Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes(arrl.org)
arrl.org
Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-issues-enforcement-advisory-radio-users-reminded-not-to-use-radios-in-crimes
311 comments
I don't know why people complain about Baofengs so much. I have a bunch of baofengs that I bought to pass out as emergency radios at burning man. They have saved at least one person's life, because it meant we were able to call the emergency services when somebody had a heart attack and collapsed. I'm sure that guy is glad that that crappy $20 radio was there and a ham operator had configured it for the 911 service it was used for.
That alone cemented baofengs into my "good to have" category for life. They're cheap, and that's why I have been able to use them in the places I have.
That alone cemented baofengs into my "good to have" category for life. They're cheap, and that's why I have been able to use them in the places I have.
People mostly complain about Baofengs because they leak a bunch of RF interference everywhere. Not obvious to the Baofeng user, but obvious to radio operators on other frequencies.
It's hit or miss in my experience. My first Baofeng was well behaved as far as RF interference, but it was so shoddily built that it literally fell apart on me a couple of years into ownership (the battery latch, belt clip, and TX button all broke within a week of each other).
My second Baofeng was more physically sound but had issues with RF harmonics on UHF so it was useless on the band I wanted it for.
I've since gotten a Radioddity DMR handheld and it's both physically and functionally sound. It cost the same as four Baofengs but it's worth it, not to mention the ability to talk on DMR groups.
My second Baofeng was more physically sound but had issues with RF harmonics on UHF so it was useless on the band I wanted it for.
I've since gotten a Radioddity DMR handheld and it's both physically and functionally sound. It cost the same as four Baofengs but it's worth it, not to mention the ability to talk on DMR groups.
i have measured several models and not witnessed this
Most Baofengs emit an illegal amount of spurious emissions[1]. Maybe you got lucky.
[1] https://observer.wunderwood.org/2020/02/07/baofeng-hts-and-s...
[1] https://observer.wunderwood.org/2020/02/07/baofeng-hts-and-s...
huh, I checked and they are all manufactured after this was published, maybe they got better. but probably not
Depends which band they are being used on. Their filtering is barely adequate on ham bands, but very poor when programmed on other frequencies.
> I'm sure that guy is glad that that crappy $20 radio was there and a ham operator had configured it for the 911 service it was used for.
You can call 911 on a radio frequency in the US?
You can call 911 on a radio frequency in the US?
At Burning Man, you can!
"To call ESD, switch your MURS radio to channel 5 (154.600 MHz, CTCSS/PL 97.4) and report your emergency." [1]
[1] https://survival.burningman.org/survival-health-and-safety/g...
"To call ESD, switch your MURS radio to channel 5 (154.600 MHz, CTCSS/PL 97.4) and report your emergency." [1]
[1] https://survival.burningman.org/survival-health-and-safety/g...
> These people are idiots.
I think 'these people are idiots' is an easy thing to think but almost always the wrong thing. Few people are idiots. Most people are just as smart as you are.
More likely, these people fundamentally aren't looking at the situation like you are. Probably, they don't care what you, or the police, or the FBI, or anyone else, think about what they're doing and don't care how they're being tracked.
They don't feel the need to hide.
It's comforting to think 'nah they must be idiots' for not hiding... but maybe more concerning to realise they could be right about not needing to hide.
I think 'these people are idiots' is an easy thing to think but almost always the wrong thing. Few people are idiots. Most people are just as smart as you are.
More likely, these people fundamentally aren't looking at the situation like you are. Probably, they don't care what you, or the police, or the FBI, or anyone else, think about what they're doing and don't care how they're being tracked.
They don't feel the need to hide.
It's comforting to think 'nah they must be idiots' for not hiding... but maybe more concerning to realise they could be right about not needing to hide.
They're zealots, and some of them are very capable and very determined.
Writing them all off as idiots is dangerous
Writing them all off as idiots is dangerous
> Most people are just as smart as you are.
For this to be true, you would have to be below average. That's just half of everyone.
For this to be true, you would have to be below average. That's just half of everyone.
Yes?
Most people fall into a bucket in the middle of 'generally smart'. You're probably in there. Most people are in there. Few people are 'super smart' to the right of you and few people are 'idiots' to the left of you. This is a 'normal distribution', with most people in the peak you can see in the linked graph, and few people either side in the low parts.
Your statement might be true if intelligence was say, uniformly distributed.
But intelligence (like a lot of natural phenomena) is closer to a normal distribution.
But intelligence (like a lot of natural phenomena) is closer to a normal distribution.
> Your statement might be true if intelligence was say, uniformly distributed.
> But intelligence (like a lot of natural phenomena) is closer to a normal distribution.
This is a baffling comment - uniform distributions and normal distributions do not differ in any way that is relevant to this topic. What were you trying to say? Why did you leave this comment?
> But intelligence (like a lot of natural phenomena) is closer to a normal distribution.
This is a baffling comment - uniform distributions and normal distributions do not differ in any way that is relevant to this topic. What were you trying to say? Why did you leave this comment?
You can split normally-distributed populations into 2 halves - "average" may also refer to median. Also, by definition, half the population has an IQ[1] less than 100 (which is the mean). Gp is correct - most people are not as "smart as you are" if you are above average (IQ).
Do you know the term 'histogram'? Think about three pillars superimposed on the image you can see in the Wikipedia link - people around the middle, people below the middle group, people above the middle group. Most people are in the middle group. Most people are about as smart as you. A smaller number people are less smart and a smaller number are more smart. Get it?
> Most people are about as smart as you.
You're introducing fuzzy language/approximations, which I was avoiding: one can say - in absolute terms - that any person above the median is smarter than most of the population.
An IQ band of 85 to 115 has 68% of the population, but are those at the lower end "as smart" as the upper end? The accuracy of your statement depends entirely on how wide your histogram bands are.
You're introducing fuzzy language/approximations, which I was avoiding: one can say - in absolute terms - that any person above the median is smarter than most of the population.
An IQ band of 85 to 115 has 68% of the population, but are those at the lower end "as smart" as the upper end? The accuracy of your statement depends entirely on how wide your histogram bands are.
[deleted]
> You can split normally-distributed populations into 2 halves - "average" may also refer to median.
In a normal distribution, "average" must always also refer to median; they are always the same value.
In a normal distribution, "average" must always also refer to median; they are always the same value.
> In a normal distribution, "average" must always also refer to median; they are always the same value.
...and mode too! I am well aware of the characteristics of a normal distribution (this is HN after all). I was contrasting parents insinuation that gp's assertion on halving only works with uniform distributions
...and mode too! I am well aware of the characteristics of a normal distribution (this is HN after all). I was contrasting parents insinuation that gp's assertion on halving only works with uniform distributions
Or you could be average, and most other people could be average as well.
*below median ;)
The average and the median are identical for a normal distribution.
> Few people are idiots.
> Most people are just as smart as you are.
Well which is it?
> Most people are just as smart as you are.
Well which is it?
Both - I'm not sure what you're asking. Most people are 'reasonably smart'. Few people are 'less than reasonably smart'. Those two things aren't contradictory.
>Most people are just as smart as you are.
These people don't believe in objective reality (Biden won the election and there was no meaningful voter or election fraud) and I'm having trouble thinking of a definition of "idiot" where something like that doesn't qualify.
These people don't believe in objective reality (Biden won the election and there was no meaningful voter or election fraud) and I'm having trouble thinking of a definition of "idiot" where something like that doesn't qualify.
> These people don't believe in objective reality
Again... maybe they don't care instead of they don't believe? They may tell you they don't believe but what's not necessarily what they really think.
'They're just an idiot' is lazy analysis and dangerous. Very few people are idiots. Most people are lucid. It's dangerous because you're giving yourself a reason to be less cautious (how dangerous can they be - they're idiots, right?) rather than thinking these people aren't playing by the rules I'm playing by, what should I do about that?
Whenever you think someone’s an idiot stop and think if it’s their modus operandi to make you think that.
Again... maybe they don't care instead of they don't believe? They may tell you they don't believe but what's not necessarily what they really think.
'They're just an idiot' is lazy analysis and dangerous. Very few people are idiots. Most people are lucid. It's dangerous because you're giving yourself a reason to be less cautious (how dangerous can they be - they're idiots, right?) rather than thinking these people aren't playing by the rules I'm playing by, what should I do about that?
Whenever you think someone’s an idiot stop and think if it’s their modus operandi to make you think that.
Being dangerous and being an idiot are completely orthogonal.
> Very few people are idiots. Most people are lucid.
I would question this. The average IQ is by definition 100. But that's not much at all! And there are 50% even below this line.
If one has a look at for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States it get's even more worrisome. A large part of the US population is actually illiterate. In other parts of the world it looks even worse!
We as a species would have solved most of our issues thousands of years ago if the average dude out there wouldn't be so incredibly dumb. And if you think about it a little bit, and judge form "normal" behavior around you, it's frightening how stupid people are actually. (Just put on the TV for a quick recap).
If you're here on this site chances are high that you're smarter than the average. Looking form this position it may be hard to acknowledge all that stupidity around you because "No, they can't be such dumb, nobody can be such dumb". But in fact they are even dumber than you could imagine...
> Very few people are idiots. Most people are lucid.
I would question this. The average IQ is by definition 100. But that's not much at all! And there are 50% even below this line.
If one has a look at for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States it get's even more worrisome. A large part of the US population is actually illiterate. In other parts of the world it looks even worse!
We as a species would have solved most of our issues thousands of years ago if the average dude out there wouldn't be so incredibly dumb. And if you think about it a little bit, and judge form "normal" behavior around you, it's frightening how stupid people are actually. (Just put on the TV for a quick recap).
If you're here on this site chances are high that you're smarter than the average. Looking form this position it may be hard to acknowledge all that stupidity around you because "No, they can't be such dumb, nobody can be such dumb". But in fact they are even dumber than you could imagine...
>Whenever you think someone’s an idiot stop and think if it’s their modus operandi to make you think that.
These people aren't fifth dimensional chess masters. They're angry, and much of their anger is based on legitimate economic grievances. Instead of actually addressing that though, they fall back on the much easier conclusion that people with dark skin are to blame. The media plays a part in all this, but individuals need to take responsibility and these particular individuals never will. They don't trust anyone who seems "intellectual", so there's literally nothing I could say that would get through to them. Calling them idiots and moving on has the same end result for the target, but will convince a bystander more readily. If instead I engage with them in a debate, that automatically validates their (frankly insane) point of view, which confuses bystanders into thinking that maybe there is something to this "election fraud" nonsense. Deep down most of these folks are just terrible people who need to feel superior to others. Trump and the rest of the Republican party give that to them. They don’t want economic security, they want superiority over others. Until they change from within, they're going to continue to be "idiots".
In conclusion, why is it always "the left" that has to do the actual hard work in situations like these?
These people aren't fifth dimensional chess masters. They're angry, and much of their anger is based on legitimate economic grievances. Instead of actually addressing that though, they fall back on the much easier conclusion that people with dark skin are to blame. The media plays a part in all this, but individuals need to take responsibility and these particular individuals never will. They don't trust anyone who seems "intellectual", so there's literally nothing I could say that would get through to them. Calling them idiots and moving on has the same end result for the target, but will convince a bystander more readily. If instead I engage with them in a debate, that automatically validates their (frankly insane) point of view, which confuses bystanders into thinking that maybe there is something to this "election fraud" nonsense. Deep down most of these folks are just terrible people who need to feel superior to others. Trump and the rest of the Republican party give that to them. They don’t want economic security, they want superiority over others. Until they change from within, they're going to continue to be "idiots".
In conclusion, why is it always "the left" that has to do the actual hard work in situations like these?
> where something like that doesn't qualify.
Desperate people mislead by skilled con-artists. You can focus on the fact they got conned, and judge them harshly for it; or, you can focus on the fact that they're that desperate in the first place.
I think we only stand a chance at solving the latter problem, so sorting the "idiots" from the enlightened doesn't seem like a meaningful activity.
Desperate people mislead by skilled con-artists. You can focus on the fact they got conned, and judge them harshly for it; or, you can focus on the fact that they're that desperate in the first place.
I think we only stand a chance at solving the latter problem, so sorting the "idiots" from the enlightened doesn't seem like a meaningful activity.
One of the things that surprised me is many of these people aren't in a desperate situation. One of them even flew in on a private jet.
Many if not most of them are not in precarious situations or at the bottom of society. Like the retired USAF colonel.
They got conned, but only because they really wanted to believe in the kind of supremacy that Trump radiates.
