Greg, I think "encryption is already permitted in certain circumstances" is misleading since the circumstances are so limited and do not apply to the matter at hand. It is not that "we can already do this" but that HIPAA does not require encryption of radio communication of patient data. Even if we were a Covered Entity - which we are not - we would be under no obligation to encrypt. I'm trying to come up with a better headline. Dave From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:05 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Cc: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:21838] Re: Shooting right at our foot Dave, You are right, but it is the wrong approach. The title makes it look like we categorically oppose encryption. In truth, our opposition stems from our interpretation that we can already do this, so we don't need anything special to do so. That sense is certainly not conveyed by the headline or 1-line summary that are shown on the News and Events page. Anyone taking a quick glance and not reading the full article will never have a chance to learn what this is really about. If the second line were something like "ARRL says that encryption is already permitted in certain circumstances", then people would be drawn to read the full article. 73, Greg, K0GW On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> wrote: I cleared this story before it was posted. It's true that this brief summary of the lengthy filing does not include palliative words about the petitioner's heart being in the right place. However, the bottom line is that the Executive Committee chose the option of filing in opposition to the petition, we did so, and that's what the story reports. Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf of Dale Williams Sent: Tue 7/9/2013 1:14 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:21837] Re: Shooting right at our foot Greg, I must agree with you. This is not what I had expected, especially as it does not tread lightly on the original petitioner. I think we need to soften the entire article. Dale WA8EFK On 7/8/2013 7:58 PM, G Widin wrote: Folks, Here's how the story on our latest filing to FCC shows up in the News and Events on ARRL.org Now, I know what this is all about, but assume that you're a member whose first contact with this petition is the result of the N&E story. It really sounds like we just don't want anyone to be able to encrypt anything, ever. I think this title and tagline need to be rewritten urgently and put back in place of those below on the web. -- 73, Greg, K0GW * 07/08/2013 | ARRL Urges Denial of Petition to Permit Encryption of Some Emergency Communications <http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-urges-denial-of-petition-to-permit-encryp tion-of-some-emergency-communications> The League asks the FCC to deny a Petition for Rule Making that would permit encryption of certain ham communications _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv