Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: LoTW.....About time!!!!!!  (Read 2854 times)
N3QE
Member

Posts: 4925




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2017, 03:40:10 AM »

Congratulations on getting onto LOTW!

Results show I had 809 QSO's with 540 QSL's  I guess what I am asking is are those 540 ops using Lotw  and or the rest just not upload yet or the don't participate at all.

LOTW match rate for other hams in my logs, has been up above 50% for several years now.

Are your QSO's, digital mode QSO's? They tend to use LOTW at a rate well above 50%. Which is very consistent with your reported match rate.

If those are mostly recent QSO's in your logs, you can expect the 540 number to creep up even further as folks upload their logs. Some will upload as new users, and others are current users who upload every week or every month. I regularly get matches as old as 9 years as folks sign up for LOTW.
Logged
VA3VF
Member

Posts: 932




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2017, 05:21:13 AM »

Quote
The number of Authenticity-Guaranteed eQSL callsigns is about the same as the number of LoTW callsigns: ~110K.

So I guess they are equal in value after all.  

I would not go that far, and say they have equal value. While I think LOTW went overboard with NSA like security measures, the blind matching system it uses is far superior than eQSL.

The ARRL did not "go overboard" in designing LoTW's security measures.

Many ops consider the pursuit of ARRL awards to be a lifetime objective; they therefore expect the ARRL to maintain the integrity of these awards. If an adversary were to inject large numbers of of fraudulent QSOs and confirmations into an insufficiently-protected LoTW, there would be no way to recover; ARRL award standings would be rendered meaningless. Contrast this with fraudulent charges on one of your credit card accounts, which your bank can remedy without adverse long-term consequences by restoring your funds, issuing you a new credit card, and writing off the loss.

To maintain the long-term integrity of ARRL awards, LoTW employs authentication, double-blind matching, and revocable Callsign Certificates; these mechanisms make it difficult to fabricate QSOs and confirmations, and make it possible to revoke fabricated confirmations.



I'm not a LOTW hater. I signed up as soon as I found out about the system. I have been a happy user ever since. Bona fide established, I hope, my comments follows.

We all want security. While I don't think LOTW should cater to the vocal critical minority necessarily, there is sometimes a silent critical majority as well. People may go through the hoops to file their income tax returns, but may decide it's not worth the hassle to use LOTW. Hassle is the word most often used. I hope you are right, and the security is commensurate with the efforts people are willing to put in. Also, I'm writing from the point of view of a user outside of the US.

The double blind-matching method is the best practical security you can have. The QSL card method, which is also pretty much the eQSL method, has served the DXCC program well for decades. If you are talking about collusion, the security in place will not prevent that. To be fair, when collusion is involved, not even quantum computing will ensure the system integrity.

We all want a credible DXCC program, but in my limited knowledge of the history of the program, irregular confirmation was never a big issue. Suspected irregular activations, and their acceptance, and the criteria used to add and remove entities from the DXCC list, were.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2665


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2017, 07:10:55 PM »

We all want a credible DXCC program, but in my limited knowledge of the history of the program, irregular confirmation was never a big issue.

An online confirmation service has many more vulnerabilities than does a QSL card.

Making it easier for ops outside the US to authenticate is on the LoTW priority list.
Logged
W4RS
Member

Posts: 98




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2017, 03:57:14 PM »

I am a dx station, running du3jh, du3r, dx3r, dx2r. I use lotw to send my logs, each month at the end of the month. I send in all the logs for each call, if there have been any worked using that call. I also have a qsl mgr joe, w3hnk for those who want to hold a card.
I do not use the eql . I don't feel it is the correct format for cfm qso's.
you may use lotw, joe, w3hnk, or the burro.
thanks for the contacts and gd dx tu.
jim harper
w4rs, du3jh, du3r, dx3r, dx2r.
Logged
VK1AZ
Member

Posts: 18




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2017, 07:34:26 PM »

We all want a credible DXCC program, but in my limited knowledge of the history of the program, irregular confirmation was never a big issue.

Making it easier for ops outside the US to authenticate is on the LoTW priority list.


That is some welcome news and if the paperwork wasn't already in the mail I'd likely shelve joining till they made it better (not maybe easier)

Rant on with some apologies//
The current requirement to send government documents (copies of) is a major security issue and identity theft risk as the documents go via UNSECURE snail mail and leave the sender open to identity theft in the event the paper work is lost. This is poor form in my opinion.
At least for Australia my details are available from the regulatory body including my mail address that could be used for the card arrl could send .... heck I'd even pay for the postage including surcharges NOT to send identity documents via mail.

// rant off

anyway the process is underway, the documents, well bad copies of them are in the mail, so lets hope things go well.

Logged
VK6IS
Member

Posts: 308




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2017, 05:21:39 AM »

any requirement to send Any Gov't Issued Identity Documents,
- to Any Foreign Entity - - is a Major Security Risk,, due to modern identity fraud. . . .
no matter Who that Foreign Entity is.

why is why the LoTW is primarily aimed  the US/CA user base.
- not the Rest of The World.
Logged
K0UA
Member

Posts: 1456




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2017, 07:52:04 PM »

any requirement to send Any Gov't Issued Identity Documents,
- to Any Foreign Entity - - is a Major Security Risk,, due to modern identity fraud. . . .
no matter Who that Foreign Entity is.

why is why the LoTW is primarily aimed  the US/CA user base.
- not the Rest of The World.


An awful lot of DX station are on LOTW.  In fact the majority on FT8 are on LOTW.  The majority. You are in the minority.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2665


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2017, 11:41:57 PM »

The issue is authentication: knowing that an LoTW applicant is who he or she says they are.

The US government maintains a public database containing the name and address of each licensed amateur radio callsign. If you apply to join LoTW and hold a US license, your LoTW credentials are snail-mailed to the address associated with your callsign. You'll only receive them if you are who you say you are.

Given the absence of similar databases of ops in other countries, the ARRL has required LoTW applicants to snail-mail a copy of their amateur radio license and a government document bearing their name. While it's certainly less convenient than receiving a post card, authentication is the rationale for this requirement.

Recently, the ARRL authorized DXCC card checkers in each country to authenticate LoTW applications from applicants in that country. Additional steps that will make it easier for LotW applicants outside the US to authenticate are in the works.

The penalty for getting this wrong is severe: if dishonest ops were able to fraudulently obtain LoTW credentials, they could fabricate confirmed QSOs, and thereby permanently destroy the integrity of award programs that accept LoTW confirmations.
Logged
VK6IS
Member

Posts: 308




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2017, 04:01:39 AM »

An awful lot of DX station are on LOTW.  In fact the majority on FT8 are on LOTW.  The majority. You are in the minority.

so lots of OPs in the RoTW  are on LoTW . .
- never said that there wasn't, Y'know.

The penalty for getting this wrong is severe: if dishonest ops were able to fraudulently obtain LoTW credentials, they could fabricate confirmed QSOs, and thereby permanently destroy the integrity of award programs that accept LoTW confirmations.

the penalty for misuse of your Gov't Issued Identity Documents,
- also very severe - - it'll stuff your Life Up, for some time, to come.
 Shocked

BTW:  some observant OPs will notice, that I've yet to state, that the LoTW is not an worthwhile project.
 Roll Eyes
Logged
VK4XJB
Member

Posts: 8




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2017, 12:52:36 PM »

Given the absence of similar databases of ops in other countries, the ARRL has required LoTW applicants to snail-mail a copy of their amateur radio license and a government document bearing their name. While it's certainly less convenient than receiving a post card, authentication is the rationale for this requirement.

Recently, the ARRL authorized DXCC card checkers in each country to authenticate LoTW applications from applicants in that country. Additional steps that will make it easier for LotW applicants outside the US to authenticate are in the works.

For the countries that do have their database online why not send the post card to the address listed? Offhand I know Australia and Canada do.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2665


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2017, 01:39:38 PM »


the penalty for misuse of your Gov't Issued Identity Documents, - also very severe - - it'll stuff your Life Up, for some time, to come.


Understood. Note that the requirement is "Mail a copy of your Amateur Radio operating authorization and a copy of one other official document that shows your name". One need not submit a government-issued identity document.

Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2665


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2017, 01:49:55 PM »

For the countries that do have their database online why not send the post card to the address listed? Offhand I know Australia and Canada do.

Industry Canada and the Wireless Institute of Australia do host web pages on which one can type in a callsign, click a few links, and copy an address that can be pasted somewhere. However, without the ability to either periodically download the entire database (as is possible for US callsigns) or query the database via an API, the process cannot be automated. At LoTW's scale, a manual process would be too expensive and too error prone.

Yes, one can write software that "scrapes" the information from the web page HTML, but my experience has been that this is way too fragile for use at LoTW's scale. The simplest update to a web page's appearance can break the scraper.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 01:52:36 PM by AA6YQ » Logged
VK4XJB
Member

Posts: 8




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2017, 02:37:12 PM »

For the countries that do have their database online why not send the post card to the address listed? Offhand I know Australia and Canada do.

Industry Canada and the Wireless Institute of Australia do host web pages on which one can type in a callsign, click a few links, and copy an address that can be pasted somewhere. However, without the ability to either periodically download the entire database (as is possible for US callsigns) or query the database via an API, the process cannot be automated. At LoTW's scale, a manual process would be too expensive and too error prone.

Yes, one can write software that "scrapes" the information from the web page HTML, but my experience has been that this is way too fragile for use at LoTW's scale. The simplest update to a web page's appearance can break the scraper.

I do not know of any wia pages for call sign lookup but even if such a page did exist I would still go straight to the source and query the acma web site directly which also has their database available for download.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 2665


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2017, 03:11:39 PM »

I do not know of any wia pages for call sign lookup but even if such a page did exist I would still go straight to the source and query the acma web site directly which also has their database available for download.

What's the URL from which the database can be downloaded?
Logged
VK4XJB
Member

Posts: 8




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2017, 04:11:56 PM »

https://web.acma.gov.au/rrl/register_search.main_page contains the look up page, link to the download page and link to historical data.

Sent you some extra info via a message.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!