They got conned, but only because they really wanted to believe in the kind of supremacy that Trump radiates.
Every major institution in our society is plagued with corruption: municipal, state, and federal politics, corporate media, private industry, peer-reviewed science, religion, you name it. We know that, and yet when one of these corrupt institutions produces an answer beneficial to our tribal beliefs suddenly we appeal to its authority and integrity.
They 100% do believe in objective reality. But they're being lied to by everyone they trust.
Look at the number of nurses refusing the vaccine. There aren't the only people having trouble discerning truth from fiction.
Recording yourself committing sedition is pretty dumb though...
Look at the number of nurses refusing the vaccine. There aren't the only people having trouble discerning truth from fiction.
Recording yourself committing sedition is pretty dumb though...
There are a lot of comments and replies to my statement but you are the only one I've seen that has understood exactly what I was thinking about when I made the comment.
Don't record yourself breaking the law.
It doesn't matter which side of history you end-up on. It doesn't matter if in 10, 50, or 400 years, history decides that you were right. Right now, the authorities will find you guilty.
Don't record yourself breaking the law.
It doesn't matter which side of history you end-up on. It doesn't matter if in 10, 50, or 400 years, history decides that you were right. Right now, the authorities will find you guilty.
Peaceful protests often involve visibly breaking the law. Rosa Parks even did it without cameras! Gandhi, MLK, suffragettes, conscientious objectors, Thoreau etc.
There is a long history of police and intelligence services surveilling and infiltrating peaceful protest movements. Authorities of the day definitely will imprison people.
The big difference is that the QAnon/Trump/etc crazies are planning violent criminal action. Those people end up grouped with IRA/UVF, Nazis, ISIS, Hezbollah, mafiosos etc.
There is a long history of police and intelligence services surveilling and infiltrating peaceful protest movements. Authorities of the day definitely will imprison people.
The big difference is that the QAnon/Trump/etc crazies are planning violent criminal action. Those people end up grouped with IRA/UVF, Nazis, ISIS, Hezbollah, mafiosos etc.
[...]
Misunderstood comment
Misunderstood comment
You don't need a fixed address to vote.
> You don't need a fixed address to vote.
[...] also misunderstood
[...] also misunderstood
> Most people are just as smart as you are.
That's a pretty bold assertion on a site filled with engineers.
That's a pretty bold assertion on a site filled with engineers.
What, you've never met a stupid engineer?
Asserting that the average engineer is stupider than the whole-population average is indeed pretty questionable. The odds that chrisseaton was correct are not good.
I believe the original assertion was that the word 'idiot' is often used as shorthand for people that have different priors and indoctrination as you, so to propose that engineers are somehow less susceptible to that seems like the more questionable take here.
> They don't feel the need to hide.
Exactly; a good portion of them probably really believe that somehow #45 could order, and authorize, the things that happened. The rest were probably just looking for a strong opportunity to go full anarchy and guns equal power moment.
Exactly; a good portion of them probably really believe that somehow #45 could order, and authorize, the things that happened. The rest were probably just looking for a strong opportunity to go full anarchy and guns equal power moment.
> These people are idiots.
It makes me uneasy to see how much commentary on recent events seems to focus on insulting these people instead of hearing how society has failed them and why they're upset even if we tend to disagree with their suggested fixes. I think their presence in DC and that "colorful" person they elected are all symptoms of this behavior.
It makes me uneasy to see how much commentary on recent events seems to focus on insulting these people instead of hearing how society has failed them and why they're upset even if we tend to disagree with their suggested fixes. I think their presence in DC and that "colorful" person they elected are all symptoms of this behavior.
> focus on insulting these people instead of hearing how society has failed them
Look, I'm just a guy, with no fancy credentials or research to back this up, but the more I read, the more I try to understand this crowd, the more I talk with other people about this crowd, the more I believe these people are making choices. That is to say, there are plenty of educated and monied people running amok here. To believe that this is a crowd of impoverished, under/un-employed people with limited economic means that society has failed is in fact allowing them to behave recklessly and grow their audience. Nope. A lot of these folks know what they are doing or are allowing themselves to give in to their worst selves. That's not being failed, that's making choices.
Look, I'm just a guy, with no fancy credentials or research to back this up, but the more I read, the more I try to understand this crowd, the more I talk with other people about this crowd, the more I believe these people are making choices. That is to say, there are plenty of educated and monied people running amok here. To believe that this is a crowd of impoverished, under/un-employed people with limited economic means that society has failed is in fact allowing them to behave recklessly and grow their audience. Nope. A lot of these folks know what they are doing or are allowing themselves to give in to their worst selves. That's not being failed, that's making choices.
> But she also said the GOP played a role, adding that “if we are the party of personal responsibility, we need to take personal responsibility.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/nikki-haley-critici...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/nikki-haley-critici...
The people at the Capitol riot/insurrection were all relatively well off. This "economic anxiety" argument is tired and completely fake.
> The people at the Capitol riot/insurrection were all relatively well off.
“All” probably overstates the case, but it certainly seems that they were disproportionately so. Certainly, those that have been arrested or identified from video (sets that seem to converge over time) seem to be largely employed (prior to the attack, less so after) and not poor.
“All” probably overstates the case, but it certainly seems that they were disproportionately so. Certainly, those that have been arrested or identified from video (sets that seem to converge over time) seem to be largely employed (prior to the attack, less so after) and not poor.
This is how we humans think of our outgroup.
While your ingroup is unique individuals with good and bad traits, your outgroup is an undifferentiated "them" that is selfish, untrustworthy, stupid, the reason for all these problems we're having, and we really may have to do something about them one of these days!
While your ingroup is unique individuals with good and bad traits, your outgroup is an undifferentiated "them" that is selfish, untrustworthy, stupid, the reason for all these problems we're having, and we really may have to do something about them one of these days!
You're right to remind us about the cognitive biases relating to in-groups and out-groups[1], but let's remember that in the context of this thread, the original comment about "idiots" was:
"These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online."
It doesn't seem that the commenter was branding every voter for the opposing candidate an idiot, just the specific group of people who shared evidence of themselves committing crimes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error
"These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online."
It doesn't seem that the commenter was branding every voter for the opposing candidate an idiot, just the specific group of people who shared evidence of themselves committing crimes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error
Well, technically, I only mentioned that that is how our "tribal urges" work.
I think it's an important thing to be aware of, ideally so you can recognize these thought patterns in yourself and others.
But of course I also implied that OP was doing this. A fairer description would note that most capitol invaders did not publish themselves committing felonies. Taking the dumbest/worst behaved members of the outgroup as typical is textbook.
And from inside the other group, the tribal brain thinks those crimes were committed by antifa provocateurs.
I think it's an important thing to be aware of, ideally so you can recognize these thought patterns in yourself and others.
But of course I also implied that OP was doing this. A fairer description would note that most capitol invaders did not publish themselves committing felonies. Taking the dumbest/worst behaved members of the outgroup as typical is textbook.
And from inside the other group, the tribal brain thinks those crimes were committed by antifa provocateurs.
It's a pretty common sentiment I've seen lately even here on HN, for example all of the threads about how amateurish Parler is/was (LOL did you know they're so stupid they didn't know to strip image metadata?), like we told them to go make their own website but then mock them while they learn how to do it. I'm just sick of being mean!
I think there's a bit of a chasm between:
"I'm a newbie web developer and I've never heard of EXIF", and
"It didn't occur to me that I shouldn't have recorded video of myself committing crimes and then posted it on the internet."
> I'm just sick of being mean!
Fair point. And regardless, "these people are idiots" doesn't really help us make sense of what happened, or figure out how to stop people from even wanting to do things like this in the future.
"I'm a newbie web developer and I've never heard of EXIF", and
"It didn't occur to me that I shouldn't have recorded video of myself committing crimes and then posted it on the internet."
> I'm just sick of being mean!
Fair point. And regardless, "these people are idiots" doesn't really help us make sense of what happened, or figure out how to stop people from even wanting to do things like this in the future.
I agree! I wonder the same thing.
So far I assume (not in order): A) the "American dream" and doing better economically than your parents ain't all it used to be, B) non-hispanic whites are loosing their majority status, C) mass media and the internet are more disrupting than the printing press was, D) greed, corruption, and other political inefficiencies, and E) the scale and pace of change are unprecedented.
Everyone agrees that lots of stuff is broke. Politicians don't seem to be helping. We (the people) don't agree on next steps. Some want to turn back the clock. Others want to try something new. Too many want to impose their view on others who disagree.
I assume we'll figure it out eventually. Some cultures/societies will have it easier than others.
So far I assume (not in order): A) the "American dream" and doing better economically than your parents ain't all it used to be, B) non-hispanic whites are loosing their majority status, C) mass media and the internet are more disrupting than the printing press was, D) greed, corruption, and other political inefficiencies, and E) the scale and pace of change are unprecedented.
Everyone agrees that lots of stuff is broke. Politicians don't seem to be helping. We (the people) don't agree on next steps. Some want to turn back the clock. Others want to try something new. Too many want to impose their view on others who disagree.
I assume we'll figure it out eventually. Some cultures/societies will have it easier than others.
>insulting these people instead of hearing how society has failed them
It's always "the left" that has to compromise and do the hard work of understanding and placating "the right". The right wing is immune to consequences and allergic to self-reflection. I'll stop calling them idiots when they grow up, actually take responsibility like adults do, and act accordingly.
It's always "the left" that has to compromise and do the hard work of understanding and placating "the right". The right wing is immune to consequences and allergic to self-reflection. I'll stop calling them idiots when they grow up, actually take responsibility like adults do, and act accordingly.
No amount of "economic anxiety" justifies an explicitly undemocratic coup attempt where people were running around looking to scalp democratically elected leaders.
There are real ills in society, but - ignoring that republican voters are significantly uninformed about things like the party's support for healthcare, e.g. Efforts to scrap Obamacare largely hurt poor Trump voters - that doesn't excuse them from the fact that they've swallowed the Trump Koolaid and taken part in a coup.
And besides, if you want to talk about society failing them - were there any black people in the Capitol?
There are real ills in society, but - ignoring that republican voters are significantly uninformed about things like the party's support for healthcare, e.g. Efforts to scrap Obamacare largely hurt poor Trump voters - that doesn't excuse them from the fact that they've swallowed the Trump Koolaid and taken part in a coup.
And besides, if you want to talk about society failing them - were there any black people in the Capitol?
Why are you and another reply quoting "economic anxiety" when that was never a claim I made? I'm talking about the total contempt you and others seem to have when talking about these people. If you think they are misinformed and have been misled, cool, let's reach out and try to help get them back on the golden path, but all I see is insult-slinging and you're still doing it.
They're supposed to be scare quotes rather than a direction quotation.
Economic Anxiety is often bandied around by people trying to justify often beyond-fascist behaviour as if morality is solely determined by money.
Economic Anxiety is often bandied around by people trying to justify often beyond-fascist behaviour as if morality is solely determined by money.
But burning cities all summer is acceptable?
Or taking over downtown city blocks for months...
Or taking over downtown city blocks for months...
Nice strawman... I don't think either of those things were acceptable either.
Quite frankly lumping in all of the protests over the summer, for example the one The Donald had tear gassed, with the looting that largely took place after dark is really saying the quiet part out loud.
If they'd protested outside the Capitol not in it, I'd be more sympathetic, even if they were campaigning for the end of American Democracy.
Quite frankly lumping in all of the protests over the summer, for example the one The Donald had tear gassed, with the looting that largely took place after dark is really saying the quiet part out loud.
If they'd protested outside the Capitol not in it, I'd be more sympathetic, even if they were campaigning for the end of American Democracy.
No straw man. A double standard.
Double standard?
How many white men were strangled to death on camera, pleading "I can't breathe!"?[0]
How many white women were murdered in their bedrooms after their apartment was stormed on a dubious-at-best, no-knock warrant? [1]
Now, how many violent, white insurrectionists are getting slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanors for breaching our nation's sanctum sanctorum? [2][3][4]
Yeah, there's a double standard. It's white supremacy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Breonna_Taylor
[2] https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2021/01/syracuse-man-arrested...
[3] https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/jenny-cudd-fbi-arres...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-of-the-arrests-...
How many white men were strangled to death on camera, pleading "I can't breathe!"?[0]
How many white women were murdered in their bedrooms after their apartment was stormed on a dubious-at-best, no-knock warrant? [1]
Now, how many violent, white insurrectionists are getting slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanors for breaching our nation's sanctum sanctorum? [2][3][4]
Yeah, there's a double standard. It's white supremacy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Breonna_Taylor
[2] https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2021/01/syracuse-man-arrested...
