Hi Bob
I am not going to argue for or against changes to the LoTW security
scheme but I do want to point out that banks, etc. do not rely on
username and password for security. They have information that is
obtained via other sources (usually supplied by you in person) that is
verified before allowing you to setup a username password (account
information, Social Security number, etc,) so the security level is
two tiered instead of just one (username/password).
If you would look at what verisign does to issue a PKI certificate
(which is what the League uses for LoTW) it can range to many levels
of authentication including onsite verification depending on the level
of security you need.
My original impression was that PKI certs were overkill for LoTW but I
also know how seriously people take this "competition" so the current
level of security is still better than sending in cards or going
someplace for manual verification.
Neal k3nc
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Robert Naumann <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
> Pete,
>
> Nothing needs to change for what you say to happen aside from all contest
> participants submitting their logs to LOTW.
>
> The question is: How does one encourage that?
>
> I doubt that contest sponsors will want the extra burden of submitting
> cross-checked qsos to LOTW for the participants in their contests.
>
> LOTW already does a cross-check and credit is given for those qsos for DXCC,
> WAS etc. As far as driving other organization's awards and "sharing", I
> suspect that is not very likely given the history.
>
> Some analysis of why people don't submit their logs to LOTW should be in
> order. I think the security that the league has put on LOTW is prohibitive
> and unnecessary. Perhaps cutting back to a level of security used commonly
> by the IRS, banks and other financial institutions to guard really important
> data would be sufficient. As a suggestion, let people set up a username and
> password, and once logged in, allow uploads of Cabrillo or ADIF files
> without any of the other file processing that LOTW now requires.
>
> Or, how about just emailing Cabrillo logs to LOTW@arrl.org (as an example)
> just like we do for contests? Why not let a robot process the logs into
> LOTW? Why not? Since the contest is identified in each Cabrillo file, the
> robot can be set up to process any legit Cabrillo file.
>
> I bet contest entrants would CC: that address when they send their Cabrillo
> logs to contest sponsors since it presents no barrier at all. This would
> really drive LOTW qso submission.
>
> The upload process is so complex I forget how to do it between my
> approximately semi-annual uploads. I think removing the burden imposed on
> the person submitting a log to LOTW is where any effort should be directed.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:05 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Growing New Contesters with LOTW - suddenly it's
> 1977again
>
> It's time for ARRL to take the next big step to increase the value of
> LOTW. Done properly, it could increase ARRL's revenue from LOTW
> substantially, while encouraging a lot of new hams and DXers to become
> contesters.
>
> The idea is simple, and in fact ARRL used to do this, back in the days of
> manual log-checking -- I'm talking about giving DXCC and WAS credit for
> contest contacts. The difference is that now, with CQWW making all logs
> available on the internet, LOTW could function as a single source for ARRL
> award credit for *both* CQWW and ARRL contests. As more CQ and other
> contests came on board, the idea could be expanded world-wide.
>
> It would be relatively simple to implement - QSOs from the participating
> contests (those verified by cross-check of submitted logs) would be fed
> into LOTW and made available for award credit. Organizationally, a sharing
> arrangement could be worked out, so that contest organizers could recover
> the cost of preparing their data for submission to LOTW, plus a reasonable
> profit. ARRL, meanwhile, would benefit from the increased revenue through
> use of LOTW for award credit.
>
> It's not really even necessary to stop here. LOTW could service other
> award sponsors, too - so that you could get credit toward your WPX or DOK
> award for those contest QSOs, as well.
>
> Probably more important (at least to me), contesting would benefit from an
> infusion of new blood. More DXers and new hams would be motivated to
> operate in contests if they knew that verified contest QSOs would
> automatically count toward the next award. Many of us got our start in
> contesting for exactly this reason - why not do it all over again?
>
> 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
>
--
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
Please do not send documents formatted as Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|