I would propose something a bit different.
I think that the authenticity of the users and approved dxpeditions
has to be protected, hence the ARRL decision to use PKI certificates.
I think the biggest pain is having to sign and encrypt the log
submissions as well as the pain involved in letting your certificate
lapse and having to do the "postcard->request certificate" process
(having done this before, its quite confusing).
So, I propose that the PKI certificate mechanism is retained, but the
two scenarios I mentioned be streamlined a bit.
Some logging programs can import your certificate and do the
signing/encryption for you but why do we need that? Once you have a
cert, couldn't a java applet be used when you do a log submission to
sign/encryypt for you instead of having to run the separate program,
enter the dates, etc.? This would remove the most constant PKI action
from users (so users would have to go thru the pain of obtaining a
cert but after that it just appears as a upload). I would think the
logging software authors might even share their file formats so that
the applet could read the native file instead of having to export it
to an ADIF file taking that step out of the process. Any logging
software that doesn't assist would pay the price in dissatisfied
customers.
The second idea is to eliminate the "expired" cert problem. Isn't
there someway that either ARRL could send you the "postcard" password
via email if they can verify that you did in fact have a previous
cert? If you log into your arrl LoTW account with the proper password,
have a history of at least one authenticated submission, why not trust
that they are who they say they are and send them the postcard
password via robot?
I think DXCC is too important a factor in our hamming lives to lose
control of and its obvious that the ARRL treats it very very
protectively. So, instead of designing a bypass to it, lets just fix a
few of the most annoying parts of it while maintaining its strengths!
Neal
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Michael Keane K1MK <k1mk@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> At 07:17 AM 5/28/2008, Pete Smith wrote:
>>When you add the element of a cheater's having to submit the multiple bogus
>>logs to a major contest sponsor, who will be making the logs public, the
>>scenario becomes vanishingly improbable. All it takes is one person to
>>blow the whistle - "I know that 7Q7AA was on home leave in England during
>>the contest, so he couldn't have made the QSO." The contest sponsors look
>>for the one station that worked him, start checking his other QSOs, and
>>then hang him from the nearest yardarm.
>
> Okay, someone bootlegs 7Q7AA, calls N4ZR and sends in a Cabrillo log....
> and it's N4ZR who then gets hung from the nearest yardarm?
>
> 73,
> Mike K1MK
>
> Michael Keane K1MK
> k1mk@alum.mit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Neal Campbell
Abroham Neal Software
Programming Services for Windows, OS X and Linux
(540) 242 0911
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Try Spot for OS X, the intelligent DXCluster Client at
www.abrohamnealsoftware.com - introduction priced at $10.99
For a great dog book, visit www.abrohamneal.com
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|