[3] https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/jenny-cudd-fbi-arres...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-of-the-arrests-...
How's this for a double standard: a group of mostly-white "protestors" can storm the US federal government with minimal opposition from law enforcement, resulting in essentially one death. Meanwhile, black men and women live with an entirely reasonable fear that any interaction with law enforcement, no matter how benign the circumstances might be, could easily end in their death.
Which I didn't mention. You raised I point that I didn't comment on even tangentially and argued against that instead.
Those things happened happened for a reason - specifically yet another public murder by the police which was posted online as a video for the delight of racists everywhere.
There is no justification for the fact that imprisonment and murder of black people by the police happens, and is encouraged, to a completely disproportionate extent in the US.
It's also well understood that imprisonment in the US is run on a for-profit basis not dissimilar to slavery, and some judges have gone to prison for corrupt sentencing.
These police actions are immoral, unjust, and just plain nasty, and the best way to stop having your cities set on fire is to stop them happening.
This shouldn't be hard to understand, but in a country which has areas which are only just getting over Jim Crow and lynchings the connection between institutionally abusing some people and having them fight back seems to be too much of a reach for some of the population.
So these riots occur predictably after every avoidable trigger event. And they will continue to happen until that lesson is learned.
This is completely different to an entitled middle income mob of COS-playing couch heroes storming the political centre of the US and making credible threats against elected representatives inside it - after a speech by the president which inflamed the mob, and after a campaign of lies by the president which threatened the foundation of electoral integrity.
All very possibly at the behest of a hostile foreign power.
That's simple textbook domestic terrorism. It has no excuse or justification, and it's naive and misleading to suggest the two are somehow equivalent.
There is no justification for the fact that imprisonment and murder of black people by the police happens, and is encouraged, to a completely disproportionate extent in the US.
It's also well understood that imprisonment in the US is run on a for-profit basis not dissimilar to slavery, and some judges have gone to prison for corrupt sentencing.
These police actions are immoral, unjust, and just plain nasty, and the best way to stop having your cities set on fire is to stop them happening.
This shouldn't be hard to understand, but in a country which has areas which are only just getting over Jim Crow and lynchings the connection between institutionally abusing some people and having them fight back seems to be too much of a reach for some of the population.
So these riots occur predictably after every avoidable trigger event. And they will continue to happen until that lesson is learned.
This is completely different to an entitled middle income mob of COS-playing couch heroes storming the political centre of the US and making credible threats against elected representatives inside it - after a speech by the president which inflamed the mob, and after a campaign of lies by the president which threatened the foundation of electoral integrity.
All very possibly at the behest of a hostile foreign power.
That's simple textbook domestic terrorism. It has no excuse or justification, and it's naive and misleading to suggest the two are somehow equivalent.
> These police actions are immoral, unjust, and just plain nasty, and the best way to stop having your cities set on fire is to stop them happening.
That is, by definition, actual terrorism. Attacking a civilian population to achieve a political goal. It doesn't matter how awesome or not your goal is.
You're going to find the same issue with that approach that most violent people do - people resist and fight back. Several rioters have already found out that lesson.
> This is completely different to an entitled middle...
No, not really. Insurrectionists will also discover their nonsense will not be tolerated.
> it's naive and misleading to suggest the two are somehow equivalent.
Stop using violence to achieve political ends. See? Easy.
That is, by definition, actual terrorism. Attacking a civilian population to achieve a political goal. It doesn't matter how awesome or not your goal is.
You're going to find the same issue with that approach that most violent people do - people resist and fight back. Several rioters have already found out that lesson.
> This is completely different to an entitled middle...
No, not really. Insurrectionists will also discover their nonsense will not be tolerated.
> it's naive and misleading to suggest the two are somehow equivalent.
Stop using violence to achieve political ends. See? Easy.
It's always a Baofeng because they're the cheapest radio that looks the part; it's just a cosplay element - along with the plate-carrier with the MOLLE and the camouflage pants.
> These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online.
I don't think it's as simple as "these people were idiots because they recorded themselves committing a crime", to paraphrase this line of thinking. I'm pretty sure these people convinced themselves, and each other, that they were breaking the law to save the country. They thought they were recording a revolution in which they would be the new heroes.
I don't think it's as simple as "these people were idiots because they recorded themselves committing a crime", to paraphrase this line of thinking. I'm pretty sure these people convinced themselves, and each other, that they were breaking the law to save the country. They thought they were recording a revolution in which they would be the new heroes.
I think it does have a simple explanation, just different from yours. I think that they assumed they wouldn't be punished, because they never have been. Cops don't shoot white protestors.
There's a corpse in a morgue that'd like to disagree with you.
Now compare with a list of people with dark skin who were executed by police. Looking at these two numbers it's quite reasonable to conclude white people don't face consequences.
Should we have them shoot a few more white people to match the overall population makeup by race?
Police:
+ Shoot and kill more unarmed white people than any other race
+ Overall shoot more white people
+ Shoot and kill people by race proportional to the recorded violent crimes stats
+ Shoot less than a hundred unarmed people per year, total
And, none of this is really surprising. White people make up more of the population so of course they're going to be a majority of police encounters, including Use of Force (UoF). Not every UoF encounter is illegal or unethical, even if the other person is unarmed - life is not an action movie where you can vulcan pinch someone unconscious.
Whenever somebody brings up that UoF incidents by race match the violent crimes committed by race, usually it ends in a shouting match of who can claim racism the loudest. Yet we can recognize over-representation in violent crimes by any race is probably due to lack of resources - and we know the things that reduce violence in any population (marriage, having kids, being meaningfully employed[1]) are less accessible to many minority populations.
We'd make a bigger dent in UoF incidents and crime in 5 years by just making pre-K childcare free and widely accessible than any amount of angry protests will ever accomplish.
[1]: This doesn't mean low paying temporary or part time work, but either a trade or profession with longterm gain
Police:
+ Shoot and kill more unarmed white people than any other race
+ Overall shoot more white people
+ Shoot and kill people by race proportional to the recorded violent crimes stats
+ Shoot less than a hundred unarmed people per year, total
And, none of this is really surprising. White people make up more of the population so of course they're going to be a majority of police encounters, including Use of Force (UoF). Not every UoF encounter is illegal or unethical, even if the other person is unarmed - life is not an action movie where you can vulcan pinch someone unconscious.
Whenever somebody brings up that UoF incidents by race match the violent crimes committed by race, usually it ends in a shouting match of who can claim racism the loudest. Yet we can recognize over-representation in violent crimes by any race is probably due to lack of resources - and we know the things that reduce violence in any population (marriage, having kids, being meaningfully employed[1]) are less accessible to many minority populations.
We'd make a bigger dent in UoF incidents and crime in 5 years by just making pre-K childcare free and widely accessible than any amount of angry protests will ever accomplish.
[1]: This doesn't mean low paying temporary or part time work, but either a trade or profession with longterm gain
>Yet we can recognize over-representation in violent crimes by any race is probably due to lack of resources
It's just racism, being rich doesn't insulate you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_contr...
Every major police force has a systemic racism problem and everything else is just window dressing. It's like the Civil War. In middle school you learn it's about slavery. In high school you learn it was about states rights and the balance between federal power and state power. In college you learn it's about slavery. There are always small factors worthy of study but sometimes the core reason really is that simple.
>We'd make a bigger dent in UoF incidents and crime in 5 years by just making pre-K childcare free and widely accessible
Good luck getting any Republican to vote for this. Republicans only care about people who are old enough to vote.
It's just racism, being rich doesn't insulate you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_contr...
Every major police force has a systemic racism problem and everything else is just window dressing. It's like the Civil War. In middle school you learn it's about slavery. In high school you learn it was about states rights and the balance between federal power and state power. In college you learn it's about slavery. There are always small factors worthy of study but sometimes the core reason really is that simple.
>We'd make a bigger dent in UoF incidents and crime in 5 years by just making pre-K childcare free and widely accessible
Good luck getting any Republican to vote for this. Republicans only care about people who are old enough to vote.
> Gates found the front door to his home jammed shut and, with the help of his driver, tried to force it open. A local witness reported their activity to the police as a potential burglary in progress.
Yeah, usually when you see people forcing a door open, you should let the police know.
> It's just racism
It's just the results of spiritual decline. Obviously anyone who has deeply found religion would know that spiritual decline is the cause of human suffering, and that you only need a belief in <deity> to reverse these problems. If only we still taught the bible/koran/whatever in schools!
Single cause claims for complex phenomenon are almost always nonsense, especially ones without actionable solutions that fail scrutiny. They make great headlines, but they don't really hold up. They're used to attack the outgroup, not fix the problem.
> In college you learn it's about slavery.
If that's all you learned in college about the civil war, you should ask for a refund. Slavery was absolutely one of reasons several southern states entered the war, but it was by far not the only. Most southerners would not have fought purely for slavery because most of the soldiers were too poor to have owned slaves.
> Good luck getting any Republican...
Ah yes, we all know <purple team> is to blame! If only it wasn't for purple team, us green team would have solved every woe and problem. After all, every place where green team is in control is a bastion of prosperity, equality and liberty - and everyplace where that isn't true is due to purple team somehow, for some reason!
Culture wars are useful for pushing narratives and keeping both sides locked in a relative stalemate. Coke and Pepsi both benefit from these antics (Are you a coke drinker or a pepsi drinker?), but it's not an appropriate framework for political decision making where you often need to find compromise and pressure points to move the conversation forward.
Yeah, usually when you see people forcing a door open, you should let the police know.
> It's just racism
It's just the results of spiritual decline. Obviously anyone who has deeply found religion would know that spiritual decline is the cause of human suffering, and that you only need a belief in <deity> to reverse these problems. If only we still taught the bible/koran/whatever in schools!
Single cause claims for complex phenomenon are almost always nonsense, especially ones without actionable solutions that fail scrutiny. They make great headlines, but they don't really hold up. They're used to attack the outgroup, not fix the problem.
> In college you learn it's about slavery.
If that's all you learned in college about the civil war, you should ask for a refund. Slavery was absolutely one of reasons several southern states entered the war, but it was by far not the only. Most southerners would not have fought purely for slavery because most of the soldiers were too poor to have owned slaves.
> Good luck getting any Republican...
Ah yes, we all know <purple team> is to blame! If only it wasn't for purple team, us green team would have solved every woe and problem. After all, every place where green team is in control is a bastion of prosperity, equality and liberty - and everyplace where that isn't true is due to purple team somehow, for some reason!
Culture wars are useful for pushing narratives and keeping both sides locked in a relative stalemate. Coke and Pepsi both benefit from these antics (Are you a coke drinker or a pepsi drinker?), but it's not an appropriate framework for political decision making where you often need to find compromise and pressure points to move the conversation forward.
>Slavery was absolutely one of reasons several southern states entered the war, but it was by far not the only. Most southerners would not have fought purely for slavery because most of the soldiers were too poor to have owned slaves.
It was still about slavery: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slavehol...
>What concerned Southerners most about Lincoln’s election was his opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories; Southern politicians were clear about that. If new states could not be slave states, went the argument, then it was only a matter of time before the South’s clout in Congress would fade, abolitionists would be ascendant, and the South’s “peculiar institution” – the right to own human beings as property – would be in peril.
As I said before, while there are other factors and while they are interesting and worthy of study, sometimes the core reason really is that simple. It's not "enlightened" to pretend that simple things are complex.
>Culture wars are useful for pushing narratives and keeping both sides locked in a relative stalemate. Coke and Pepsi both benefit from these antics (Are you a coke drinker or a pepsi drinker?), but it's not an appropriate framework for political decision making where you often need to find compromise and pressure points to move the conversation forward.
It's worked great for the Republicans for the last 40 years (Ronald was the original Donald) and there is no sign it will stop working any time soon. It's only ever the left who have to compromise. Name a time in the last 40 years where a Republican has compromised and been rewarded for it.
It was still about slavery: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slavehol...
>What concerned Southerners most about Lincoln’s election was his opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories; Southern politicians were clear about that. If new states could not be slave states, went the argument, then it was only a matter of time before the South’s clout in Congress would fade, abolitionists would be ascendant, and the South’s “peculiar institution” – the right to own human beings as property – would be in peril.
As I said before, while there are other factors and while they are interesting and worthy of study, sometimes the core reason really is that simple. It's not "enlightened" to pretend that simple things are complex.
>Culture wars are useful for pushing narratives and keeping both sides locked in a relative stalemate. Coke and Pepsi both benefit from these antics (Are you a coke drinker or a pepsi drinker?), but it's not an appropriate framework for political decision making where you often need to find compromise and pressure points to move the conversation forward.
It's worked great for the Republicans for the last 40 years (Ronald was the original Donald) and there is no sign it will stop working any time soon. It's only ever the left who have to compromise. Name a time in the last 40 years where a Republican has compromised and been rewarded for it.
She was at the head of a mob of people breaking through the door into a Congressional chamber during a core part of the peaceful transfer of power. Suffice it to say that's a much higher bar than normal.
I don't think so. They were at the Capitol for a few hours. They committed some vandalism and brawled with the Capitol police. Maybe the guy with the zip ties thought he was there for revolution, but most seemed to be taking advantage of an opportunity to run in and see or loot the Capitol.
> loot the Capitol
Shoot, they really did a bad job of that... Looks like they need to take some notes from the British on how to do it properly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Cap...
Shoot, they really did a bad job of that... Looks like they need to take some notes from the British on how to do it properly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Cap...
>loot the Capitol
Then they should be shot on sight. The only reason they weren't fired upon is the color of their skin.
Then they should be shot on sight. The only reason they weren't fired upon is the color of their skin.
This attitude really saddens me. We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. Thankfully, this is the attitude I have heard from most BLM leaders.
I agree that the comment you are responding to is saddening, but I disagree with the characterization of the Capitol protesters as being treated with a "gentle touch". One unarmed woman was shot and killed, others were maced, beaten etc. Three other protesters died from causes that I've just seen described as "medical". This hardly seems like evidence of a light touch to me.
In my estimation the Capitol Police were some combination of surprised, unprepared, under-equipped, and under-manned. The police didn't seem to have any plans or preparation. Some police are seen standing aside and letting protesters in to the Capitol (which, I agree is a light touch, but I also saw police kneeling in solidarity with BLM protesters, which is also a light touch). Other police are brawling with protesters (which, I think is probably about the right level of violence, we just needed more police to be there doing it and for all the police there to understand what they were supposed to be doing).
I don't think the police should shoot Capitol protesters or BLM protesters. I do think they should use physical force against both when they do things that are unacceptable - e.g. entering the Capitol or destroying or looting stores. I would say both groups call for a similar medium touch.
In my estimation the Capitol Police were some combination of surprised, unprepared, under-equipped, and under-manned. The police didn't seem to have any plans or preparation. Some police are seen standing aside and letting protesters in to the Capitol (which, I agree is a light touch, but I also saw police kneeling in solidarity with BLM protesters, which is also a light touch). Other police are brawling with protesters (which, I think is probably about the right level of violence, we just needed more police to be there doing it and for all the police there to understand what they were supposed to be doing).
I don't think the police should shoot Capitol protesters or BLM protesters. I do think they should use physical force against both when they do things that are unacceptable - e.g. entering the Capitol or destroying or looting stores. I would say both groups call for a similar medium touch.
If the BLM protestors attempted to storm buildings defended by the federal police that were deployed to those protests, they'd have been mowed down with light machine guns. Had the police not rioted themselves, nothing would have happened even if BLM had come to fight because it would have been abundantly clear that escalation would not lead to rising property values in Tokyo.
The Capitol should have been much better fortified by a much larger force given that the FBI, MPD, and Capitol Police knew or should have known about this plan for months. Had the presence of several hundred officers with multiple layers of fencing and visibly-manned M249 positions not been sufficient to convince their vanguard to run away, they would have been able to escalate to spotlights, LRAD, and less-lethal projectiles before needing to go with the real deal. A suitable amount of publicity for these preparations could very well have resulted in the Q Cucks Klan deciding to find an excuse to either make it a legitimate protest or call the whole thing off.
The deaths would have been at most two or three rioters, and possibly a few who get trampled in the panicked retreat. That would have been a light touch; it accomplishes the objective using a minimum of force, and if they saw reason nobody would even have been scratched. A medium touch would just be shooting anyone who tries to breach the perimeter until they stop trying (which would have been totally legal); a heavy touch would have happened to the BLM protestors if they had escalated to violence.
Kneeling in solidarity with protesters is fine because neither the protestors or the officer are breaking the law or indeed doing anything wrong. Letting an enemy force (and that's absolutely what a crowd of people with unlawfully-possessed guns and Army of Northern Virginia battle flags is) past your position is at a minimum conspiracy to enter and remain in a federal building without authorization.
The Capitol should have been much better fortified by a much larger force given that the FBI, MPD, and Capitol Police knew or should have known about this plan for months. Had the presence of several hundred officers with multiple layers of fencing and visibly-manned M249 positions not been sufficient to convince their vanguard to run away, they would have been able to escalate to spotlights, LRAD, and less-lethal projectiles before needing to go with the real deal. A suitable amount of publicity for these preparations could very well have resulted in the Q Cucks Klan deciding to find an excuse to either make it a legitimate protest or call the whole thing off.
The deaths would have been at most two or three rioters, and possibly a few who get trampled in the panicked retreat. That would have been a light touch; it accomplishes the objective using a minimum of force, and if they saw reason nobody would even have been scratched. A medium touch would just be shooting anyone who tries to breach the perimeter until they stop trying (which would have been totally legal); a heavy touch would have happened to the BLM protestors if they had escalated to violence.
Kneeling in solidarity with protesters is fine because neither the protestors or the officer are breaking the law or indeed doing anything wrong. Letting an enemy force (and that's absolutely what a crowd of people with unlawfully-possessed guns and Army of Northern Virginia battle flags is) past your position is at a minimum conspiracy to enter and remain in a federal building without authorization.
They attemtpted to storm a federal building in Portland every night for weeks without being "gunned down".
No they didn't.
There is some disconnect here. These are violent right-wing rioters storming a state capitol building. The allegation of OP was that BLM protestors were doing something like that.
Yes you are right, I posted the wrong link. Here is the correct one:
https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...
https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...
I agree with you on how protestors should be treated, but take issue calling the people at the Capitol "protestors". Some certainly were simply protestors, but quite a few -- those we are talking about now -- crossed the line from protesting into breaking and entering, vandalism, and in some cases violent behavior.
I think "protester" is appropriate for people who are protesting a political process in a political building - even if some of them exceeded acceptable behavior, committed crimes, were violent etc.
Using BLM as an example, is it still fair to call them protesters though they sometimes fight with police (violent behavior), graffiti or break windows (vandalism), loot (breaking and entering)?
Using BLM as an example, is it still fair to call them protesters though they sometimes fight with police (violent behavior), graffiti or break windows (vandalism), loot (breaking and entering)?
Sure, I agree. But this thread is specifically talking about the subset of the protestors who were committing crimes. No need to call that subset "protestors".
BLM vandals stormed Oregon State Capitol. They also established autonomous zone where they had their private security shooting two black teenagers.
Are you sure about this? The link you yourself shared shows photos of people carrying "thin blue line" flags. The quotations inside the article you shared says "Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem".
Here is the link you shared in a sibling comment: https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...
Here is the link you shared in a sibling comment: https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...
Thanks for noticing, you are right, i mixed the two events. The BLM rioters breached a court house in Portland [1], while the other side attacked the state capitol in Oregon.
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...
>We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were.
When we do that, we still get shot by the police and nothing changes. Maybe if white people face consequences for once, things will change.
When we do that, we still get shot by the police and nothing changes. Maybe if white people face consequences for once, things will change.
It's easy to post quotes like this when your eye has never been in danger.
> when your eye has never been in danger
Like the Dalai Lama?
Like the Dalai Lama?
Baofeng's website has a banner suggesting a surge in demand.
> Due to overwhelming demand, we are not able to process any additional orders at this time
https://baofengtech.com/
> Due to overwhelming demand, we are not able to process any additional orders at this time
https://baofengtech.com/
It'll be interesting to see if the CBP finally flexes its muscle and seizes them.
Why would the CBP seize radios that are perfectly legal to sell? That wouldn't be "flexing", that would be "over-reach".
They're not legal in the US, in the way they're sold usually, they claim to be Part 90, and they're not
For more information https://www.jpole-antenna.com/2018/08/13/baofeng-uv-5r-radio...
I think many felt they had nothing to hide. Many are in camera calling it a revolution. Many aren't hiding theur faces, giving their names in interviews.
A person in one of the videos taking photos of random documents says "Ted Cruz would want us to do this".
I think they expected to have no consequences...
A person in one of the videos taking photos of random documents says "Ted Cruz would want us to do this".
I think they expected to have no consequences...
100% agree with this comment.
Why the warning from the FCC, who knows. I was always told ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It must be cheaper to issue a warning rather than expend resources to prosecute the people involved.
Why the warning from the FCC, who knows. I was always told ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It must be cheaper to issue a warning rather than expend resources to prosecute the people involved.
The warning is probably directed more at politicians or civilians making complaints than the lawbreakers. It gives the agency something to point to when they get inquiries or complaints.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... was signed 1/18/2021 coincidence?
Wait, am I reading that right?
Is it literally making pleading ignorance an option?
Is it literally making pleading ignorance an option?
There's lots of issues regarding burden of proof. I doubt the FCC has enough evidence to identify these people, much less enough to arrest or convict them.
As a pinch of salt...
If you can get a baofeng to last out of the box longer than a week, and manage to DX a handheld or a repeater further than a parking space away, you should at least win a QRP award and a discount on your technicians test before you get sent to the klink.
If you can get a baofeng to last out of the box longer than a week, and manage to DX a handheld or a repeater further than a parking space away, you should at least win a QRP award and a discount on your technicians test before you get sent to the klink.
Strong disagree, and wish this sort of gatekeeping wasn't present. Go get one of these things. They're $20, and ham radio is a fun and useful hobby.
I have many baofeng radios which have been in many forms of being thrown into boxes, backpacks, filled with dust, rained on, abused by drunks, dropped, etc. and they ALL are still working fine, albeit some with dest behind the LCD cover.
I have many baofeng radios which have been in many forms of being thrown into boxes, backpacks, filled with dust, rained on, abused by drunks, dropped, etc. and they ALL are still working fine, albeit some with dest behind the LCD cover.
Oh its not gatekeeping. You get what you pay for.
My baofeng 5 died two hours into a 12 mile backpackign trip across catalina island. It couldn't do a quarter mile line of sight with an airport 2m amateur tower and when turning on the flashlight feature in my tent it died entirely and would not power back on. I was entirely reliant on it for ranger station as well as general comms and phone patch/weather. Packing this plastic trash couldnt have been more dangerous.
Programming is also a byzantine nightmare.
My baofeng 5 died two hours into a 12 mile backpackign trip across catalina island. It couldn't do a quarter mile line of sight with an airport 2m amateur tower and when turning on the flashlight feature in my tent it died entirely and would not power back on. I was entirely reliant on it for ranger station as well as general comms and phone patch/weather. Packing this plastic trash couldnt have been more dangerous.
Programming is also a byzantine nightmare.
How is it a "byzantine nightmare"? I plug it into my computer, put in the frequencies (and names I want for the channels.), and upload the configuration. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Im pretty aure they meant programming from the radio itself, without using a computer.
As a fun ham toy, it's fine. For critical safety-of-life communication... do you want to be using any amateur radio? Maybe you'd want a Motorola or ICOM cop radio.
Agreed. I've had two $25 baofengs for camping / outdooring for... Four or five years. Both work fine. They don't see a ton of use but they have been banging around camping bins and glove boxes for that time.
Batteries hold their charge well.
Bonus-- they have FM radios. Weirdly the only thing in my house powered by batteries that does!
Batteries hold their charge well.
Bonus-- they have FM radios. Weirdly the only thing in my house powered by batteries that does!
I've been using my Baofeng for a couple of years now and have no problem working many repeaters here in the Triangle (NC) area. YMMV.
same. it's a perfectly fine shitty radio. i have 3 of them that i keep stashed in various places. they certainly aren't as nice as my yaesu, and they do splatter, but they do work just fine.
perfectly fine shitty radio
Hah! What a great bit of word-smithing there. I love it. Yes, that's a good description of the Baofeng radios. They're crap, but they're fine crap. Cheap, but workable as a beginner radio. I bought mine right when I got my Technician license, and it's served well for dipping my toes in the water a little. But I'll be buying a higher quality radio soon, if all goes according to plan.
Hah! What a great bit of word-smithing there. I love it. Yes, that's a good description of the Baofeng radios. They're crap, but they're fine crap. Cheap, but workable as a beginner radio. I bought mine right when I got my Technician license, and it's served well for dipping my toes in the water a little. But I'll be buying a higher quality radio soon, if all goes according to plan.
If you were to recommend a beginner radio, is a Baofeng what you'd recommend?
It depends on how much money you have, and how interested in VHF/UHF you are. If you're very interested in VHF/UHF (repeaters, simplex with your neighbors) and you only have $20, then it's the perfect radio for you.
If you have $10,000 and want to chat with people around the world, then you'll want something else. People hear "ham radio" and think "chatting with people all around the world", but that is not what Baofeng radios do :)
If you have $10,000 and want to chat with people around the world, then you'll want something else. People hear "ham radio" and think "chatting with people all around the world", but that is not what Baofeng radios do :)
Similarly, my Baofeng has no problem on the many repeaters in the Northern Nevada area. Definitely YMMV.
Nonsense. I bought a baofeng years ago and it works perfectly well. It's a basic, cheap radio well suited for beginners.
I've had a UV-5R for four years. Receives fine. The handful of times I've used it to transmit on a local net nobody mentioned vomiting in disgust at its poor transmission characteristics. The original battery even still holds a charge, which I really didn't expect, since it's probably spent 3.9 years sitting on the charger being kept at the float voltage.
I had a VX-7R- it was nice, but I didn't use it enough for the amount of money sunk into it, so I sold. I bought a UV-5x3 when I again wanted an HT. It's pretty good- I like that it now has alphanumeric channel memory and I get to see what's happening on 220 MHz. But this is a $90 radio...
Have both, still love my 15+yo Yaesu VX-5R way more than the UV-5R. I won't be getting more Baofengs.
How would people on the same band be aware that it is radiating harmonics?
freely ignore that comment, they're actually fine radios that work well and there is heaps of proof of such
You sound like a real joy.
Quick: let’s implement ID for everything, because that clearly stops criminals.
Quick: let’s implement ID for everything, because that clearly stops criminals.
Han anyone recently verified the Baofeng's harmonics output? I got a TinySA and wondering if it's possible to somehow wire it up to test them.
I know people who use them because they will transmit and receive on pretty much any frequency. Not because they're cheap.
> It's already against the law to use them in a manner that is against the law.
Well said.
Well said.
The warning applies to GMRS walkie-talkies too. I doubt folks were using HAM bands.
Your post reeks of elitism, which is very common in the radio community. Saying baofeng radios “barely work” when you use them with the antennas they come with is a blatant lie.
I’m sorry that there’s some sort of “eternal September” in the radio community because of baofeng users, but lying won’t bring back the days when only people who could afford very expensive equipment could enjoy radios.
I’m sorry that there’s some sort of “eternal September” in the radio community because of baofeng users, but lying won’t bring back the days when only people who could afford very expensive equipment could enjoy radios.
>Saying baofeng radios “barely work” when you use them with the antennas they come with is a blatant lie.
Not a lie. Personal observation. When I first got the radio I tested it at our groups ham shack. I was 150' away from our repeater (open field, no obstructions) and could not get the repeater to acknowledge my signal. I could hear everybody fine, but could not TX. One of my buddies handed me a spare antenna, and presto I was able to use the repeater. I was also able to hear repeaters that were 20+km away that I couldn't tune-in on the rubber duck. Transmit and receive improved with a different antenna. I thought I had a bad radio, bad transmit button, or bad microphone before I swapped out antennas.
My statement is 100% accurate based on my observations. Grumbles from the other members in my group agreed with the sentiment. They ship with bad antennas.
Not a lie. Personal observation. When I first got the radio I tested it at our groups ham shack. I was 150' away from our repeater (open field, no obstructions) and could not get the repeater to acknowledge my signal. I could hear everybody fine, but could not TX. One of my buddies handed me a spare antenna, and presto I was able to use the repeater. I was also able to hear repeaters that were 20+km away that I couldn't tune-in on the rubber duck. Transmit and receive improved with a different antenna. I thought I had a bad radio, bad transmit button, or bad microphone before I swapped out antennas.
My statement is 100% accurate based on my observations. Grumbles from the other members in my group agreed with the sentiment. They ship with bad antennas.
Your observation of one radio you tested doesn’t seem to support the kind of sweeping generalizations you made about all Baofeng radios. I have two UV-82HP, two GMRS-V1s, two UV-82C, one BF-F8HP, a UV-50X2 and a UV-50X3. Never had any problems working repeaters or for simplex communication in terrain, both when off-roading or providing volunteer communications for events.
Baofeng radios work just fine, and many amateurs I know have several as well. I have never tried the $20 UV-5R radios so I can’t comment on how well those work.
But I absolutely don’t buy the argument that all Baofeng are terrible radios and people must be idiots for buying them, even more so when the evidence turns out to be that you had a radio with a bad antenna once.
Baofeng radios work just fine, and many amateurs I know have several as well. I have never tried the $20 UV-5R radios so I can’t comment on how well those work.
But I absolutely don’t buy the argument that all Baofeng are terrible radios and people must be idiots for buying them, even more so when the evidence turns out to be that you had a radio with a bad antenna once.
I have worked a satellite with a Baofeng (and Yagi antenna), so at least one works.
I stopped using mine because I don't have a spectrum analyzer and was told by Reddit that they send a lot of power out of band, which isn't something I care to do.
(I have a VHF module in my KX3 that meets my VHF needs. Mostly. Would like even better frequency stability for meteor scatter, WSPR, etc.)
I stopped using mine because I don't have a spectrum analyzer and was told by Reddit that they send a lot of power out of band, which isn't something I care to do.
(I have a VHF module in my KX3 that meets my VHF needs. Mostly. Would like even better frequency stability for meteor scatter, WSPR, etc.)
Bought four handsets for my work. They worked through concrete over a distance. Your comment is 100% inaccurate based on my observations.
The reason there's no requirement to identify yourself is that this stuff isn't hard to make and the FCC already employs professionals for tracking (this is a common sport) and arresting people who abuse the radios.
> The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms for groups to communicate and coordinate future activities.
“Stop discussing plans for a revolution on amateur radio bands like if we aren’t listening to them, we are, stop believing everything they say on Facebook. I mean, we do encourage civil discussions, but if you’re going to collude on terrorism over the radio we will hold you responsible for that”
“Stop discussing plans for a revolution on amateur radio bands like if we aren’t listening to them, we are, stop believing everything they say on Facebook. I mean, we do encourage civil discussions, but if you’re going to collude on terrorism over the radio we will hold you responsible for that”
I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for this, but honestly FCC regulation of ham radio is at best antiquated cold war bullshit (ie, crypto bans) and at worst gatekeeping for a bunch of old men who can dox themselves in order to get exclusive access to some bands.
Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.
Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.
> I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for this
My experience in the amateur radio community is that hate is exceedingly rare, although disagreement is common.
> Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.
So let's have a discussion: do we really want these kickass bands to become another cell phone band? I think it's useful to have a part of the spectrum on which deafening corporate rent-seeking cannot hide.
I work full-time on cryptology, so I'm no stranger to the benefits of developing network protocols with cryptographic primitives in mind.
However, the radio spectrum is a great place to let many flowers bloom, and the amatuer bands appear to be experiencing a lovely, overdue bloom right now.
I bought an Icom-7100 last year, and the rapid growth of linux support for hacking on low-signal modes is wonderful to see, and I think it's happening because this band is the way that it is.
> FCC regulation of ham radio is at best antiquated cold war bullshit
Listen: I'm all for completely abolishing the FCC. However, I also recognize that the amateur radio licensing program plays a very important role in society: it allows us to stand and be counted in favor of tinkering and experimentation in the mainstream of some of the best bands on the spectrum. It prevents the government and its cronies from claiming that these bands are fallow and better utilized as even more centralized, profiteering, plastic bullshit.
I don't disagree with your thinking, I just ask that we apply different thinking to different parts of the spectrum so that we can have a more robust and diverse experimental reckoning of the airwaves with which we're blessed.
My experience in the amateur radio community is that hate is exceedingly rare, although disagreement is common.
> Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.
So let's have a discussion: do we really want these kickass bands to become another cell phone band? I think it's useful to have a part of the spectrum on which deafening corporate rent-seeking cannot hide.
I work full-time on cryptology, so I'm no stranger to the benefits of developing network protocols with cryptographic primitives in mind.
However, the radio spectrum is a great place to let many flowers bloom, and the amatuer bands appear to be experiencing a lovely, overdue bloom right now.
I bought an Icom-7100 last year, and the rapid growth of linux support for hacking on low-signal modes is wonderful to see, and I think it's happening because this band is the way that it is.
> FCC regulation of ham radio is at best antiquated cold war bullshit
Listen: I'm all for completely abolishing the FCC. However, I also recognize that the amateur radio licensing program plays a very important role in society: it allows us to stand and be counted in favor of tinkering and experimentation in the mainstream of some of the best bands on the spectrum. It prevents the government and its cronies from claiming that these bands are fallow and better utilized as even more centralized, profiteering, plastic bullshit.
I don't disagree with your thinking, I just ask that we apply different thinking to different parts of the spectrum so that we can have a more robust and diverse experimental reckoning of the airwaves with which we're blessed.
Use it or lose it in my opinion. The bands are underutilized and the barrier of entry, regardless of what most people think, is too high. Joe Shmoe should be able to watch an hour long video and then get a call sign the same day after passing an exam. Why a tech needs to understand antenna theory, space transmissions, and ionosphere reflection is beyond me. Cool, sure. Essential, c’mon.
> Why a tech needs to understand antenna theory, space transmissions, and ionosphere reflection is beyond me.
It's like asking why a car driver needs to understand when to turn off high-beams, when not to honk, and how to safely open their door after parking on a busy street.
i.e. we live in a society, other people are affected by your actions.
It's like asking why a car driver needs to understand when to turn off high-beams, when not to honk, and how to safely open their door after parking on a busy street.
i.e. we live in a society, other people are affected by your actions.
Joe Shmoe's name and home address are published for everyone to see. To some people that is an insurmountable barrier to entry.
> Every single person here uses high powered encrypted communication without a license, it's a cell phone.
Your cell service provider holds the license.
Ham radio exam is not hard, and does not require special training, just some basic knowledge of how radios work and what the regulations are. I don't see what the issue is.
Your cell service provider holds the license.
Ham radio exam is not hard, and does not require special training, just some basic knowledge of how radios work and what the regulations are. I don't see what the issue is.
> Ham radio exam is not hard...
Not only that, but every exam question comes from a published pool of questions [0]. If you can memorize the answers to those questions, then you don’t need to learn anything about how radio works at all.
[0] http://www.arrl.org/question-pools
Not only that, but every exam question comes from a published pool of questions [0]. If you can memorize the answers to those questions, then you don’t need to learn anything about how radio works at all.
[0] http://www.arrl.org/question-pools
You're missing the point. I would only bother to take the exam if I could use my radio for encrypted packet radio. I'd love to set up a long range meshnet, but it's only useful if it's encrypted.
There's a lot of fundamental infrastructure decentralization that can happen once some of the HAM frequencies allow encrypted use.
There's a lot of fundamental infrastructure decentralization that can happen once some of the HAM frequencies allow encrypted use.
They're only useful precisely because they aren't being used for that.
What you really want instead is something like the HAM license allowing the use of point to point equipment at higher power and on frequencies reserved for operators that respect the communications medium.
What you really want instead is something like the HAM license allowing the use of point to point equipment at higher power and on frequencies reserved for operators that respect the communications medium.
I was referring to the exam for the HAM license, which I don't want or find interesting because it doesn't allow encryption. Encryption is pretty basic at this point. I want to set up long-range, encrypted, decentralized, p2p mesh networks with my friends. Because I'm accustomed to private conversations, and HAM radio represents a huge step backwards in that regard.
I find it more believable that the government is scared of such technology than that encryption would be such a detriment to the HAM radio community.
I find it more believable that the government is scared of such technology than that encryption would be such a detriment to the HAM radio community.
You can absolutely do that, and there are several potential license and license-free options. None of them are amateur radio, however.
I'm curious what the license-free options are that you're referring to. I thought I'd done my research, but I missed that.
U-NII, mostly. The drawback from amateur radio or another licensed service is that you won't be able to use anything like the same power output. Whether that works for you depends on your definition of "long distance".
Yeah, that doesn't really fit the bill. I'm talking about HAM radio definitions of 'long distance', where one of the shorter hops is ~150 miles. I might as well stick with Part 15 as use U-NII.
That's the problem - hn regularly has threads talking about how decentralized infrastructure is so important. Having a (dialup speed) p2p network that is built on long range connections would be insanely reliable and would probably revolutionize what we think of as the Internet.
- ISPs would be optional
- access to the internet would be the one-time cost of the hardware
- a totalitarian government trying to shutdown the internet would have to hunt down portable repeaters over hundreds of square miles
- the infrastructure would be in the hands of the people, not megacorps like verizon and comcast.
But that requires encryption, and spectrum allocations that can cover the distance.
That's the problem - hn regularly has threads talking about how decentralized infrastructure is so important. Having a (dialup speed) p2p network that is built on long range connections would be insanely reliable and would probably revolutionize what we think of as the Internet.
- ISPs would be optional
- access to the internet would be the one-time cost of the hardware
- a totalitarian government trying to shutdown the internet would have to hunt down portable repeaters over hundreds of square miles
- the infrastructure would be in the hands of the people, not megacorps like verizon and comcast.
But that requires encryption, and spectrum allocations that can cover the distance.
At the end of the day, my problems with ham is
1: For stupid legacy reasons, I can't use crypto
2: In order to get and hold a license, I have to provide my full name and address, which is then PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
1: For stupid legacy reasons, I can't use crypto
2: In order to get and hold a license, I have to provide my full name and address, which is then PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
It sounds like what you'd approve of is something entirely different than Amateur Radio. Neither of the things you mention is an accident or "legacy" restriction.
Ah yes, what would amateur radio be if my name and address weren't published for all to see.
No, I don't care about ham, I care about the many other things you need a ham license for, such as flying drones in some configurations. I never said any of this was an accident, and the cryto stuff is absolutely cold war legacy bs.
No, I don't care about ham, I care about the many other things you need a ham license for, such as flying drones in some configurations. I never said any of this was an accident, and the cryto stuff is absolutely cold war legacy bs.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hypothetically, if I were to develop some DSSS technique that operates below the noise floor and utilizes a strong AES2 cipher, who the hell cares how I use it?
If you're "below the noise floor" you may well be under Part 15, which is the "who the hell cares" part of the rules, and you're fine.
If your signal is strong enough to interfere with common uses of the band, well, then that's why people care.
If your signal is strong enough to interfere with common uses of the band, well, then that's why people care.
Speculation: we're just about to see a bunch of secondary offense charges come down for the Capitol riots, or at the very least forfeiture of the equipment.
I wonder if the executive order signed the other day might be relevant to this (preventative in its effect rather than complementary)? https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
I wonder if the executive order signed the other day might be relevant to this (preventative in its effect rather than complementary)? https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
I can already hear the cries of censorship. "What do you mean crimes aren't protected speech?"
There is reason to worry when the tools of defiance or rebellion are taken away. Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good.
This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very minor offense or protected speech.
This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very minor offense or protected speech.
> Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good.
There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though. "Context is for kings" is tinged with irony on that one.
> This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
Jokes aside, any sentence which contains "no tools being taken away" around messages such as this one are is assuming too much about the future - it is entirely within the power of both executive (FCC) and legislative (Congress) to curtail the use of specific tools, including radios. It shows that someone in the agency has thought that this particular case warrants making a public statement, which is an escalation.
There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though. "Context is for kings" is tinged with irony on that one.
> This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government.
Jokes aside, any sentence which contains "no tools being taken away" around messages such as this one are is assuming too much about the future - it is entirely within the power of both executive (FCC) and legislative (Congress) to curtail the use of specific tools, including radios. It shows that someone in the agency has thought that this particular case warrants making a public statement, which is an escalation.
>There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though
Gets good press, but, compared to the Commonwealth countries, it's not clear it was really necessary or beneficial.
Gets good press, but, compared to the Commonwealth countries, it's not clear it was really necessary or beneficial.
> Rebellion is bad
Not always. Not saying it is here, but I think it depends on the context. Arab Spring, for instance.
Not always. Not saying it is here, but I think it depends on the context. Arab Spring, for instance.
What's interesting to note is that the Arab Spring was largely organized on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. US media outlets were thrilled about this, and wrote article after article talking about how these platforms gave the common man the opportunity to vent about police brutality, corruption, election fraud, and unemployment in a way that simply wasn't possible previously. The general attitude at the time was that social media platforms, and the free speech they enabled, would be a force for good in the world, despite the Arab Spring involving a fair amount of violence and ultimately leading the upheaval of several countries.
Fast forward a decade later, and now the attitude is the complete opposite.
Fast forward a decade later, and now the attitude is the complete opposite.
A "riot" to eject a dictator vs a "riot" to stop Congress from certifying the winner of the election/install Trump as dictator are - to my eyes - entirely different in character.
People do what it takes to survive. Trump usurping power and ending 230 years of US democracy represents an existential threat. Don't be shocked that a lot of people and companies are not on-board with that idea and are willing to take extreme measures to prevent it.
People do what it takes to survive. Trump usurping power and ending 230 years of US democracy represents an existential threat. Don't be shocked that a lot of people and companies are not on-board with that idea and are willing to take extreme measures to prevent it.
When the dictator operates a secular government and the alternative is an ochlocratic theocracy, I don't think the morality of the situation is so clear cut.
I didn't mean to imply the result is always ideal or even good. That's one of the dangers of revolutions and suppression of dissent.
I'm saying there is no reason to be surprised when you're asking platforms to ignore Trump's attempt to end democracy and they decline.
To give a hypothetical: if Trump's followers were harassing Matt Prince's family every day at home, work, and school there wouldn't be any hand-wringing about "free speech" or "censorship" from Cloudflare. Anyone related to Trump would find themselves banned in short order. That would be purely a move of self-preservation.
Similarly a lot of platforms (and donors) realize these people are no longer useful idiots but deluded to the point of ransacking the house of Congress in an attempt to overturn the election. That's really dangerous and could destabilize the country and even the world. When faced with an existential threat don't be shocked when people are unwilling to sit down and debate on behalf of MAGAs/Fox News acting in bad faith.
I'm saying there is no reason to be surprised when you're asking platforms to ignore Trump's attempt to end democracy and they decline.
To give a hypothetical: if Trump's followers were harassing Matt Prince's family every day at home, work, and school there wouldn't be any hand-wringing about "free speech" or "censorship" from Cloudflare. Anyone related to Trump would find themselves banned in short order. That would be purely a move of self-preservation.
Similarly a lot of platforms (and donors) realize these people are no longer useful idiots but deluded to the point of ransacking the house of Congress in an attempt to overturn the election. That's really dangerous and could destabilize the country and even the world. When faced with an existential threat don't be shocked when people are unwilling to sit down and debate on behalf of MAGAs/Fox News acting in bad faith.
Another parallel: the Arab Spring revolts were hijacked by Islamists everywhere but Tunisia, and whatever legitimate complaints ("anti-hyperglobalization"?) galvanized the Trump movement in its early days were ultimately drowned out by the much louder voices of white nationalists (QAnon/PB) and apocalypse-seekers[1] who wanted to use the movement to gain power.
1: https://newrepublic.com/article/160922/capitol-riot-revealed...
1: https://newrepublic.com/article/160922/capitol-riot-revealed...
Not that we know how things played out, the Arab Spring was an enormous disaster.
The Arab Spring had mixed results, at best.
Just means it partly succeeded, not that the rebellion was a moral failure.
> Rebellion is bad
1776?
1776?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected speech" makes it sound like the only speech we're allowed is what is specifically allocated to us.
Which is the reality.
“Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”.
It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it.
One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
“Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”.
It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it.
One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
> no man wants...many do feel
Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold.
If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree").
If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.
Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold.
If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree").
If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.
Do you believe it should be legal to make death threats, print libel and slander that harm a man's reputation, spread around pictures taken of others in the shower without their consent, and publish stolen personal information?
If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
> If not, then you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech, but only freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good laws and bad ones.
From the outset, I said that there is a difference between saying that freedom of speech is something the government allocates to us, and something which the government ought to allow. Do you think the government gets to decide what we are, and are not, allowed to say?
It's a cute 'gotcha', but you're not actually saying anything that relates to what I said. I said 'moral principle', not 'absolute', and you continue to refer to 'the law'. You're not distinguishing between the laws the government decides upon, and the moral principles we use to evaluate good laws and bad ones.
From the outset, I said that there is a difference between saying that freedom of speech is something the government allocates to us, and something which the government ought to allow. Do you think the government gets to decide what we are, and are not, allowed to say?
I don't believe in morality; it's an indefinable and unfalsifiable concept
I simply said that the claim of believing in “freedom of speech, except where one not” is an empty, useless, and trivial statement.
Everyone believes in “freedom of speech, except where he draw the line”.
I simply said that the claim of believing in “freedom of speech, except where one not” is an empty, useless, and trivial statement.
Everyone believes in “freedom of speech, except where he draw the line”.
Where freedom of speech falls in the hierarchy of rights is not my concern. What is my concern, is who gets to choose what that hierarchy is and where freedom of speech exists on it.
I'm arguing that the government is not who gets to determine what that hierarchy is, and thereby determine what gets to superceed freedom of speech.
I'm arguing that the government is not who gets to determine what that hierarchy is, and thereby determine what gets to superceed freedom of speech.
very well, who gets to determine that hierarchy and how will they enforce their determinations?
Not the government. And why should anyone inflict their view of morality on anyone else?
I really don't want anyone - liberal, conservative, Christian or radical Islam - enforcing their determiniation of moral hierarchy on me. Do you?
I really don't want anyone - liberal, conservative, Christian or radical Islam - enforcing their determiniation of moral hierarchy on me. Do you?
ok well when you say X does not get to determine Y it implies that there is someone who gets to determine Y. I had difficulty imagining anyone who should be allowed to determine Y in this case, unless it was some theological concept, so I wanted some clarification of your position.
> Not the government. And why should anyone inflict their view of morality on anyone else?
To be clear, are you taking the position of the anarchist here? I mean no disrespect, I only wish to understand your position. I think most people would say, with various exemplars, that the government can legitimately have a blacklist maintained over certain speech, very much in the same way it can have one over certain actions.
This is not an appeal to popularity, it is a statement of the non-anarchist position. You may think it is invalid, but by the same token, I think that consistently you'd have to see laws against murder or child rape to be invalid.
To be clear, are you taking the position of the anarchist here? I mean no disrespect, I only wish to understand your position. I think most people would say, with various exemplars, that the government can legitimately have a blacklist maintained over certain speech, very much in the same way it can have one over certain actions.
This is not an appeal to popularity, it is a statement of the non-anarchist position. You may think it is invalid, but by the same token, I think that consistently you'd have to see laws against murder or child rape to be invalid.
Not anarchist. There's another way, as I see it. If you put a liberal, a conservative, a Christian, a follower of radical Islam, an atheist, a Buddhist and a paganist on a desert island together, they could find a way to work things out, and not step on each others toes.
Each does whatever they like, so long as they do no harm to anyone else. Where the least common ground exists, interactions are polite and restrained (to the mathematical extreme of minimizing any information transfer at all, if zero common ground exists); where greater common ground exists, speech and action can be more unrestrained.
If harm is done, then the harm itself is the issue. Hyperbolic example, to make it super clear: it's perfectly fine to shout 'fire' in a crowded building; however, if you cause harm you're on the hook. Not because you shouted "fire", but because you (one way or another, the means is irrelevant) caused people to be trampled.
The difference between that and the similiar position stated earlier is small, but I think there's a bright line: whether the speech is restricted, or the doing of harm is restricted. It's a trivial difference at face value, but the logical derivations are very different.
If one of the desert island castaways attempts to do harm to another, the rest of them might naturally band together to prevent and reconcile it. That's where I see government involved: the banding together, to prevent and reconcile harm done.
In that way, morality is untouched. No one inflicts their views on anyone else. Total ignorance of all moral hierarchies is preserved. Government says nothing about what may or may not be said. The only view inflicted on anyone is the minimum precept, 'do no harm to others'.
Each does whatever they like, so long as they do no harm to anyone else. Where the least common ground exists, interactions are polite and restrained (to the mathematical extreme of minimizing any information transfer at all, if zero common ground exists); where greater common ground exists, speech and action can be more unrestrained.
If harm is done, then the harm itself is the issue. Hyperbolic example, to make it super clear: it's perfectly fine to shout 'fire' in a crowded building; however, if you cause harm you're on the hook. Not because you shouted "fire", but because you (one way or another, the means is irrelevant) caused people to be trampled.
