To: | cq-contest@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity |
From: | VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk> |
Date: | Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:59:50 +0000 |
List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
WA2GO added:Forgive me if this question is ignorant - I have never set up a station to use packet so I don't know anything about how it works, but... would it be possible to somehow authenticate every single sender and receiver of spots, in order to (a) require people to sign on with their real callsign, and (b) be able to tell where they are? It seems to me that anybody who signs on using a different callsign (i.e. impersonating someone) is doing so because they don't want to get caught, which kind of implies that they might be planning to do something "wrong", or something they are embarrassed about. Packet already has this authentication, as packet is radio-based & to operate with other than one's call sign has to be unlawful in all territories that allow amateur radio operation, as this is counter to the ITU-RR for the Amateur Service, which is what makes it possible for amateur radio to even exist in places that are signatories to the ITU Convention (including the US, believe it or not). When the packet spotting systems crossed the line from RF to the Internet, as K1TTT pointed out, is when things started to go pear-shaped. Packet itself isn't evil - spotting networks have existed for yonks & going back 20-odd years, the only beef I can recall is when folks suspected somebody had an ear on the local DX club repeater, as that somebody kept showing up in the piles shortly after the DX was announced, despite submitting an entry as a single-op. It is the linking of the packet-based spotting networks that have replaced the voice-based networks & the ability for those with only Internet access to get into these networks that has allowed for the abuses that should concern us now. This is not aimed at John & a number of others who have contributed to the discussion here as of late, but every time I see someone go off about packet, the first thing that comes to mind is that they haven't a clue, as RF-linked packet-based spotting networks are limited in coverage, don't allow for anonymous user connections & simply can't produce the results the dodgy spotters are after. If spotting assistance is evil, then something would have been done back in the days of voice-based spotting networks to put an end to it in the first place. "Packet" implies packet radio, not spotting assistance in general. Let's get the terminology right, people. The whole thing reminds me of a problem we have back home with folks killing themselves by burning charcoal. Instead of dealing with the "disease", folks want to treat the "symptom" by banning sales of small bags of charcoal or other silly solutions. In our case, the "disease" is not abiding by the rules of the game, plus new mutations of the "disease" not yet covered by the rules, such as cheerleading. The disease could very well be summed up as today's increasingly ethic-less & moral-less world we appear to live in - this win-by-hook-or-crook mentality is everywhere, from corporate behavior to Olympic sports. Radiosport should be above this. 73, HL1/VR2BrettGraham _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Operator error, W7GG |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [CQ-Contest] Poised for discussion....., Dennis Ponsness |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity, Ted KT1V |
Next by Thread: | [CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity, Paul Young |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |