Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!clements@bbnccq.ARPA
From: clements@bbnccq.ARPA (Bob Clements)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Ham Encryption
Message-ID: <853@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 13:20:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.853
Posted: Wed Aug 21 13:20:07 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 00:00:56 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 21

Regarding Mike's comment that 97.69(c) permits the domestic use of
any digital code, subject to certain restrictions:

I think that the context of the rest of the section, and of the rulemaking
in which that section was created, makes it clear that the use of the
word "code" does NOT allow for encryption.  It is used in the
sense of American Standard CODE for Information Interchange (ASCII), or
the Baudot code (or Murray code) or Hollerith code or whatever.

In my comments filed to FCC during that rulemaking, I suggested that
a group of hams might have a pile of Friden FIO-DEC flexowriters
or some other totally obscure devices which use an oddball code. I said
that it seemed to me to be in the public interest to let them use
such devices, as long as there was no intent to be secretive about the
communication and as long as they used a standard means of ID'ing their
stations, such as Morse or ASCII or voice.

It looks like they bought my argument. I think that's what this section,
quoted by K3MC, means.

73, /Rcc, K1BC