[CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity

[Ted KT1V]

John,

Just one quick comment as an information security professional:

It is simply entirely impossible to authenticate packet users in any 
practical way. I can't think of any scheme that would be practical. Are we 
going to issue all packet users smartcards and make them buy smartcard 
readers? Some authentication based on callsign/address in the FCC 
database/postcard with password like LoTW??

73
Ted KT1V & security dude
  At 07:20 AM 11/10/2004, John WA2GO wrote:
>On the more serious side:
>
>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.
>
>I think there are some universal truths on this subject that we can all 
>agree on:
>
>1) Packet will continue to be used. It is unrealistic to think of 
>"shutting it down" on a worldwide basis during a contest or otherwise.
>2) Packet probably helps activity levels. Wost case, it has no effect. It 
>doesn't reduce activity levels.
>3) Some contesters owe some of their contacts to the existence of packet. 
>Therefore, getting spotted increases your rates, because it adds contacts 
>to your log that would have otherwise not been there. (I can vouch for 
>this from experience being spotted, too.)
>4) Making contacts on the radio is what makes contests fun. Endless 
>unanswered CQ'ing is not fun.
>5) Making more more contacts makes contests more fun.
>6) Busting through a pileup to work a rare one is fun.
>7) Tuning the bands to find a rare one while operating casually can be 
>fun. But if you are operating casually during a contest, and you don't 
>have a lot of time available to dedicate to the contest, it can seem 
>unfruitful, or perhaps even frustrating because of the "needle in a 
>haystack" effect due to the sheer number of signals on the band. Packet 
>can help increase your fun factor by providing you with lots of pileups to 
>jump into, and an easy way to locate the rare ones you are looking for.
>8) If you are operating a contest competitively, and you make use of spots 
>to locate stations you need to work, you are receiving assistance, and 
>your entry category must so indicate.
>9) If you are receiving assistance during a contest, then the degree to 
>which you are aided by the assistance is proportional to the quality of 
>the assistance you receive. For example, you receive bad spots, it 
>probably has a negative effect. If you receive good spots, it probably 
>helps. If your station is fully automated, it helps more, because you can 
>get to the spots more quickly. Therefore, if you can spend more money to 
>automate your station, you can take better advantage of the assistance.
>10) The point of having different entry categories in contests is to 
>create a level playing field within each category, to the extent that is 
>practical. (Obviously, geography, available real estate, zoning 
>regulations, etc., will favor some stations over others. But it is not 
>practical to create a separate category for each individual station. It's 
>always going to be a compromise, except in a controlled situation such as 
>WRTC.)
>
>Now here is where we stray into the debatable points. I don't think each 
>operator would answer (true or false) the same way to each of these statements:
>
>- The point of a contest is to have fun.
>- The point of a contest is to win.
>- Winning is fun  (if this is true, does it render the first two synonymous?)
>- Competing is fun, regardless of results
>- Losing to a cheater does not reduce the amount of fun
>- Winning is satisfying, but only if it was done fairly
>
>
>When one station has an advantage over another station, as long as the 
>advantage is obvious and publicly known, it can be accounted for when 
>evaluating scores. For example, it's obvious that a guy in Connecticut 
>will have a better 40M European run than a guy in Arizona. Even if the guy 
>in AZ is in the same entry category, he knows about his disadvantage, and 
>he will factor that in when comparing his score.  Same goes for a guy with 
>stacked monobanders vs. a guy with a single tribander.
>
>But if two stations are both in CT, and station B uses packet spots while 
>station A does not, and both enter as unassisted, then we don't have a 
>fair contest. This is what is called cheating. If station B has a higher 
>score, then did station B win? It depends on how they each answer the 
>true/false questions above. But the fact remains that only one of them 
>will get the plaque and only one of them will appear at the top of the 
>results list. I think most of us know the real answer on this one.
>
>When it comes to packet (or any other differentiator, for that matter, 
>such as output power or number of simultaneous transmitters), I have only 
>one request: Honest, truthful entries, and full disclosure of the 
>advantages of one station over another. I am currently devising a means of 
>adding a two character indicator to a score that will fully disclose the 
>degree of automation used by a station in a contest, whether assisted or 
>unassisted. (Let's face it, even a memory keyer or a DVK is a form of 
>automation).  It won't have to be used to create new categories, but it 
>will at least allow stations to make comparisons between themselves and 
>others, and allow for differences in score based on those relative 
>advantages/disadvantages that aren't reflected in their entry category. 
>Stay tuned for more on that later...
>
>At the end of the day, there is another universal truth:
>
>Some day, we are each going to die. And at that point, none of this will 
>have mattered anyway. So it probably comes back around to each person's 
>individual definition of fun as being the only thing that does matter. 
>Because if we aren't going to have fun while we're here, then why bother 
>sticking around, right??!  Since different people can have different 
>definitions of fun, we will have to all learn to play nicely in the 
>sandbox together. Having (and following) rules is the way mature societies 
>accomplish this.
>
>
>And on the less serious side:
>
>1) I think EI5DI's idea is the best idea I have ever heard on this topic.
>
>2) My dog's name is Spot.  If I call him into the room during a contest, 
>do I need to claim Assisted?
>
>73,
>
>John
>WA2GO
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest