard and with the encryption key widely published on the web. This will possibly pass the second test but it would fail the first test because it doesn't actually compress the message in any real sense. It is also clear that the public standard is primarily for encryption (obscuring) and not compression (reducing).



              On the other hand, FT8 makes extensive use of compression. The standard is well published so that anyone wishing to decode the bits can do so. Even though the compression "obscures" the message - it is clear the purpose of the technique is compression. Furthermore, the software to copy FT8 transmissions is readily available for free. Everyone can "listen in". So FT8 passes both tests.



              Even Morse Code uses a form of compression by using shorter symbol lengths for the more commonly used letters. Clearly it passes both tests.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 4 hours ago









              Glenn W9IQGlenn W9IQ

              16.5k11146




              16.5k11146












              • $begingroup$
                "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
                $endgroup$
                – Alexander
                1 hour ago


















              • $begingroup$
                "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
                $endgroup$
                – Alexander
                1 hour ago
















              $begingroup$
              "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander
              1 hour ago




              $begingroup$
              "Why does this rule exist at all?" Why does this rule exist at all? The same sort of rule doesn't apply to phone lines, internet, WiFi, bluetooth, or a slew of other systems.
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander
              1 hour ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  As long as your compression uses a standard compression method, it is legal and not considered encryption.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  Mike WatersMike Waters

                  3,4252635




                  3,4252635























                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      Compression is not encryption. You don't have to use a standard compression method.



                      By FCC rules, even encryption is not encryption if you publish the key (and the algorithm).



                      It doesn't matter how you encode the signal if you publish the method to decode it.



                      However, if you spoke plain words but used special words for special meanings in ways that is not published, that would be illegal, as it obscures the meaning.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$


















                        -1












                        $begingroup$

                        Compression is not encryption. You don't have to use a standard compression method.



                        By FCC rules, even encryption is not encryption if you publish the key (and the algorithm).



                        It doesn't matter how you encode the signal if you publish the method to decode it.



                        However, if you spoke plain words but used special words for special meanings in ways that is not published, that would be illegal, as it obscures the meaning.






                        share|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$
















                          -1












                          -1








                          -1





                          $begingroup$

                          Compression is not encryption. You don't have to use a standard compression method.



                          By FCC rules, even encryption is not encryption if you publish the key (and the algorithm).



                          It doesn't matter how you encode the signal if you publish the method to decode it.



                          However, if you spoke plain words but used special words for special meanings in ways that is not published, that would be illegal, as it obscures the meaning.






                          share|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$



                          Compression is not encryption. You don't have to use a standard compression method.



                          By FCC rules, even encryption is not encryption if you publish the key (and the algorithm).



                          It doesn't matter how you encode the signal if you publish the method to decode it.



                          However, if you spoke plain words but used special words for special meanings in ways that is not published, that would be illegal, as it obscures the meaning.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited 1 hour ago

























                          answered 1 hour ago









                          user10489user10489

                          56716




                          56716






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Amateur Radio Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fham.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f13009%2fis-compression-encryption-under-fcc-regs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              CARDNET

                              Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

                              濃尾地震