"Numbers station" is a weird analogy, because the idea of a numbers station was to broadcast messages to undercover operatives in a way that can be received using unmodified (and therefore non-suspicious) household radio receivers.

Here, it appears to be a rekeying system for specialized military gear.

▲

moritzwarhier 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's simply because of using a public channel for encrypted communication.

▲

ronsor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Technically all RF communications are "public." You have to use encryption if you want security.

▲

jjtheblunt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Would point to point laser seem like it's RF and not readily snooped without detection?

	▲	wang_li an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Unless you are in a vacuum, a laser that can reach a useful distance can be observed due to atmospheric scattering.

▲

866-RON-0-FEZ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah GPS is not the people's airwaves it is operated by the US Space Force, I suggest you read up on your history.

	▲	moritzwarhier 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		OK, I have to further narrow down my statement then: a publicly readable medium (or one-way channel). I didn't want to imply that regular people could simply inject data into what's emitted by GPS satellites. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I am aware that GPS is operated by the US military.

▲

anigbrowl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Every receiver in the world decodes Subframe 4, Page 17,” Murdoch said in his new article. [...] “Every GPS satellite is a numbers station,” he concluded.

▲

tokai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah its not a number station at all.

▲

Analemma_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree? The point of a numbers station is that it broadcasts in the clear and anyone with a receiver can get it, but only people with the appropriate decryption key can make any use of it. Since it's broadcasting all the time, there's no need for steganography or covert transmission. That's exactly what a numbers station is.

Where the article loses me is the implication that this is somehow sinister or beyond the pale: it's just piggybacking on a global transmitter network that exists anyway, why not?

▲

anigbrowl an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This implication is purely in your head. The article and the scientist whose work it describes are just pointing out the identification of some data that's been transmitted across a public channel for years without anyne noticing.

▲

thaumasiotes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Since it's broadcasting all the time, there's no need for steganography or covert transmission.

Well, you could look at it that way, or you could say that the fact that it's broadcasting all the time is the steganography. That constant transmission of nonsense that nobody wants is what makes it fail to be suspicious when you send a message that somebody does want.

▲

tokai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Its all comes down to what we buy as the definition for a number station. For me a number station needs sends a message to be a number station, not a key.

	▲	robotresearcher 37 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A data payload you didn't already know is a message. This message contains a key.
	▲	sgjohnson an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		>For me a number station needs sends a message to be a number station, not a key. We don't know that it's a key that's being sent. For all we know, it could be just random data. Obviously it's most likely not random data, but ciphertext. Either way, we have no idea what the message is.
	▲	sieabahlpark an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]