Topband: Rules vs. Ethics (was Brave New World)

[Larry Burke]

> I am still waiting for a real case scenario where remote radio has harmed
or damaged someone, somehow

I guess that depends on how you define "harmed". If you are expecting
manslaughter, I doubt you'll find an example of that. I cited an example of
how this is not victimless in my original note. 



> You are confusing ethical and moral

No confusion on my part. Spend a little time on the web with this topic. I
spent the last four years of my career in the ethics and compliance arena
for a large international company. I'm pretty familiar with the subject.
Once again "condoned by the ARRL" is not the same as "ethical". The League
even takes great pains in their announcement of the changes to mention
ethical operation with regards *specifically to remotes*: "Issues concerning
remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each
individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept
for his/her DXCC and other operating awards". 


- Larry K5RK



-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike
Fatchett
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:03 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Rules vs. Ethics (was Brave New World)

I am still waiting for a real case scenario where remote radio has harmed or
damaged someone, somehow........

You are confusing ethical and moral.

There is nothing unethical either.  It is condoned by the ARRL.  It is not
how it used to be done.  So what?  Everything evolves and changes.

Unethical is using more power than legally allowed.  Using multiple
operators and claiming single op.  Using remote receivers, claiming to be
operating from a country  you are not in, rubber clocking, using packet when
you shouldn't and on and on and on.  We don't we get on the people that we
know for fact use excessive power?  Wink wink.

Just because you or I believe something might be unethical or immoral does
not make it so.

We don't have to like the changes.  Why don't we just say that and leave off
all the bs associated with it?

The ARRL is in the business of selling awards.  This lets more people work
toward their awards.  It does not affect your DXCC or award one way or
another.

Mike W0MU
On 2/26/2015 2:45 PM, Larry Burke wrote:
>   
>
>> Except it is not an ABUSE of the rules.  People feel that it is an 
>> abuse
> but it is fully sanctioned by the ARRL.
>
>   
>
> Jim stated as much in the note to which you are replying.
>
>   
>
> What is in play here is the difference between laws/rules and ethics. 
> Just because something is "legal" does not make it ethical.  Adultery 
> is not a crime in 29 states of the United States or most of the
industrialized world.
> Is it therefore ethical? Is it ethical to click between remotes on the 
> east and west coast because DXCC rules permit it? Throwing their hands 
> up, the League is leaving the answer to the last question up to the 
> individual operator. Why, if such operations are so ethically pure 
> would one commercial remote business advertise "completely anonymous 
> operation"? The very nature of the wording suggests their service is 
> the ham radio version of the No-Tell Motel.
>
>   
>
> With regards to the "how I got my award shouldn't matter to anyone 
> else", I'd argue that the operator on the "other end" of an unethical 
> contact can be affected. There's a fair chance that he is pursuing an 
> award as well. An operator in EU pursuing WAS (or VUCC on 6m) may work 
> a W7 who is using a remote -- commercial or otherwise -- and does not 
> indicate the location of the actual transmitter. The EU op goes away 
> thinking he worked Oregon. Lo and behold the LoTW match or paper card
shows up and "confirms" he did.
> There are a couple of west coast stations who routinely use east coast 
> remotes to work EU on 6m and use their home state and grid square in 
> the exchange. A savvy op on the "other end" can often tell if the 
> exchange is legit, but there are strange spotlight openings on that 
> band, just as there are on Topband. These ethical lapses are not entirely
victimless.
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Larry K5RK
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband