<p>boa tarde a todos<br>
Arrl tem poder para debater assuntos,aqui nem falamos uns com outros e para nem temos espaço de manobra de tao pouco que somos.</p>
<p>saudaçoes</p>
<p>J.Pais Ct2grf</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">No dia 11 de Jul de 2013 12:07, "Paulo Santos" <<a href="mailto:ct4dk.santos@gmail.com">ct4dk.santos@gmail.com</a>> escreveu:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Bom dia colega Vilela,<br>
<br>
Não há luta nenhuma entre os Radioamadores nos USA e não pretendem
tomar de assalto o radioamadorismo essa afirmação deve ser a
realidade Portuguesa porque lá<br>
por terras dos USA eles levam o serviço publico e a ajuda muito a
serio e os radioamadores que colaboram em incidentes sabem muito
bem o seu lugar e cumprem a sua<br>
função de informar, não é como cá que já vi certa gente a propor
mundos e fundos às entidades de protecção civil só para terem um
lugar de destaque enfim andam a "lamber botas"<br>
são os "generais de penacho" vivem à conta do protagonismo.<br>
<br>
Neste assunto da ARRL a minha posição é 50/50 pois concordo com
ambas as partes, entendo de que as comunicações de radioamadorismo
devam ser sempre sem encriptações<br>
pois por vezes uma má interpretação pode ter consequências graves,
também concordo com a encriptação mas só em certos assuntos mais
sensíveis de ferir susceptibilidades <br>
pois como por norma as comunicações de amador são em "claro" e há
sempre possibilidade de escuta por scanners, imagine uma operação
conjunta entre amadores e protecção civil<br>
numa catástrofe em que passavam o relatório de "baixas" ou outra
situação mais sensível via radioamador, alguém mal intencionado
poderia aproveitar essa informação para fazer <br>
circular o caos por entre a população, como conhecimento pessoal
das duas áreas (amador e Protecção Civil) dai eu entender a
posição dos nossos colegas Americanos.<br>
<br>
73 de Paulo Santos, CT4DK<br>
<br>
<br>
Em 11/07/2013 10:41, AV escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Por cá a discussão é muito limitada mas lá nos EUA a
luta entre os radioamadores genuinos e aqueles que pretendem tomar
de assalto o radioamadorismo para fins de terceira ordem como a
protecção pública, é muito acesa.<br>
Este é só mais um triste episódio, muito bem contrariado pela
ARRL.<br>
<br>
73,<br>
António Vilela<br>
CT1JHQ<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 10 July 2013 23:50, ACViegas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ct2ixq@radioamadorismo.pt" target="_blank">ct2ixq@radioamadorismo.pt</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Caros Amigos
,<br>
aqui vai a noticia na integra como me foi enviada.<br>
Cumps<br>
ACViegas<br>
CT2IXQ<br>
<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
From: "ARRL Web site" <<a href="mailto:memberlist@www.arrl.org" target="_blank">memberlist@www.arrl.org</a>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:48 PM<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:acviegas@hotmail.com" target="_blank">acviegas@hotmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: ARLB016 ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit
Encryption of Some Emergency Communications<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB016<br>
ARLB016 ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption
of Some<br>
Emergency Communications<br>
<br>
ZCZC AG16<br>
QST de W1AW<br>
ARRL Bulletin 16 ARLB016<br>
>From ARRL Headquarters<br>
Newington CT July 9, 2013<br>
To all radio amateurs<br>
<br>
SB QST ARL ARLB016<br>
ARLB016 ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption
of Some<br>
Emergency Communications<br>
<br>
The ARRL is calling on the FCC to deny a Petition for Rule
Making<br>
(RM-11699) seeking to permit the encryption of certain
amateur<br>
communications during emergency operations or related
training<br>
exercises. Don Rolph, AB1PH, of E Walpole, Massachusetts,
petitioned<br>
the Commission in March to suggest an additional exception
to<br>
§97.113, which currently prohibits "messages encoded for the
purpose<br>
of obscuring their meaning."<br>
<br>
"While Mr Rolph has concisely stated his argument, it is
ARRL's<br>
considered view that there is no factual or legal basis for
the<br>
assumption that encryption of transmissions...is necessary
in order<br>
to continue and enhance the utility of Amateur Radio
emergency and<br>
disaster relief communications," the League said in its
comments,<br>
filed today with the FCC. The ARRL also turned away Rolph's<br>
assertion that the current prohibition in §97.113 "has
impacted the<br>
relationship of Amateur Radio volunteers and served agencies
and<br>
