Channel X

[citabria]

I left a sentence out of the middle there about SDR and some crap about how powerful it is etc, but I figured the rest gets my point across.

As skilled hobbyests we have expert knowledge of the systems we monitor - and with this comes responsibility. MDC1200, P25 and all these other protocols are quite openly spec'd and defined, in much the same way that its pretty common knowledge how to shoot a gun. Both bits of information can be used for good or bad, and that will always be down to the individual

[criten]

It comes down to what this information is used for. I still have reservations about CTCSS tones being published because you don't need them to monitor and anything more than monitoring is a matter for the licence holder & no-one else but that horse has well and truly bolted... so big deal if people decode MDC IDs- but transmitting is a whole other kettle of fish as they should not be txing without the permission of a licencee.

Not to mention the federal laws on computer hacking which make it illegal to gain access to a computer system without permission of the owner of that system. Breaching that law could see you get 15 years. Lets face it - digital radio is a form of a computer system.

CTCSS tones though? LOL - any scanner can detect those.

[cartman]

I was bit mystified about the CTCSS comment myself - i use CTCSS/DCS/NAC to work out who is who in the zoo, especially where you have several users on a rental site. And from a limited glimpse of SDR .... the details it picks up is pretty impressive even on encrypted systems.


Grant

PS On the other hand I have refrained from publishing NSWGRN RIDS when it became obvious that a number of rogue elements were on the loose as pirates on the system.

[ivahri]

Grant,

But you don't need the CTCSS to receive so it isn't really necessary information to publish. The problem is that with the CTCSS you have the ability to access the network- and that brings us back to those who use the information improperly. Sadly we have a number of those.

Regards,


Richard

[msid]

I'm noticing that this thread has drifted a little from the original topic. I think there are some important discussions here that need to be had in the interests of the community, maybe someone moving the part of this thread thats drifted to a more appropriate location might be of benefit to all.....

Just a thought!

[centralcoastscanman]

It comes down to what this information is used for. I still have reservations about CTCSS tones being published because you don't need them to monitor and anything more than monitoring is a matter for the licence holder & no-one else but that horse has well and truly bolted... so big deal if people decode MDC IDs- but transmitting is a whole other kettle of fish as they should not be txing without the permission of a licencee.

Not to mention the federal laws on computer hacking which make it illegal to gain access to a computer system without permission of the owner of that system. Breaching that law could see you get 15 years. Lets face it - digital radio is a form of a computer system.

CTCSS tones though? LOL - any scanner can detect those.

I'd beg to differ that transmitting on a digital system that you have no right to access is the same as hacking into a computer system.
If you however managed to hack into the computer system say for instance at the GRN NOCC and did some damage then yeah that would come under a federal offence and you would be dealt with by AHTCC. ( to which nswpol and afp have officers involved in)

there is also the other fact that radio comms don't come under the same legislation as computer crime, last time i looked computer crime was under the Crimes ACt and radio comms was under the Radio Communications Act or whatever its called

[criten]

I'd beg to differ that transmitting on a digital system that you have no right to access is the same as hacking into a computer system.

That is not what I was trying to say. Remotely stunning a radio belonging to somebody else, without the permission of its owner, is computer hacking.

[ivahri]

I'd beg to differ that transmitting on a digital system that you have no right to access is the same as hacking into a computer system.

That is not what I was trying to say. Remotely stunning a radio belonging to somebody else, without the permission of its owner, is computer hacking.

I can't argue with that... and if the user is injured or worse, or there is property loss incurred... I would hope they really learn to love being somebody's Bubba for a while.

Richard

[centralcoastscanman]

I'd beg to differ that transmitting on a digital system that you have no right to access is the same as hacking into a computer system.

That is not what I was trying to say. Remotely stunning a radio belonging to somebody else, without the permission of its owner, is computer hacking.

Well its definately illegal, thats upto a court to decide whether its computer hacking or something more serious as if it resulted in someone's injury or death it could be manslaugther or some type of obstructing emergency services resulting in an officer being injured

[citabria]

I'd say the odds of this happening are close to zero.