The difference between that and the similiar position stated earlier is small, but I think there's a bright line: whether the speech is restricted, or the doing of harm is restricted. It's a trivial difference at face value, but the logical derivations are very different.
If one of the desert island castaways attempts to do harm to another, the rest of them might naturally band together to prevent and reconcile it. That's where I see government involved: the banding together, to prevent and reconcile harm done.
In that way, morality is untouched. No one inflicts their views on anyone else. Total ignorance of all moral hierarchies is preserved. Government says nothing about what may or may not be said. The only view inflicted on anyone is the minimum precept, 'do no harm to others'.
> it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”.
The whole point of the constitution is to put a limit on the law. The government cannot pass a law forbidding a certain kind of speech as it would be unconstitutional.
> One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
You have it backwards. The law can dictate whatever it wants so long as it does not thread over the bounds of the constitution.
The whole point of the constitution is to put a limit on the law. The government cannot pass a law forbidding a certain kind of speech as it would be unconstitutional.
> One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.
You have it backwards. The law can dictate whatever it wants so long as it does not thread over the bounds of the constitution.
There were times when being in an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender was a crime, and a lot of sex work is still criminalized, so I'm actually quite bothered by (particularly) the prohibition against using encryption. Obviously I have no sympathy for white nationalists, but "crimes" in general tends to cover both things that are bad and things that aren't.
Concealing the meaning of transmissions is contrary to the purposes of the amateur radio service. There are perfectly serviceable radio bands, modes, and services for those wanting to transmit encoded messages, just like there are for those wanting to broadcast, transmit music, engage in commerce, etc.
Personally I think private individuals should have a fundamental right to encryption regardless of the medium.
I think the goal is mainly to avoid people doing things that aren't useful to the amateur radio community on the fixed amount of spectrum made available by physics. (Well, and some Cold-War-era paranoia about foreign spies, but...)
The idea is that the amateur bands are a commons of sorts for everyone to use and enjoy. As somebody else said you're perfectly welcome to transmit encoded messages on nets designed for that.
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
I think it's a bit like felony murder. Nobody wants you committing felonies, but, if you do commit a felony, you're incentivized to avoid causing potentially deadly situations. (setting aside the actual efficacy of such incentives, that's just how the law currently is)
To put it another way, you probably won't be charged just for selling drugs over a radio frequency. You'll be charged for the regular crime of selling drugs and an additional charge of using radio to commit that crime.
To put it another way, you probably won't be charged just for selling drugs over a radio frequency. You'll be charged for the regular crime of selling drugs and an additional charge of using radio to commit that crime.
Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
> Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong.
There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.
Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong.
There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.
That is very definitely not how common law systems work. Common law systems rely very heavily on past precedent and case law, not merely the words in a statute.
Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.
Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.
I think avmich is getting at the idea that some actions may or may not be legal until determined to be a crime, at which point there would be two: the original crime, and using radio to facilitate it.
This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge.
I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.
This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge.
I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.
The goal of similar questions (also, my favourites: have you ever been training child soldiers, or have you been involved in a violent overthrow of a legal government) is to make any discrepancy a separate immigration offense - making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end.
> making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end
Aah got it, that makes sense now. So it's not just political posturing for the extra-tough- on crime stuff.
Aah got it, that makes sense now. So it's not just political posturing for the extra-tough- on crime stuff.
My understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.
And some immigration lawyers can perhaps successfully argue that it was due to sincere change of heart - no intent at the time of answering the question. /s
I've been through the immigration process to get a green card. The questions I remember answering are all about your past and not so much about what you intend to do in the future.
Do you have any idea how many laws there are? In addition to that, regulations aren’t neat and tidy or organized, yet they carry the force of law.
[deleted]
“messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.”
The language is troubling, but the laws on the books in US are already ridiculously broad and overbearing. Usually, the question is more along the lines of what stick you want to use. Just in case you never had a chance, "Three felonies a day" gives will give you an idea where US is now.
The language is troubling, but the laws on the books in US are already ridiculously broad and overbearing. Usually, the question is more along the lines of what stick you want to use. Just in case you never had a chance, "Three felonies a day" gives will give you an idea where US is now.
It’s a condition of licensed transmission on amateur radio frequencies that the operators are identifiable (give their official call sign as often as is practical) and that what is said is plainly understandable to anyone listening.
You can’t do ‘anonymous code talk’ even if you do happen to have a licence. You can’t broadcast music, or do one-to-many messages except to setup one-to-one conversations (ie CQ or during club “nets”) - it’s not free, in fact it’s quite regulated.
You can’t do ‘anonymous code talk’ even if you do happen to have a licence. You can’t broadcast music, or do one-to-many messages except to setup one-to-one conversations (ie CQ or during club “nets”) - it’s not free, in fact it’s quite regulated.
The meaning is clear in context. Anything you transmit should be done so with the intent that anyone could receive and easily decode it to understand its meaning. That's fundamental to the purpose of the amateur service. And it's the tradeoff that hams make for having broad swaths of spectrum and liberal freedom to experiment. Plenty of other bands & services exist if one needs privacy.
> "Three felonies a day" gives will give you an idea where US is now.
When you reach six, USA will qualify as a dystopian wonderland: https://aliceinwonderland.fandom.com/wiki/Six_Impossible_Thi...
When you reach six, USA will qualify as a dystopian wonderland: https://aliceinwonderland.fandom.com/wiki/Six_Impossible_Thi...
The amateur bands are not for general use. They're allocated specifically for skill-building and emergency services, and are regulated accordingly. It's no different than how AM/FM bands are licensed and regulated. You can't just get on the air without a license and say whatever.
> The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms [...] Amateur and Personal Radio Services, however, may not be used to commit or facilitate crimes.
The sequitur between "social media platforms" and "commit or facilitate crimes" is quite interesting.
The sequitur between "social media platforms" and "commit or facilitate crimes" is quite interesting.
In the part you omitted, they recognize legal speech as the other use.
> The Bureau recognizes that these services can be used for a wide range of permitted purposes, including speech that is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
They didn't jump straight to illegal speech as it sounds like you're inferring. They mentioned legal speech first.
> The Bureau recognizes that these services can be used for a wide range of permitted purposes, including speech that is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
They didn't jump straight to illegal speech as it sounds like you're inferring. They mentioned legal speech first.
Related: Mexican drug cartels using radios:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21109605
A lot of that is probably to reach areas the cartels need to operate that don't have other reliable communication, or have little enough that it would be easily surveiled. Not sure if it applies to urban criminal activity, which is what the ARRL is worried about.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21109605
A lot of that is probably to reach areas the cartels need to operate that don't have other reliable communication, or have little enough that it would be easily surveiled. Not sure if it applies to urban criminal activity, which is what the ARRL is worried about.
Isn't this what the TARS aerostats are supposed to be looking for? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System
I remember coming across a job ad for a radio engineer position with the cartel. Can't remember what site it was on but they did offer some pretty good pay, housing and discount programs.
Encrypted radios. Any radio store will sell those, IDK why the rioters skimped on that.
> Encrypted radios. Any radio store will sell those, IDK why the rioters skimped on that.
Key distribution.
Encrypted radios are useless if no one knows what key to use, and equally useless if everyone knows what key to use. Sharing encryption keys with people you've never met on an open forum is equivalent to giving everyone the keys, just like sharing encryption keys with random people you've never met at public riot is equally equivalent to giving everyone the keys. One of those people you share with will be on the other side, at which point it's game over for your encryption. That said, given the brain trust that invaded the capitol building, I guess you're right, it is surprising they didn't have that added layer of security theater in the form of useless encryption everyone in DC could have been listening to.
Key distribution.
Encrypted radios are useless if no one knows what key to use, and equally useless if everyone knows what key to use. Sharing encryption keys with people you've never met on an open forum is equivalent to giving everyone the keys, just like sharing encryption keys with random people you've never met at public riot is equally equivalent to giving everyone the keys. One of those people you share with will be on the other side, at which point it's game over for your encryption. That said, given the brain trust that invaded the capitol building, I guess you're right, it is surprising they didn't have that added layer of security theater in the form of useless encryption everyone in DC could have been listening to.
What is the practical implication? I guess they are saying: "don't involve radios in your crime, or else the feds will be after you, too".
It's actually quite hard to get the FCC to fine you, you have to do something very clearly illegal for a very long period of time, and ignore the warnings given... Such as the WISP in UT some years back which continued to operate PtMP last mile 5 GHz stuff in the DFS radar bands, and got fined $25,000.
If you go through the notices of apparent liability issued by the FCC, which are all public, the individual persons getting fined are egregiously dumb, such as the guy who operated a multi band cellular jammer on his daily commute north/south on the interstate freeway in Florida. Or you have to do something like operate a pirate FM radio station for many months at a time always from the same fixed location.
The FCC's enforcement bureau does not have a great number of staff or resources to go chasing down everything.
If you go through the notices of apparent liability issued by the FCC, which are all public, the individual persons getting fined are egregiously dumb, such as the guy who operated a multi band cellular jammer on his daily commute north/south on the interstate freeway in Florida. Or you have to do something like operate a pirate FM radio station for many months at a time always from the same fixed location.
The FCC's enforcement bureau does not have a great number of staff or resources to go chasing down everything.
Back after Trump cut the FCC budget, I heard the number of active staff patrolling the airwaves went down to < 11. Think of that... 11 people for all of the United States. I know they have listening stations in various areas, but still 11 people can't effectively police the whole United States.
[deleted]
The practical implication is “after we catch you, if we find that a radio as used, we will add that to the list of charges, perhaps making you more compliant come plea bargain time.”
By way of documentation, this refers to FCC Part 97 rules, specifically §97.113(4):
"Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification."
"Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification."
I think they're saying if you use the radio to commit your crime they can and will pile on additional federal charges.
I'm sure they saw the paramilitary LARPers at the Capitol carrying radios capable of the frequencies in question. I'm sure some of them are on video using the radios and are about to be charged.
I'm sure they saw the paramilitary LARPers at the Capitol carrying radios capable of the frequencies in question. I'm sure some of them are on video using the radios and are about to be charged.
That sounds like what's being said, though I don't know how practical it will be to try and monitor/triangulate/whatever a bunch of short range, low-power FRS walkie-talkies. Maybe it just means if you get arrested and have one on your person, you get more charges.
This might be a dumb question, but is there any information out there about how much official monitoring goes on for amateur bands (and other bands, for that matter)? Are there strategically placed logging stations that allow triangulation of signal origin based on RSSI etc? I guess this stuff is super commonplace in SIGINT, I just don't know much about it.
When I became a ham back in the sixties the amateur bands were policed by the FCC themselves. They even had rolling vans with directional antennas. You even had to go to the local FCC office to sit for the license test of all but the novice license. I still can remember the sound Morse code made in the room with glass on all four sides. They looked in at you and for a kid it was like being in a fish bowl.
But in a cost cutting move they handed over most of the monitoring of the ham bands over to volunteers organized by the ARRL. Testing was also turned over to volunteers and you no longer had to go to the local FCC offices.
As a result the FCC personnel lost contact with hams. This in my mind is the only reason that this letter could have been sent. If they have proof that these communications are taking place they should say so. Hams do a lot of volunteer work in their communities and it's like the federal government all of a sudden feels they are untrustworthy. This did not sit well at all with the hams I know in our local community.
But in a cost cutting move they handed over most of the monitoring of the ham bands over to volunteers organized by the ARRL. Testing was also turned over to volunteers and you no longer had to go to the local FCC offices.
As a result the FCC personnel lost contact with hams. This in my mind is the only reason that this letter could have been sent. If they have proof that these communications are taking place they should say so. Hams do a lot of volunteer work in their communities and it's like the federal government all of a sudden feels they are untrustworthy. This did not sit well at all with the hams I know in our local community.
I think its mostly people with Baofengs operating on MURS and GRMS bands. The prepper and tactical larper forums all talk about how to setup a Baofeng for unlicensed use at these bands. I hope all hams out there do their best to help monitor our airwaves and report any abuse.
If it's unlicensed use then why blame the hams? Restrict sales of radios to only licensed hams. There is a precedent here.
CB'ers used to buy ham radio amplifiers and use them illegally. The ham band of 10 meters was close enough to the CB 11 meter band it could be done with little change.
So manufacturers at the behest of the FCC started removing 10 meters from linear amplifiers. If you showed proof of licensing you could get a plugin to add back the 10 meter band.
CB'ers used to buy ham radio amplifiers and use them illegally. The ham band of 10 meters was close enough to the CB 11 meter band it could be done with little change.
So manufacturers at the behest of the FCC started removing 10 meters from linear amplifiers. If you showed proof of licensing you could get a plugin to add back the 10 meter band.
I'd prefer if radios meant for ham usage just stuck to the ham bands. If you want to build your own to tx/rx across everything, go ahead. My Baofeng lets me tx on all kinds of frequencies that I'm not licensed for but my Yaesu properly locks me out from transmitting anywhere that isn't 2m ham or 70cm ham.
There should be bounties for logging/recording unauthorized use in amateur or licensed bands.
In the USA, monitoring is heavily dependent on the amateur radio community, both informally (average operators encountering, then reporting bad actors) and formally via ARRL's volunteer monitoring program (see: http://www.arrl.org/volunteer-monitor-program)
Depends on what you mean by official. The NRO has geostationary satellites whose sole purpose is to slurp up all RF across its footprint for later analysis. This is not used for FCC rule enforcement.
In the Capitol area, it's highly likely multiple agencies are capturing all RF for later analysis. This is also not used for FCC rule enforcement.
The FCC has the ability to locate signals using directionfinding equipment, but as mentioned elsewhere, usually that's left to Amateurs themselves on their bands.
In the Capitol area, it's highly likely multiple agencies are capturing all RF for later analysis. This is also not used for FCC rule enforcement.
The FCC has the ability to locate signals using directionfinding equipment, but as mentioned elsewhere, usually that's left to Amateurs themselves on their bands.
Hams routinely monitor and triangulate noncompliant stations, and also do staged "fox hunting" games for fun & prestige. But, I don't think it's routine or widespread to monitor the ham bands at scale for illegal or unsavory content.
It's well known that certain frequencies in the 75m band are "watering holes" for conspiracy theorists and racists.
I think is is a subtle reminder and hint not to use amateur or FRS/GMRS radios in planning things like that attack on the capitol.
If there wasn't before there probably is now - at least around DC.
The local public library has a sign posted saying that unlawful activity is not allowed on the premises.
Same in Denver, doesn't seem to stop the homeless from overdosing in the bathroom.
Makes you wonder who the sign is for. I doubt that anyone considering committing crimes is going to read the sign and think "oh, I guess I better not."
It's for the public, who wants to think the library is doing something about people overdosing in the bathroom.
People who are intending to use radios to commit crimes aren't going to read this and go... "Darn."
As a HAM, to the other HAMs who are worried the FCC will use this as justification to curtail your privilges -- they will, and they'll tell you it's necessary for your own safety.
Will it make us any safer? Of course not. So where does the real problem lie? The people using radios to commit crimes, or the government using that as justification to restrict freedoms?
The answer is: yes.
As a HAM, to the other HAMs who are worried the FCC will use this as justification to curtail your privilges -- they will, and they'll tell you it's necessary for your own safety.
Will it make us any safer? Of course not. So where does the real problem lie? The people using radios to commit crimes, or the government using that as justification to restrict freedoms?
The answer is: yes.
Similar to the ATF reminding folks that firearms should not be used to commit crimes.
Ham isn't an acronym :D
For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio
> At the turn of the 20th century, the terms "ham" and "plug" were used by landline telegraphers to describe an operator "who lacks ability" or who had poor or "ham fisted" skills.
> At the turn of the 20th century, the terms "ham" and "plug" were used by landline telegraphers to describe an operator "who lacks ability" or who had poor or "ham fisted" skills.
Just a note that listening in - even to police scanner frequencies - counts as legal use.
Except in Kentucky (in a motor vehicle), unless you're a ham:
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id...
When I chatted with a SRO about this when programming the schools radios a few years ago, I was told that he didn't know anyone other than the State Police to issue citations for that law, and it would only be a 'secondary' offense (if you were pulled over for speeding, and they saw the scanner, then you'd likely get a citation, but, they wouldn't pull you over if you had an antenna on your car).
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id...
When I chatted with a SRO about this when programming the schools radios a few years ago, I was told that he didn't know anyone other than the State Police to issue citations for that law, and it would only be a 'secondary' offense (if you were pulled over for speeding, and they saw the scanner, then you'd likely get a citation, but, they wouldn't pull you over if you had an antenna on your car).
It's the same next door in Indiana (my home state) as well, although there are a few other exceptions, not just licensed radio amateurs (law enforcement, emergency services, journalists, etc.)
Not only that, but you actually are prohibited from encrypting ham radio transmissions. This means, practically speaking, no ham Internet, as everything mandates encryption online nowadays.
I wonder where the borders lie between encryption and deliberate obfuscation - say, by native speakers of a little-known language (which was done for some WWII radio transmissions by the US [1]) and also to a far lesser extent by old-time London gangs using Cockney rhyming slang and variants thereof. [2]
[1] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-indi...
[2] https://romanroadlondon.com/cockney-rhyming-slang-history/
[1] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-indi...
[2] https://romanroadlondon.com/cockney-rhyming-slang-history/
Well, the whole purpose and ethos of ham radio is for everything to be public, and anyone can listen in to a conversation, so I think that's a good thing.
Except for the various proprietary voice codecs out there.
Is this a sideways slight against AREDN? Because I still think AREDN is pretty cool.
My understanding is that you're allowed to have encrypted communications, but only if the key is public.
Whether or not that counts as encryption, I don't know.
Whether or not that counts as encryption, I don't know.
Does it even if it helps you commit a crime? Would it not be "facilitating" a crime? I am not from the US so honest question.
I remember someone told me at Defcon one year, "Getting your FCC license acknowledges the rules and regulations". Therefor if you ever do anything stupid, they can nail you extra hard for violating that agreement. Its better to not have a license because the first few violations will result in warnings.
Would a group call on WhatsApp/Signal be regarded as radio usage. When working over 4G/5G?.
No. This is specifically about frequencies allocated for amateur and general use. Your cellphone operates on frequencies a commercial entity had licensed
If you remember the old Nextel push to talk radios there are plenty of push to talk apps for cellphones that simulate the same functionality. PTT apps are much better suited to group communication than an open conference line where people will constantly talk over each other and background noise is rampant.
When I used to play Ingress we'd use Zello with separate channels for each team and a few more for area coordinators. If you really want to get fancy you can get push-to-talk earbuds that connect to your cellphone's headphone jack, assuming you have an old enough cellphone that is.
Not that anything I'm saying should be construed as advice for people who want to go commit crimes. Frankly I think the best plan is for everyone to stay at home rather than potentially catching Covid and 5-10 years to boot.
When I used to play Ingress we'd use Zello with separate channels for each team and a few more for area coordinators. If you really want to get fancy you can get push-to-talk earbuds that connect to your cellphone's headphone jack, assuming you have an old enough cellphone that is.
Not that anything I'm saying should be construed as advice for people who want to go commit crimes. Frankly I think the best plan is for everyone to stay at home rather than potentially catching Covid and 5-10 years to boot.
A WhatsApp or Signal group call on 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz wifi could be regarded as (illegal encrypted) radio usage depending on whether the "radio" is transmitting as a Part 15 device or a part 97 device.
Capone went to jail for tax evasion.
Could they possibly do it on 20 m so that we can listen in the rest of the world? /s
Somehow I doubt that terrorists will be sending QSL cards...
[deleted]
>WARNING: AMATEUR AND PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES LICENSEES AND OPERATORS MAY NOT USE RADIO EQUIPMENT TO COMMIT OR FACILITATE CRIMINAL ACTS
But if one licenses spectrum, then it is not an offense, in its own right, to facilitate criminal acts? (Though the acts themselves of course still are...)
But if one licenses spectrum, then it is not an offense, in its own right, to facilitate criminal acts? (Though the acts themselves of course still are...)
This reminds me of those "trespassing prohibited" signs.
Yes, that's why we call it "trespassing" instead of "taking a shortcut".
Yes, that's why we call it "trespassing" instead of "taking a shortcut".
> This reminds me of those "trespassing prohibited" signs.
In some places, "taking a shortcut" is legal unless there is a sign saying, "No Trespassing". So those signs actually make sense, depending on local laws.
In some places, "taking a shortcut" is legal unless there is a sign saying, "No Trespassing". So those signs actually make sense, depending on local laws.
Didn't they put some fella in jail because he planned a hit on the Playstation Network years ago?
Were those who used ham bands while storming capitol even licensed? Right message, but maybe addressed to the wrong audience.
I’ll bet most of these people use Baofengs purchased on Amazon. It’d be great if Amazon could echo this warning on the relevant product page(s).
I’ll bet most of these people use Baofengs purchased on Amazon. It’d be great if Amazon could echo this warning on the relevant product page(s).
If you have been reading sites like www.qrz.com for the last few years, you will see that there were perhaps lots of licensed amateur radio operator terrorists there.
News to me. Have any links? I just clicked through the forums there but didn’t see anything egregious.
discussion from two days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25817320
I'm wondering if this was specifically posted wrt the "deplatforming" as of late. In other words, has there been murmurs of people using radio to coordinate actions now that social media is unavailable to them?
> The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms
So, yes
So, yes
Don't use... well anything, in crimes. Duh.
Interesting law. I'm not sure about driving laws, but I would assume if you robbed a bank and drove away, there's no extra clause that says this usage your driving license is illegal?
If you cross state lines, you escalate the situation, allowing the Feds to step in.
There are other ways to do this of course, but driving is the one you can control the most.
There are other ways to do this of course, but driving is the one you can control the most.
There are certainly lots of terms of use, too. I’m betting most of inmates must have lost their gmail account or bank card, for example, which can actually become a severe social problem in repairing the social fabric.
Does it also apply to WiFi? :)
WiFi is in the ISM (Industral, Scientific, and Medical) and certain "unlicensed" radio bands and, while there is spectrum shared between those bands and other services including ham, WiFi usage is regulated differently. This advisory applies to the Amateur Radio Service (ham) and Personal Radio Services (common walkie talkies)
Good question! The way it is normally used: No.
However, 2.4GHz and 5Ghz are in the frequencies alloted to licensed Hams so many do set up WiFi networks that can transmit stronger signals than off the shelf consumer wifi devices where this would certainly apply.
tldr; No, if you aren't using an external antenna or firmware that would cause your WiFi device to change from being considered a Part 15 device to a Part 97 device under the FCC.
However, 2.4GHz and 5Ghz are in the frequencies alloted to licensed Hams so many do set up WiFi networks that can transmit stronger signals than off the shelf consumer wifi devices where this would certainly apply.
tldr; No, if you aren't using an external antenna or firmware that would cause your WiFi device to change from being considered a Part 15 device to a Part 97 device under the FCC.
If John Candy were alive he would make the perfect headliner for a comedy of fools about this.
Meanwhile, over on the amateur radio boards, the old dudes are saying this is all a conspiracy theory to take hams off the air, in preparation for... something. Something nefarious the Biden administration is planning.
And they wonder why the kids aren't going into amateur radio.
And they wonder why the kids aren't going into amateur radio.
Avoid the sideband frequencies except during contests
tl;dr : How to turn a local or state crime into a federal one.
It isn't particularly shocking that this is a statute. I wonder if ham radio was used in the capitol riot.
It isn't particularly shocking that this is a statute. I wonder if ham radio was used in the capitol riot.
I thought I read on Twitter a few days ago that it almost certainly was. Someone also linked to an article that I now can't find about extremists setting up an IP link on the amateur bands. All I could think was the instant they initiate a TLS session they've committed a federal crime.
I've personally seen a couple photographs of insurrectionists with what looked like Baofeng (ironic?) style radios with police-style handsets that groups were using to coordinate at some level.
What exactly is a "police-style handset"? Definitions are important because soon we'll have journalist breathlessly writing about people arrested with police-style communication gear, military-style radios, and assault radios.
Even if amateur radio bands weren't, the announcement also includes FRS and GMRS which are very common and almost certainly used in the attack on the Capitol
All 2-way walkie-talkie type radios are covered by the FCC.
Of all the images I have seen of the attempted coup, I have only seen baofeng radios. These are very cheap ($20'ish) radios that work very poorly (they splatter all over the bands) even when equipped with decent antennas. They barely work when equipped with the stock rubber-duck antennas.
It's easy to be a snob about the type of radios that they are using, but that's not even the point.
These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online. There is already plenty of rules regarding what can/can not be said using amateur radios. There is however no requirement to provide identification before you purchase an amateur radio.
Anybody can buy them, and it's based on the honour system to use them according to the law. It's already against the law to use them in a manner that is against the law.
Id' like to see this used as a punitive measure against everybody who was using them during the coup. Maximum FCC fine for all of them.