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 <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>> http://flarm.com/statement-by-flarm-technology-about-recent-unsolicited-emails/
>>>  
>>> <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
>>  
>> <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.”
>> 
>> 
>> 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 aren’t “rogue” get to advertise 
>> themselves as FLARM(sm), devices that don’t, don’t. Comps can specify 
>> that they won’t accept FLARMs without the servicemark. Then let the 
>> market’s 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 you’ll need to buy another device 
>> from the same company that just shafted the device you’ve already bought. 
>> 
>>    - mark
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>Borgelt Instruments - 
>> design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
>  <http://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
> [email protected]
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to