Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mike Borgelt]

At 12:47 PM 3/8/2016, you wrote:

Hi all,

As an engineering student I independently came up with the concept as
a final year project - then discovered FLARM had beaten me to it a few
years earlier. As part of my research at the time I am confident I
found promotional material where the FLARM protocol would be "released
to the public in the interest of safety". Clearly this policy changed
as adoption increased.




My recollection also, Al. I'm pretty sure I have archived some early 
Flarm technical specs that went into great detail about the messaging 
protocol. Flarm themselves admit on their website they haven't been 
encrypting for the whole time they have been selling the units.


No, I can't be bothered digging it up.

Mike






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

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Paul Bart]

On 8 March 2016 at 12:47, Al Borowski  wrote:

Open protocols brought us things like free email (imagine if each one
> cost 5 cents to send!)
>

​Right now I wish it was at least dollar:)

Cheers

Paul​




Cheers

Paul
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Al Borowski]

On 08/03/2016, Andres Miramontes  wrote:
> After been reading all the comments on this subject  I am really surprised
> to find  we have around so many capable professionals on the topic and I
> wonder why nobody has came up yet with a more profitable and affordable
> solution to this issue to compite with companies that invest millions of
> dollars in research and development ?
[...]
> If you have a better idea just do it. It is easy to criticise others for
> what the have already done or achieved.

Because in this case, a competing product has to be compatible with
those already on the market or it is useless. FLARM have taken steps
to prevent this. Short of paying to replace every FLARM already out
there competition is now impossible.

Imagine if Apple made computers that could only connect to
Apple-hosted websites, or if Holdens could only drive on Holden
licensed roads. It'd be an unworkable mess.

Cheers,

Al
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Andres Miramontes]

After been reading all the comments on this subject  I am really surprised
to find  we have around so many capable professionals on the topic and I
wonder why nobody has came up yet with a more profitable and affordable
solution to this issue to compite with companies that invest millions of
dollars in research and development ?

May be the problem is no so simple, or the market is not as big, or there
are more challenges that some may perceive.

I completely understand and support that people may have different points
of views and opinions but some of the comments published lately are
offensive and misleading.

If you have a better idea just do it. It is easy to criticise others for
what the have already done or achieved.

My two cents.


Andres


On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

>
> Justin Couch ,
>
> For most of the standards you talk about there are alternatives. Don't
> like Android? Use Linux or Windows. Some of you examples seem obsolete too.
> Firewire? Haven't seen that in quite a while. As I understand it the wi-fi
> thing is a straight out patent fight. Not so with
>
> Flarm.
>
> The Flarm problem is that to be at all useful all such devices must
> conform to the same standard in the rf scheme and the transmission
> protocol.
>
> This was initially unencrypted and only when a credible competitor
> appeared did Flarm institute the encryption.
>
> Now consider what would have happened had Flarm announced on first release
> of their system that they intended to enforce an effective monopoly by
> encrypting the transmissions? Or announced that they would do so in future?
> Would the takeup have been as rapid?
>
> Would a competitor immediately have appeared or announced intention,
> before the installed base of Flarms got large, to offer an unencrypted
> transmission protocol? Maybe several competitors? Would the IGC or a
> National gliding body (maybe a non Swiss one with
>
> a large number of pilots) have said  - that's a good idea but we're not
> paying those chocolate makers and yodellers a royalty* - here's our open
> standard?
>
> The IGC publishes a standard for IGC certified Flight Recorders and
> verifies that any manufacturer's product meets it. There were some
> shenanigans with that too, though. As I said, people send me stuff.
>
> Another gliding comparison would be if one of the major manufacturers had
> developed or now bought the rights to CS22 which gliders must be certified
> to in most countries and had the ability to change it at will and demand a
> licence fee. How many other manufacturer's
>
> would there be? From reading between the lines one non European
> manufacturer already ran up against Germany Inc. when trying to certify a
> glider.
>
> I really despise anti competitive behaviour and the people who indulge in
> it. In the Flarm case encryption introduces unnecessary complexity and risk
> to protect a market. The privacy argument is a mere fig leaf for anti
> competitive behaviour. ADSB and mode S have
>
> unique codes for each aircraft and are easy to eavesdrop. What next,
> flight plans and Sartimes are breaches of privacy? Who was it said around
> 15 years ago: "Privacy, there isn't any. Get used to it."?
>
> I can't see what Flarm are worried about. If they don't encrypt and have
> licence agreements those contracts still stand until one of the licencees
> develops his own source code, circuit boards and hardware and uses that
> instead of the Flarm equivalents.  Given the market
>
> penetration of Flarm and the near saturation of the market this may not
> even happen. The licencees didn't get the source code AFAIK anyway just the
> hex.
>
> For the record I was offered a licence to manufacture Flarm in 2004- 2005.
> I forget which and I'm too lazy to look it up. As it used a very similar
> GPS to that we were designing into the B500 system, my German distributor
> suggested I talk to them about it. I did so and
>
> they made the offer. I even did the research to find the correct frequency
> to use in Australia.  I wasn't really interested in manufacturing the
> things here, nor selling them as I thought they would be useless unless
> there was near universal adoption, I'm not fond of mandates
>
> and customer support was likely to be onerous.
>
> Adrian and I had scoped out the possibilities for a similar system in
> 2000. Transmitting GPS positions  for traffic awareness is an obvious thing
> and not patentable.  We actually decided how many bits in the message
> (funny how we came to the same number as Flarm)
>
> and how often it needed to transmit. Consulted Adrian's son, Peter, a
> graduate Electronic engineer about the rf side and he suggested we might
> get 5 to 6km range on the 2.4Ghz band. Good enough for a demonstration we
> thought. We had other things to do and getting
>
> decent range would likely involve the bureaucratic nightmare of getting a
> specific frequency allocated. We were somewhat 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[tom . wilksch]

 

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:51:44 +1030
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email
Circulation

 Mercy sakes. You guys are going to run me out of popcorn soon.

 ___
 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

Re: [Aus-soaring] google's ADS-B push

[Mike Borgelt]

Nigel,

How do they propose to get over the congestion on 
1090Mhz? It is my understanding that that is why 
the FAA came up with 978Mhz for ADSB for small aircraft in the lower levels.
Thousands of drones will make the problem far 
worse than 100 or so aircraft in say the LA basin.


Mike





At 09:18 AM 3/8/2016, you wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_000_004C_01D1791B.83340F40"
Content-Language: en-us

As previously reported there are some big 
players pushing the cost of ADS-B, or TABS ( 
TrafficAdvisoryBroadcastSystem) down to an 
estimated $500 US. Google have identified that 
for their drone technology to take hold everyone 
that flies needs to be fitted with a TABS device 
and are spending millions developing this. The 
FAA are favouring this approach and discussions 
are happening here about the same thing. Drones 
will be a billion dollar industry if they can 
achieve BVLOS ( BeyondVisualLineOfSight). There 
is already a company here selling a TABS unit ( 
Enigma in Melbourne) There is another company 
also developing a glider,hangglider, Ultralight, 
Balloon TABS device also looking at the sub $1k 
mark. All these devices will have a Bluetooth 
output for displaying live traffic on your MFD 
or PDA device. These are also APPROVED under the 
TABS or C199 TSO – so everyone gets to make a 
device that has the capacity to design and have approved.


Can I also add that some of these big players in 
the drone scene are talking about the 
possibility of funding these devices ( I have 
been to 2 meetings where this has been 
discussed), maybe even making them available for 
free to current registered aircraft that are not 
fitted with TABS or ADS-B. Commercially it makes 
sense, say there are 14,000 aircraft needing 
fitment here in Australia, at say $1k a TABS 
unit that’s only $14m – Drone delivery could 
open up $100m or more in work – possibly a good 
investment for them and in reality a drop in the 
ocean on their bank account, maybe a days’ 
worth of google advertising. Boeing and Airbus 
are also actively looking at commercial use 
outside of their military market – again big 
dollars to be made but everyone is restricted by BVLOS restriction.


If I was FLARM I would be looking at making a 
TABS unit with a TSO’d C199 ADS-B unit PLUS 
legacy compatibility with its existing FLARM 
system instead of the half a unit powerflarm 
which has flarm but ADS-B in only, great for 
gliding but it’s just not going to be fitted 
in every power plane just to do FLARM.


Also one note and I have mentioned it before, 
TABS devices will respond to TCAS interrogations 
as well so that TCAS aircraft that already have 
screens displaying TCAS traffic will see you.


http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html




Nigel Andrews
Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd

The information contained in the above e-mail 
message or messages (which includes any 
attachments) is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended only for the use of 
the person or entity to which it is addressed. 
If you are not the addressee any form of 
disclosure, copying, modification, distribution 
or any action taken or omitted in reliance on 
the information is unauthorised. If you received 
this communication in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network.


From: Aus-soaring 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt

Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 8:05 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

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 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Mike Borgelt]

Yes, you are right. The drone anticollision 
problem will likely solve the issue once and for 
all. Don't hold your breath though. It has only 
been 20 years and ADSB still hasn't had universal rollout.


Presumably it will be an open standard arrived at 
by international agreement(or disagreement or the 
Americans will come up with  a standard and that 
will be the de facto international standard). The 
fight will be interesting. Bring popcorn.


The "fuss" is about possible flaws in a widely 
used safety aid as a result of a decision to 
encrypt for other than good engineering reasons. 
As I said, if the originators of that letter are 
who I think, I wouldn't bet against them having solid evidence.


As for the rest, Mark Newton told you twice and 
I've told you that the cases you are sleazily 
attempting  to conflate are totally unlike. I 
don't get a licence fee from other vario 
manufacturers and I don't pay one. The unit is 
just as useful to the owner if it is one or if there are


other users, unlike Flarm or any other traffic 
awareness device. Anyone is free to design, 
manufacture and market a vario system and does.


I also said that, where we want to interact with 
third party devices, we publish the interface 
specification. Yes it is our own but unencrypted. 
An industry one would have been nice but there isn't one.


Are you or LX about to release the source code 
for LX varios and nav systems? I don't think so and I wouldn't expect you to.


So once more, please stop the bullshit.

I did say please the first time too.

Mike





At 08:57 AM 3/8/2016, you wrote:
do you know how many new Flarms are sold each 
year in Australia? on a Last 5 year average less 
than 20. I do feel you are both trying to solve 
a problem where  there is nothing really to fuss about.


to an earlier point you have both ignored,  In 
time, new, very low cost anti collision devices 
will be available. drones and some serous 
stakeholders have ensured that significant chip 
level investments required are already underway. 
unlike gliding, drones are an "at scale" problem 
and as such, attract the right level of fiscal attention to do that.


and Mike, please refrain from offending language 
it's unbecoming.  your response is mainly 
unworthy of comment as your fundamental tenets 
are still commercially flawed, which you in 
running a successful business over an extended 
period of time by selling propriety and fully 
closed solutions would be fully aware of.















On 8 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, Optusnet 
<jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


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 

[Aus-soaring] Link to Aussie TABS

[Nigel Andrews]

 

Sorry forgot link to Enigma:

 

http://www.enigmaavionics.com.au/#!tabs/cpbn

 

P.S I have no commercial interest in either Google or Enigma, I am simply 
pointing out the technology.

 

 

Nigel Andrews

Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd

 

 

Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd

ABN - 921-33392140

Electronics engineering for the future

 

**DISCLAIMER

 

The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which 
includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is 
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If 
you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, 
distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is 
unauthorised. If you received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. 

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Nigel Andrews
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 9:19 AM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: [Aus-soaring] google's ADS-B push

 

As previously reported there are some big players pushing the cost of ADS-B, or 
TABS ( TrafficAdvisoryBroadcastSystem) down to an estimated $500 US. Google 
have identified that for their drone technology to take hold everyone that 
flies needs to be fitted with a TABS device and are spending millions 
developing this. The FAA are favouring this approach and discussions are 
happening here about the same thing. Drones will be a billion dollar industry 
if they can achieve BVLOS ( BeyondVisualLineOfSight). There is already a 
company here selling a TABS unit ( Enigma in Melbourne) There is another 
company also developing a glider,hangglider, Ultralight, Balloon TABS device 
also looking at the sub $1k mark. All these devices will have a Bluetooth 
output for displaying live traffic on your MFD or PDA device. These are also 
APPROVED under the TABS or C199 TSO – so everyone gets to make a device that 
has the capacity to design and have approved.

 

Can I also add that some of these big players in the drone scene are talking 
about the possibility of funding these devices ( I have been to 2 meetings 
where this has been discussed), maybe even making them available for free to 
current registered aircraft that are not fitted with TABS or ADS-B. 
Commercially it makes sense, say there are 14,000 aircraft needing fitment here 
in Australia, at say $1k a TABS unit that’s only $14m – Drone delivery could 
open up $100m or more in work – possibly a good investment for them and in 
reality a drop in the ocean on their bank account, maybe a days’ worth of 
google advertising. Boeing and Airbus are also actively looking at commercial 
use outside of their military market – again big dollars to be made but 
everyone is restricted by BVLOS restriction.

 

If I was FLARM I would be looking at making a TABS unit with a TSO’d C199 ADS-B 
unit PLUS legacy compatibility with its existing FLARM system instead of the 
half a unit powerflarm which has flarm but ADS-B in only, great for gliding but 
it’s just not going to be fitted in every power plane just to do FLARM.

 

Also one note and I have mentioned it before, TABS devices will respond to TCAS 
interrogations as well so that TCAS aircraft that already have screens 
displaying TCAS traffic will see you. 

 

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html

 

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html

 

 

 

 

Nigel Andrews

Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd

 

The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which 
includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is 
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If 
you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, 
distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is 
unauthorised. If you received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. 

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Mike Borgelt
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 8:05 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

 

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 

[Aus-soaring] google's ADS-B push

[Nigel Andrews]

As previously reported there are some big players pushing the cost of ADS-B, or 
TABS ( TrafficAdvisoryBroadcastSystem) down to an estimated $500 US. Google 
have identified that for their drone technology to take hold everyone that 
flies needs to be fitted with a TABS device and are spending millions 
developing this. The FAA are favouring this approach and discussions are 
happening here about the same thing. Drones will be a billion dollar industry 
if they can achieve BVLOS ( BeyondVisualLineOfSight). There is already a 
company here selling a TABS unit ( Enigma in Melbourne) There is another 
company also developing a glider,hangglider, Ultralight, Balloon TABS device 
also looking at the sub $1k mark. All these devices will have a Bluetooth 
output for displaying live traffic on your MFD or PDA device. These are also 
APPROVED under the TABS or C199 TSO – so everyone gets to make a device that 
has the capacity to design and have approved.

 

Can I also add that some of these big players in the drone scene are talking 
about the possibility of funding these devices ( I have been to 2 meetings 
where this has been discussed), maybe even making them available for free to 
current registered aircraft that are not fitted with TABS or ADS-B. 
Commercially it makes sense, say there are 14,000 aircraft needing fitment here 
in Australia, at say $1k a TABS unit that’s only $14m – Drone delivery could 
open up $100m or more in work – possibly a good investment for them and in 
reality a drop in the ocean on their bank account, maybe a days’ worth of 
google advertising. Boeing and Airbus are also actively looking at commercial 
use outside of their military market – again big dollars to be made but 
everyone is restricted by BVLOS restriction.

 

If I was FLARM I would be looking at making a TABS unit with a TSO’d C199 ADS-B 
unit PLUS legacy compatibility with its existing FLARM system instead of the 
half a unit powerflarm which has flarm but ADS-B in only, great for gliding but 
it’s just not going to be fitted in every power plane just to do FLARM.

 

Also one note and I have mentioned it before, TABS devices will respond to TCAS 
interrogations as well so that TCAS aircraft that already have screens 
displaying TCAS traffic will see you. 

 

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html

 

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AEA-Google-to-the-Rescue-on-ADS-B-223824-1.html

 

 

 

 

Nigel Andrews

Andrews Electronic Design Pty Ltd

 

The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which 
includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is 
intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If 
you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, 
distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is 
unauthorised. If you received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network. 

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Mike Borgelt
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 8:05 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

 

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 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Richard Frawley]

do you know how many new Flarms are sold each year in Australia? on a Last 5 
year average less than 20. I do feel you are both trying to solve a problem 
where  there is nothing really to fuss about.

to an earlier point you have both ignored,  In time, new, very low cost anti 
collision devices will be available. drones and some serous stakeholders have 
ensured that significant chip level investments required are already underway. 
unlike gliding, drones are an "at scale" problem and as such, attract the right 
level of fiscal attention to do that. 

and Mike, please refrain from offending language it's unbecoming.  your 
response is mainly unworthy of comment as your fundamental tenets are still 
commercially flawed, which you in running a successful business over an 
extended period of time by selling propriety and fully closed solutions would 
be fully aware of.














> On 8 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, Optusnet  wrote:
> 
> 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  
>> 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  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 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 9:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


We haven’t been talking about mandating of open specifications, except to the 
extent necessary to comply with existing consumer law.


Theme and variations: can an entity have a specification with restricted 
licensing practices, possibly include cryptography to protect it.  Very 
clearly, yes.



Anticompetitive conduct is illegal in Australia. I think FLARM has as case to 
answer:


And what device did you write this email on? There's at least half a 
dozen identical cases there. USB, HDMI, Thunderbolt, Firewire, Intel 
Chip Socket layout etc - all semi open or closed data communications 
specifications that require licensing fees to implement, sometimes 
protected by cryptography. Did you use an Android device or iPhone/iPad 
today? Did you print something today? All use exactly the same mecahnism 
of cryptographically protected intellectual property (Signed graphics 
drivers, USB cable mods, Ink Cartridges in the previous three examples). 
All perfectly OK here in Oz. FLARM are completely within their rights to 
do what they've done.


--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Ulrich Stauss]

My understanding is that the encryption was triggered by privacy advocates who 
were concerned about the activities of the OGN 
  who are using a network 
of (many) USB DVB-T radio receivers to collect FLARM data from the ground and 
making the tracks openly available on the net – for example their Live Web Page 
  or flightradar24  
. This hasn’t been made much of an issue here in Australia but in Europe, 
particularly in Germany, many are very sensitive about any technology that 
could in some way infringe privacy (e.g. Google Streetview…. even credit 
cards…). Whether the Flarm guys are displaying good corporate citizenship 
(which the privacy advocates seem to be swallowing) or protecting their turf - 
or both - is probably only a temporary issue because it is most likely only a 
matter of time before the open source community has broken the code (as has 
already happened once before with an earlier, weaker encryption attempt I 
believe) – after all the processing power of the Flarm units is limited so they 
wouldn’t waste too much time for decryption otherwise their real-time 
performance gets degraded (there are some who argue that is already the case).

Just my $0.02 worth (if that).

 

Ulrich

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Richard Frawley
Sent: Monday, 7 March 2016 10:32
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 

Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

 

 

 

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  > wrote:

 

At 07:45 PM 3/6/2016, you wrote:



On 6 Mar 2016, at 2:30 PM, Richard Frawley  > 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.”


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 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 2:49 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


Then you’d know that RAND licensing is an area of active controversy, which 
some standards bodies have taken an active role in, particularly in the data 
communications space.


RAND: Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. Commonly misconstrued by those 
outside the standards world to mean Royalty Free. Not the same, by a 
longshot. Just means trying to keep out predatory companies from making 
and open standard that then prices all competitors (Reasonable) or 
selectively (Non-Discriminatory) out of the market.


And RAND was a subject for a while, but not much any more. In fact, most 
standards bodies that seem to have any weight haven't bothered - IEEE, 
ECMA (best standards money can buy!) and ISO. The only two really going 
hard on Royalty Free that I am aware of are IETF and Khronos. Our own 
government made a heck of a lot of money off another widely used data 
communications open standard with a bunch of patents - 802.11 - commonly 
known as Wifi.



… and yet here I am, sitting in front of a workstation loaded with free 
software, including a rich set of AV tools which support decode and encode in 
mp2, mp3 and mp4, for which no royalties have been paid to anyone.


Pure commercial reality, some legal victories by Google, and some 
reading of the MPEG-LA licensing agreement would answer that question 
for you.


BTW, MPEG2 (MP3 is just part of MPEG2 standard group) have all the 
patents expired now in the USA (last MP3 codec patent expired about 18 
months ago), so completely royalty free to implement. There's still a 
handful non-expired but in oddball places like China etc.


So, dragging this back towards the topic again: Can the government 
mandate open specifications that require royalty payments to implement - 
yes, despite moralistic wailing otherwise (again, see Digital TV). It is 
very common. If they wanted to mandate FLARM protocol, then all FLARM 
has to do is drop into the local ECMA office with a spec, get it rubber 
stamped and hand it to the government. Simple process that takes no more 
than about a month and a few grand to do. They could even boot it up to 
ISO status due to ECMA's preferred vendor status with ISO (See Microsoft 
Office format) Just add about 2 years to the process if you can buy off 
enough member countries fast enough.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Justin Couch]

On 7/03/2016 6:20 PM, Optusnet wrote:

Matt what would be your guess to setup and design a standalone reconfigurable 
FLARM type of system., I was thinking about future ADSB,ACARS,AUTO MET, 
Outlanding advice , soaring spot tracker type of stuff?

If we had one box that broadcast FLARM type stuff that could utilise cheap 
Comms it might be worth investing in.


Hardware and software? Do we need aviation spec compliance? Software is 
relatively easy, even some of the hardware these days. My workmate doing 
the UAV glider as put together the something with all this output except 
FLARM for about A$400. Granted he's an electrician and knows his way 
around system config, so ahead of the game compared to your average 
glider pilot, but in bulk, pretty simple with already commonly available 
parts and software.


For the FLARM component, a reasonable dev with basic physics knowledge 
should be able to code up a robust solution in about 6 weeks.


The rest is all just packaging, bulk production and managing the 
QA/release and upgrade lifecycle.



--
Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
G+   WetMorgoth
---
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
---
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring