> Joe, you're just trolling for an argument, right? ARRL owns the
> database. If they chose to do so, they could certainly
> access it, add confirmed contest QSOs to it, and so on.
They certainly could do that. However the current data structure
of LotW and most Cabrillo formats are significantly different. It
would take major changes on both sides to make them compatible.
> As for your logs being your property, not to be disclosed to
> others, does that mean that you will no longer enter that pesky,
> "unconscionable" CQWW contest?
That's correct - I will not submit any log to CQ given the current
policy (as if I have for a few dozen contacts in recent years).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:31 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL and Open Logs - Time for the next step?
>
>
> Joe, you're just trolling for an argument, right? ARRL owns the
> database. If they chose to do so, they could certainly
> access it, add
> confirmed contest QSOs to it, and so on. The private key/public key
> structure is there to to protect the integrity of data coming
> from outside
> submitters, not to tie ARRL's hands.
>
> As for your logs being your property, not to be disclosed to
> others, does
> that mean that you will no longer enter that pesky,
> "unconscionable" CQWW
> contest?
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> At 04:56 PM 7/28/2008, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> >Pete,
> >
> > > But let's carry the discussion a step further. Once a
> station's log
> > > in an ARRL contest has been submitted and checked, why shouldn't
> > > ARRL automatically enter those QSOs as confirmed in LOTW, if both
> > > stations already have LOTW certificates on file? It seems to me
> > > that this step would be technically quite manageable, and
> would be a
> > > powerful incentive for more people to participate in both ARRL
> > > contests and LOTW.
> >
> >Without reopening the debates over LotW, this is not
> possible. When a
> >station "signs" and uploads QSO data to LotW, that data is
> signed using
> >the station's private key. By design, ARRL does not have access to
> >that private key (the "public key" which the ARRL holds only
> serves to
> >validate the private key).
> >
> >If contest sponsors were to upload contest logs to LotW, they (the
> >contest sponsor) would need their own "private key" and the system
> >would need to be modified to validate either the individual station
> >private key or the private key of any number of possible contest
> >sponsors.
> >
> >However, putting aside the desirability of allowing contest
> sponsors to
> >upload submitted logs to LotW, my logs (and those of any other
> >station) are my personal "property" (or those of the
> station). I see
> >nothing that gives an contest sponsor the right to release
> my logs for
> >ANY purpose without my specific permission. To compel that
> permission
> >as a condition of entry is absolutely wrong. Such conditions
> >
> >are the equivalent of an employer demanding access to the employee's
> >personal bank accounts as a condition of employment and are
> >unconscionable.
> >
> >Log checking is the equivalent of auditing of a company's financial
> >statements or a consumer's "credit report." An auditor or credit
> >bureau generally has access to personal or proprietary data but does
> >not have the right to disclose that data and can be punished
> severely
> >if they do so.
> >
> >73,
> >
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 7:46 AM
> > > To: VE5ZX; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > Subject: [CQ-Contest] ARRL and Open Logs - Time for the next step?
> > >
> > >
> > > At 11:54 AM 7/27/2008, VE5ZX wrote:
> > > >Hopefully this indicates that soon ARRL contest logs
> will be made
> > > >public too.
> > > >
> > > >... Sylvan
> > > >
> > > >Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX
> > > >Saskatoon, SK
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope so. I see absolutely no reason for them not to do it.
> > >
> > > I understand that the scenario they used to worry about was that
> > > K4xx, for a hypothetical example, would see a QSO with N4xx by a
> > > rare station and
> > > write to the manager claiming that it was "just a miscopy."
> > > If the manager
> > > bought that, then he would send a QSL to someone who wasn't
> > > "deserving".
> > >
> > > Well, this has never made much sense, and it makes even
> less sense
> > > in the context of open contest logs. Sure, we need to
> encourage QSL
> > > managers to
> > > ignore such fishing requests, but suppose someone *were*
> to use this
> > > technique to cheat on DXCC. That would work until the first
> > > time both he
> > > and I applied with cards for the same QSO, at which time he
> > > would be *so*
> > > busted.
> > >
> > > But let's carry the discussion a step further. Once a
> station's log
> > > in an ARRL contest has been submitted and checked, why shouldn't
> > > ARRL automatically enter those QSOs as confirmed in LOTW, if both
> > > stations already have LOTW certificates on file? It seems to me
> > > that this step
> > > would be technically quite manageable, and would be a
> > > powerful incentive
> > > for more people to participate in both ARRL contests and
> > > LOTW. Then carry
> > > it a step further, and develop an agreement between ARRL and
> > > CQ to do the
> > > same for CQ contests. Even more incentive!
> > >
> > > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|