WSJT-X Full-Auto mod

Discussion in 'Working Different Modes' started by SQ9FVE, Mar 27, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: l-BCInc
ad: Left-2
  1. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Yes, I got that part. That doesn't make it unlawful to make or use such software lawfully.

    Do you object to cars because they can be intentionally misused to run people over? Many domestic arguments have ended that way, and yet, cars continue to be made and sold in large numbers -- quite legally.
    But you just said you did -- you object to any application that can be misused to make QSOs without an operator present... I just quoted you. :) That the application can be used lawfully doesn't seem to quell your objection, which makes no sense.
    Yes, and this is my point as well.

    It's not the person who made the application who is accountable for misuse of the software -- it's the end-user. As a result, it is inappropriate for you to blame the OP for releasing something that has both legitimate and illegitimate uses, because by your own words, it's not his responsibility to prevent others from misusing his creation.

    It's this inconsistency in your overall argument that I am objecting to. :)
     
  2. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why not? As long as you operate according to your own regulator's rules, what's the problem? ALE has been doing stuff like this for a very long time now on voice frequencies. It doesn't just change bands, it samples several bands and picks the best one.

    Like any automation, the trick to automating such higher-level tasks is to write the automation in a way that "plays nice" with others. E.g., when you change bands, you don't want to just keep transmitting blindly without checking the channel for a few cycles to find a blank place to start calling CQ. That's what a considerate human would do, so it really needs to be part of the automation.
     
  3. SQ9FVE

    SQ9FVE Ham Member QRZ Page

    Again, fully agreed, but if auto Cq caused such rage amongst the ham SJW's I would assume that if I build the band changing feature I will start getting death threats ;)))
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  4. KQ9J

    KQ9J Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I was going to download it and try it just for those filtering features. Oh well. Should have been quicker with my clicker I guess.
     
  5. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    SQ9VFE, you are conflating illegality with irresponsibility.

    It is illegal for a US ham to operate an unattended automatically-controlled station on frequencies other than those specified in FCC rule 97.221(b). While one can debate how much attention an operator in his or her shack must pay to a station that is automatically making QSOs, there is no question that an unattended US station making QSOs 24x7 on frequencies outside the prescribed sub-bands would be in violation of this rule. None of those prescribed sub-bands include current FT8 "watering holes".

    It is not illegal to provide an application that provides automation accessible via its user interface that enables unattended 24x7 operation. No one in this thread has claimed that this is illegal. I have characterized providing such an application as irresponsible, because it could result in large numbers of users running stations that call CQ, respond to CQs, and call needed stations 24x7 in the current FT8 "watering holes", creating congestion that would make FT8 operation miserable worldwide for many users.

    For the record, no one in this thread has threatened you in any manner.

    Like it or not, you as a software developer will be held ethically accountable for the use and misuse of the applications you choose to develop and publish.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2019
  6. W4PG

    W4PG Super Moderator Lifetime Member 279 Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Absolutely true.

    However, I would ask the question why is that so?

    What was the original thought behind the rule that prevents "unattended" operation? Now, ham radio has come a long way, what with computer control and new modes like FT8. Those computers and modes were not around when the rule was first implemented. Was there something inherently problematic about unattended SSB/CW operation (were one able to do that) that led to some potential real problems, such as interference (TVI, RFI, etc)?

    I think part of this discussion should involve the intent of the rule and whether those potential problems still exist today compared to 50 years ago. I don't know the answer but would like to see come good thoughts on that.

    ...............Bob
     
    WU8Y likes this.
  7. SQ9FVE

    SQ9FVE Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wow, that's wrong on so many levels, not sure where to start :D

    Do you realise you can for example exploit a security flaw in a website with use of just your browser?
    Is your firefox built for hackers? Nope. Could they use it if they wanted? Yes. And they do.

    Did you also realize that you can kill someone with a chop stick if you try hard?
    Are chopsticks designed for ninjas? :D Nuh-uh. Could a ninja drive it into ones brain? Certainly!

    Do you see mozilla foundation being held accountable (ethically or otherwise) for hackers' misuse of their product?
    Or perhaps you can point me at the multitude of lawsuits against chinese restaurants for all the deaths by chopstick? :D
    Maybe they're just held accountable for the fact that they put these potentially deadly weapons out there, available for just about everyone?!

    And don't even get me started on forks...
     
    KD4MOJ, WU8Y and W4RAV like this.
  8. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

     
  9. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Consider an unattended digital mode station C located in Chicago that listens for incoming requests on a published frequency F; to flesh out the scenario, let's say that each request contains a a set of email messages for C to deliver via the internet.

    Now consider a client station B located in Buffalo that wishes to use C to deliver multiple email messages using a protocol with error correction and detection. B's operator listens to F, hears nothing, and so begins an interaction with C; conveying each email message to be sent requires multiple transmissions and acknowledgments between B and C.

    Unbeknownst to B's operator, however, stations D and S in Denver and San Francisco have been holding a digital mode QSO on frequency F. Propagation prevents B's operator from hearing either D or S, but station C is 599 in both Denver and San Francisco, QRMing the QSO between D and S to the point that they cannot continue. D and S have no way to identify B or C, or to send them a "QRL, pse QSY" message. One minute, they're in QSO; the next minute, their QSO is toast.

    In the early 1990s, the FCC was petitioned to allow unattended digital mode operation; the interference occurring in the above scenario was cited by opponents. As a result, the FCC limited the use of unattended digital mode stations, as reflected by the current content of 97.221. The FCC made explicit its expectation that hams would use the 97.221 sub-bands to develop solutions to this interference. Such a solution was in fact developed several years ago: an effective "busy frequency detector" that can be installed in stations like C in the above scenario. Such a "busy frequency detector" would enable C to detect the ongoing QSO between D and S on frequency F, and thus decline to respond to the request from B in order to avoid QRMing D and S.

    There have been subsequent requests to FCC to eliminate the restrictions on unattended digital mode operation, but the FCC has not acted. My position - filed with the FCC - is that the restrictions should remain for stations without effective "busy frequency detectors", but can be eliminated for stations equipped with effective "busy frequency detectors".
     
  10. AA6YQ

    AA6YQ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes. If you knowingly developed a web browser that makes it easy to exploit security flaws, then you have an ethical responsibility. The developer of the software with the security flaw is also responsible.

    Chop sticks are not software applications.

    Only if Mozilla knowingly added a capability to FoxFire that would facilitate the exploitation of security flaws.

    A restaurant that provides its diners with chop sticks having razor-sharp blades embedded in each end would be challenged to defend itself against an injury lawsuit brought by the parents of a child that severely injured itself with one of these bladed chopsticks.
     

Share This Page