
Protest against the EU radio lockdown - zoobab
https://blog.mehl.mx/2019/protect-freedom-on-radio-devices-raise-your-voice-today/
======
ivanbakel
What would be the motivator for this kind of clause? I can't imagine radio-
device manufacturers would appreciate the additional expense, and at least
some of them must benefit from consumers buying those products specifically
for customization.

Are the national governments pushing for more radio control? Is there some
kind of crisis of radio abuse? Or is it an indirect way to give governments
more punishment tools, by making radio modification a subversion of
manufacturer controls, so you can be slapped with an additional charge if you
ever use a custom radio device in a crime?

~~~
xondono
Basically the EU has discovered SDR (Software Defined Radio) and wants to
limit its use.

The usual excuses are given, electrical safety, emission on protected bands...

~~~
presscast
Right, but why would they want to regulate SDR?

~~~
throw082
maybe because they can be used for many nefarious purposes?

~~~
dTal
So can wheels.

You shouldn't ban general purpose technology because of particular bad uses.

~~~
ben_w
“Regulate” != “Ban”

And in this case, the proposed regulation is:

“””[R]adio equipment [shall support] certain features in order to ensure that
software can only be loaded into the radio equipment where the compliance of
the combination of the radio equipment and software has been demonstrated.”””

Now I don’t think that’s a well written rule, but my problem is the specifics
rather than the general idea. I think that _either_ all broadcasts should be
digitally signed, _or_ it should not be possible for hackers to remotely
modify many other people’s radios to broadcast false signals. (One-on-one
modifications I don’t care about so much, but how do you write/pass such
rules, given the difficulty getting people to care about or believe the scale
difference between automated and manual hacking?)

~~~
xondono
The problem is that we already have regulations to avoid broadcasting on
restricted/licensed bands.

In general, current regulation makes the owner of the equipment responsible
for the broadcast.

This new regulation will just stifle development on SDR technologies

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
And the current regulations are impossible to enforce. If they would work we
wouldn’t be in this situation.

~~~
gray_-_wolf
> If they would work we wouldn’t be in this situation.

What situation? What crisis is happening I'm completely missing?

------
remcob
We have existing regulations stating what is allowed on which frequencies.

Is there evidence that the devices prohibited by the proposal lead to
widescale breaking of these regulations? And if so, is there evidence that
this causes harm?

It's harsh to assume that people can not be trusted with SDRs and therefore we
should ban them outright. I'd like these sorts of blanket bans to come with a
strong evidence backed reason.

I am currently in the process of a obtaining a ham radio license specifically
so I can experiment and innovate with SDRs and IOTs and be confident that I do
so in compliance with the regulations. This proposal will make it much harder
for ham radio enthusiasts and innovators to experiment and learn in a
compliant way.

^ Above submitted as feedback

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Is there evidence that these devices lead to widescale breaking of these
> regulations? And if so, is there evidence that this causes harm?

Yes there is. A lot of people now import devices from countries with different
frequencies causing a mess. This is especially a problem if frequencies are
used for other purposes.

~~~
remcob
> A lot of people now import devices from countries with different frequencies
> causing a mess.

If they are already using devices that are not compliant with EU regulations,
then I don't see how stricter regulations would solve this. This sounds like
an enforcement issue. What prevents people from importing the very same non-
compliant devices under the proposed regulations?

In fact, I can see more of this import happening as the domestic devices will
now be more expensive and crippled.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
You could destroy such devices at customs inspection. Currently such devices
are legal. The use outside of the legal frequencies is not and enforcement is
almost impossible.

------
sarcasmOrTears
It would be much easier to protest for the creation of a law that punishes the
attempt to create or the creation of bad laws. After all when you propose a
bad law, you can just propose it again and again and again until it gets
implemented, then good luck getting rid of it.

As for "how do you define bad laws?". We know it's possible because we have
constitutions. We know they can be expanded. We know it's possible to get
people jailed if they violate rules, and legislators are people even if they
tend to forget this little detail.

As for "but what about evil corporation that will not be stopped by the law?".
Well, even corporation is the one that usually wants more laws and even
discuss the laws that should stop them.

If you want any semblance of freedom under a State you need a way to make
legislators think very long before legislating.

~~~
andybak
Reminds me of the ongoing fight over crypto-legislation.

"They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single
time"

I also suspect that the current patent mess is a result of failing to win the
continual defensive battle.

I'd be interested to hear from any law or political theorists regarding this
seemingly deep flaw in the system. What could be done to mitigate it? How do
we stop the same bad laws being proposed in slightly different forms again and
again when vested interests combine with a poorly informed legislature?

~~~
sjwpv
>They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time

The law is not a blockchain ledger. If bad law gets in, it can also get
removed later.

~~~
jessaustin
That takes a long time. In USA we've been trying to end drug prohibition for
decades.

~~~
sjwpv
That's because there's a big amount of people, myself included, who feel like
drug prohibition is good, all things considered. Not because "editing" the law
is hard. (I am not American).

~~~
jessaustin
That doesn't make the situation different. All of these bad laws have
supporters. (Largely because charlatans in government, law enforcement, and
media constantly exaggerate dangers, but that's beside the point.)

~~~
sjwpv
By "bad law" I meant laws with absolutely no public support, not laws which
are "objectively bad" (such thing made doesn't make sense)

~~~
pas
There's plenty of public support for even the most dystopian laws.

------
johnnycab
After a quick read, the amendment in this directive seems far too general to
be enforced effectively. If you parse it with the FOSS principles and revoking
the ability to flash or install LineageOS, OpenWRT, Tasmota etc., it is
counter-intuitive to some of the principles empowering consumers e.g.
restricting locked bootloaders by carriers.

If passed into law, it might make a test-case for sales of rogue drones but it
won't be able to stop Baofeng handsets flooding a market. The EU needs
reminding that restricting freedom in this way is a terrible idea.

------
NKosmatos
Who in their right mind is thinking up of these stupid rules? Are they aware
of the world around them? I assume no :-(

If this is approved, I expect a few other similar laws to protect the "common
good". Car manufacturers should verify and approve all possible combinations
of modifications. You shouldn't be able to increase your horsepower (and
possibly kill more people), surely the car manufacturer should take the blame
and responsiblity for whatever you do with your car ;-)

As a matter of fact our good EU government (overlords) should regulate and ban
whatever is not safe for us, they know better.

Being in EU, I'm going to add my comment to the official link provided in the
OP blog post and I encourage everyone in the EU to do the same.

~~~
TheAdamist
The are going to be mandating GPS based speed limiters on all new vehicles for
the EU, as has been reported recently.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-
new-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/02/27/all-new-cars-to-
have-speed-limiters-fitted-rules-european-parliament/)

------
acd
This is bad for many reasons * Security, device manufacturers stop supporting
updates after a certain while * The environment, lots of devices will become
obsolete with no software updates. Free software provides such updates. This
will contribute bad towards global warming. * Being able to experiment with
hardware you own and run open source.

------
raverbashing
I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement, and that was one of the
issues behind "no open source drivers for wifi modules"

This shouldn't affect OpenWRT if it uses a standard driver, unless I'm
mistaken (or "radio equipment" means the whole thing and not just the radio
module - but that's up to debate)

~~~
UncleEntity
> I remember that the FCC has a similar requirement...

Which is better IMHO.

You can sue the FCC if you think they overstepped their bounds as opposed to
getting a bunch of politicians behind the repeal of a bad law (which otherwise
can only be overturned if it violates the constitution).

Or, as sometimes happens, the FCC realizes they made a mistake and/or
"conditions on the ground" change and they decide to change the requirements
-- also without involving the lawmakers.

~~~
raverbashing
You're probably right, and the FCC is more technically competent

------
FrankDixon
the eu is really on a streak with counterproductive legislature atm

------
appstorelottery
Does the Raspberry PI count as IOT?

Crazy.

