[PPRAANet] Who completely mis-understands Amateur Radio?

[Dan Martin]

Excuse me, but she was breaking the law and violating her oath to serve 
justice impartially. So, why would she not violate FCC regulations? It's 
like say Lois would never break the law while using the IRS to oppress 
conservative groups - the argument contains its own contradiction.

- Dan KD0SMP

On 12/14/2017 3:26 PM, Phillip H. Blanton wrote:
> So there's a story going around about how a group of government 
> insiders have collaborated to destroy the President. I noticed this in 
> the article...
>
> "A month after Hillary Clinton hired Fusion GPS (April 2016) to 
> sub-contract retired British MI6 agent Christopher Steele to write the 
> opposition research report "the Trump Russia Dossier", Fusion GPS 
> employee Nellie Ohr applied for a *HAM radio license* (May 23rd 2016 
> <http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/LicArchive/license.jsp?archive=Y&licKey=12382876>); 
> /a communication tool that would allow Nellie Ohr and Christopher 
> Steele the ability to communicate outside the normal risk of 
> communication intercepts/."
> Read more:https://goo.gl/ifj6tA
>
> Um... If you're using "Ham Radio" to gain the "ability to communicate 
> outside the normal risk of communication intercepts"then you're doing 
> it WRONG!
>
> Nellie Ohr passed her tech exam, so she knew she couldn't trust 
> amateur radio to provide her any sense of privacy! Regardless what you 
> may think of the politics of the story, it's clear that Nellie Ohr 
> didn't use amateur radio for spy stuff unless she did, which meant she 
> was breaking the rules and the law in which case why did she even 
> bother to apply for a license and take the test?
>
> The fact that Nellie Ohr has a ham radio license has absolutely 
> NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY. Some idiot reporter found out (probably 
> via a Google search of Nellie Ohr) that she had recently acquired an 
> amateur radio license and, knowing that the public at large is mostly 
> ignorant of Amateur Radio, ran with it in an effort to lend a bit of a 
> cloak-and-dagger cachet to the story.
>
> Excuse me for the venting, but are we now to expect more scrutiny from 
> the public simply because we are licensed amateurs? We clearly are 
> attempting to skirt the surveillance state for some nefarious 
> purposes. Otherwise, why would we even have that amateur radio 
> license? If we have nothing to hide, why are we using these complex 
> ham radios? Surely there can be no LEGITIMATE reason to use a ham radio!
>
> In fact! Why does the FCC even ALLOW people to do ham radio?!?!? BAN 
> HAM RADIO!!!
>
> Of course I am taking it to an absurd level to prove a point. Whenever 
> Amateur radio is maligned in the media, as it just has been, then we 
> need to step up and demand a retraction and maybe even an article 
> highlighting the public benefit of amateur radio.
>
> I dunno. Am I over-reacting?
>
> -- 
> Phillip H. Blanton
> NØTAN
> phillip at n0tan.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> PPRAANet mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ppraanet
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:PPRAANet at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html