Hello, To amplify Kevin’s comment below: In a conversation several years ago with Riley Hollingsworth, then the FCC’s enforcement guy, he emphasized to me that “obscuring the meaning” was not allowed, but encryption for other purposes was perfectly acceptable. I even wrote about it (“Encryption is Legal”, August 2006) in CQ Magazine (google it, it’ll come up somewhere). Granted, Riley is no longer with the FCC. But authentication != obscuring meaning, and lawyers focus on the meaning of the words as written. And, if it is not prohibited, it is allowed. So it all comes down to the purpose of the encryption, right? Purpose is obscuring meaning = Not allowed. Purpose is other, allowed. 73, Don N2IRZ From: Kevin Walsh [mailto:w8khw1@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:09 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Newbie Hello, The word encryption never appears in Part 97 rules, so its definition is irrelevant here. The key words in the rule are “intent” and “obscure”. So for instance, two people speaking pig-Latin with the intent of obscuring their conversation violate the same rule and the conversation is prohibited - even though it’s not encrypted. If I may, another option would be to get any of your associated Public Safety agencies to in part sponsor HamWan. Public Safety was granted access to the “special” Amateur Radio portion of 5.8GHz years ago and they CAN use (and in my state require) secure communication. Then you’re operating under Part 15 and the conversation is moot. https://www.fcc.gov/public-safety/public-safety-and-homeland-security/policy... Just food for thought, I’ll go back to lurking now :-). 73, Kevin W8KHW