significantly limited the effectiveness of amateurs in
supporting<br>
emergency communications." The League said it's unaware of
any<br>
evidence that served agencies have been reluctant to utilize
Amateur<br>
Radio as part of their emergency or disaster relief
communications<br>
plans because of the encryption restrictions in Part 97. The
Amateur<br>
Service rule is based on a similar prohibition in
international<br>
telecommunication law, the ARRL noted.<br>
<br>
The League characterized as "erroneous" and "unfounded"
Rolph's<br>
assumption that encryption of certain information may be
required<br>
under the provisions of HIPAA - the Health Insurance
Portability and<br>
Accountability Act. "This mistaken assumption leads to the<br>
conclusion that the inability of Amateur Radio operators to
encrypt<br>
the content of their transmissions in order to obscure the
meaning<br>
of the transmissions renders Amateur Radio less (and
decreasingly)<br>
useful to served agencies than it would be if encryption of
those<br>
transmissions was permitted," the ARRL said. The League also
said it<br>
was unaware of any instance in which state statutes have
been cited<br>
by any served agency or group as a reason not to employ
Amateur<br>
Radio for emergency communication.<br>
<br>
Radio amateurs, the ARRL countered, are not "covered
entities" under<br>
HIPAA, which applies only to health care providers, health
plans and<br>
health care clearinghouses. And, the League added, there is
no<br>
expectation of privacy in Amateur Radio communications.<br>
<br>
The ARRL said it's not possible to determine the validity of
the<br>
claim "that health care agencies subject to HIPAA are or
might be<br>
unwilling or reluctant to utilize Amateur Radio in emergency<br>
communications and disaster relief planning" because of any
lack of<br>
privacy inherent in Amateur Radio. "Permitting encryption
might<br>
remedy the concern as a practical matter, if the concern
exists,"<br>
the League continued, but "the complete dearth of even
anecdotal<br>
evidence of the existence of that concern" makes it
impossible to<br>
justify the proposed rule change on that basis.<br>
<br>
"It is extremely important to insure that Amateur Radio
remains<br>
useful to served disaster relief and emergency
communications<br>
agencies, which include health care facilities," the League<br>
stressed. "It is just as important to insure that regulatory<br>
impediments to that volunteer work be minimized to the
extent<br>
consistent with the nature of the Amateur Radio Service."
Amateur<br>
Radio's utility to served agencies in supporting emergency<br>
communication, the ARRL continued, "is high indeed, and is
at the<br>
present time unfettered by the inability to encrypt
transmissions."<br>
<br>
However, the ARRL said that should it become necessary in
the future<br>
for radio amateurs to protect the privacy of individuals
whose<br>
medical data may be transmitted by Amateur Radio during or
after an<br>
emergency or disaster, "the Commission may be asked to
revisit this<br>
matter."<br>
<br>
"It is urgent that Amateur Radio continue to be an essential<br>
component of disaster and emergency communications
planning," and<br>
that served agencies, including medical facilities, perceive
the<br>
utility of Amateur Radio as unhindered by regulations that
prohibit<br>
encryption, the League emphasized.<br>
<br>
More than 200 comments were filed on RM-11699, most of them
tending<br>
to support the ARRL's arguments.<br>
NNNN<br>
/EX<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CLUSTER mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CLUSTER@radio-amador.net" target="_blank">CLUSTER@radio-amador.net</a><br>
<a href="http://radio-amador.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cluster" target="_blank">http://radio-amador.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cluster</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CLUSTER mailing list
<a href="mailto:CLUSTER@radio-amador.net" target="_blank">CLUSTER@radio-amador.net</a>
<a href="http://radio-amador.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cluster" target="_blank">http://radio-amador.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cluster</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
</pre>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CLUSTER mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CLUSTER@radio-amador.net">CLUSTER@radio-amador.net</a><br>
<a href="http://radio-amador.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cluster" target="_blank">http://radio-amador.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cluster</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>