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