On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:38, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> Some have argued that LoTW doesn't need to be as secure as it is. Perhaps.
> But many would be surprised at the number of potential threats to the
> integrity of LoTW (and, by association, DXCC) there are. Probably no one
> If someone obtained all of the LoTW
> private keys undetected, the LoTW and DXCC programs would be hopelessly
> compromised.
Indeed.
Heck, DXCC would be a lot easier to earn and cheaper to administer if it
didn't require QSLs. Just submit a list of QSOs and you get the
certificate. There'd be a lot more DXCCs out there. Some of them might
even be issued to people who actually worked 100 countries!
A computerized database can get corrupted in a hurry. It takes a lot
longer to un-corrupt it!
> LoTW has been remarkably effective for a major new software system. As with
Absolutely. I've been VERY impressed by this system. It's reliable,
flexible, and if you follow the instructions, as easy to use as possible
consistent with necessary security.
It's (IMHO) a lot harder to buy a car than it is to sign up for LoTW,
and I'm sure pretty much everyone on this list has a car! You just have
to follow the instructions.
Once you're signed up, many logging programs now have a built-in LoTW
interface so you don't have to do anything to submit your QSOs...
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
(some year, I'll figure out why the Linux version of TQSL won't build on
this computer...)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|