On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Michael Watterson wrote: > However a few mW at 2.4GHz is all a =A0balloon =A0needs if it's a HAP. At > 144MHz you can talk to ISS with a rubber duck hand held with a few watts > as it passes overhead. > > Some malicious can easily jam your signal. I still find the "no encryption" ridiculous. So what if I talk normally over an amateur frequency in pig Latin? Is that considered encryption? What if I speak in my own made up language? Is that encryption? What if I'm autistic and my words don't make sense? Is that encryption? You can see the point I'm trying to make here. At what point is it considered encryption? What if I'm trying to control a a device at long range and I send it "commands" like this: 0010101010101010101010100101101010 - you get the idea. To the remote node, the command makes perfect sense. But someone listening in wont really understand what it is. Is that considered encryption? What if I add some more complexity to the protocol so acknowledgment is required on each command? For example, I would send a specific command A, and along with the command, I would send a certain mathematical function of A that corresponds to A. The device would then verify that mathematical relationship for validity (also helps to ensure that the command isn't corrupted for some reason). Is that illegal too? To send mathematical formulas/numbers over the air? In itself there is no "meaning" and therefore the "meaning" can't be obscured. Again, at what point does it become "encryption"? -- = http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist