So as someone who cannot program a shoebox, and understood less than 10% of the conversation
1 should we be advocating the removal of FLARM in Australian skies 2 do we need to change the Comp rules mandating FLARM JJ Sent from my iPad > On 8 Mar 2016, at 8:05 AM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> > wrote: > > Richard, > > I think Mark Newton already explained how the code and protocols are > different things. He just told you again. As a supposed IT professional you > know this so please stop with the bullshit. > > Nobody is asking Flarm to share the internal code that makes the device work. > The first implementation of Flarm did not encrypt the transmission protocol. > They in fact published it themselves. Only when a credible competitor, making > an inter operable system appeared did they encrypt the transmissions. They've > now done it in such a way that the key keeps changing to make breaking the > encryption near impossible. There is no good reason to do this except for > commercial advantage. It in fact introduces complexity and risk. > > As for varios and Flarms - apples and oranges. Are you really that silly? > Again the source code for the firmware in our varios is irrelevant anyway. > Deciding what the thing should do and how is the hard part. I see our audios > have been explicitly emulated in at least two other products and several > other features also. > > When it comes to interacting with other devices such as PNAs etc we publish > the messaging protocol which is why XCSoar reads it and also sends > MacCready, bugs and ballast to the B600/B800. We even used the CAI 302 input > protocol to make things easier for developers. > > As for hunting down the originator of that email, ROTFLMAO, "please don't > throw me in the briar patch". Sure would be fun seeing the internal > communications between the Flarm guys regarding the decision to encrypt, > subpoenaed. Let alone the unwanted attention the case may attract from > various competition law regulators in Europe and other places. > > Flarm is a nice proof of concept demonstration that got out of hand. It has > significant limitations but for the purpose it was designed (avoiding head on > collisions in the Alps) it was a great advance. > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:01 AM 3/7/2016, you wrote: > > >> Mike, thats sounds pretty hypocritical coming from you. >> >> You of all people should be honest in acknowledging the challenging business >> economics that are apparent in serving what is a tiny community. >> >> Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life >> saving product that cost less than some of your Varios. >> >> Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. >> I don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes. >> >> Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply. >> >> Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those >> parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a >> competitive market. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:32 AM, Mike Borgelt < mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote: >>>>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/ >>>> >>>> Smells like bullshit. >>>> http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> "Encryption of the radio protocol is a consequence of the requirements for >>>> privacy and security and was thus introduced nearly a decade ago: It >>>> protects the system from abuse but also from rogue devices implementing >>>> the protocol and system incorrectly or incompletely. The latter may have >>>> serious consequences for users of proper devices since incorrect data may >>>> lead to undefined behavior on the receiver end. The encryption applied is >>>> an industrial-strength symmetric cipher, fast enough to be run on all >>>> devices with no performance degradation. Since decryption or interception >>>> of encrypted communication is illegal in most countries, this also ensures >>>> the integrity of the system beyond the technical barriers. Furthermore, >>>> the encryption can be enhanced with software updates if security is >>>> compromised.â >>>> >>>> >>>> This is a half-baked technical-sounding justification for a restraint of >>>> trade. >>> >>> >>> So I guess by the Flarm company's thinking ADSB is illegal as it breaks >>> privacy and security? There's no encryption and every aircraft is >>> identified by a unique code. Note that no individual is identified, just >>> the aircraft, same as Flarm. Flarm is transmitted a few kilometers, ADSB >>> goes to the horizon. >>> >>> Let alone the engineering stupidity of implementing an unnecessary >>> encryption scheme which adds complexity and failure modes. >>> >>> Where is Flarm company's evidence that other devices ever caused a problem? >>> Apart from cutting in to their sales. >>> >>> I'm aware of only one other Flarm compatible device having been >>> commercially produced and that was made by DSX. They claimed to have had >>> 40% of the Italian and Spanish markets before Flarm started their >>> encryption games and managed to break the initial Flarm encryption scheme >>> in 3 weeks. >>> >>> Figure out the rest for yourselves. >>> >>> Oh, I really like the Flarm response to this: Let's find the messenger and >>> shoot him. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Publish the standard, and have independent auditors judge compliance with >>>> the standard to award a FLARM-compatible Service Mark for compatible >>>> implementations. Devices that arenât ârogueâ get to advertise >>>> themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that donât, donât. Comps can specify >>>> that they wonât accept FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the >>>> marketâs desire for interoperability clean up the raggedy ends. >>>> >>>> Using encryption to lock competitors out of the protocol altogether is >>>> going to be incredibly funny in a few years as soon as FLARM decides to >>>> stop providing software support to the 20,000-odd obsolete devices bought >>>> between 2004 and 2010. If you want to keep FLARM youâll need to buy >>>> another device from the same company that just shafted the device youâve >>>> already bought. >>>> >>>> - mark >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au >>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>> >>> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring >>> instrumentation since 1978 >>> www.borgeltinstruments.com >>> tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 >>> mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 >>> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au >>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au >> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation > since 1978 > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
