On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 2:00:06 PM UTC-8, Benedict Smith wrote:
At 18:35 13 November 2018, wrote:
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 10:25:00 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
"Intention is to develop own fully secured tracking function
with a
possibility of time delay."
=20
It will be tricky to have open access to the hardware and
software and
al=
so controlled, secure access to the tactical information.
=20
I could see an open source/open hardware system with a
mechanical seal
pr=
otecting some internal private keys and the decryption engine
that uses
the=
m.
=20
Everybody would broadcast position protected by a
public/private key
pair=
.. CD puts the private key required to decrypt along with an
approved
softw=
are load into a standard, sealable receiver engine.
=20
It would be nice to allow the contestant to play with
everything, but I
t=
hink secure will require at least some small part of the receive
engine to
=
be sealed.

My informed source says the time delay (10 minutes or so)
would be used
ins=
tead of encryption. The time delay can be built into the
transmitter.
Thu=
s nothing in any receiver could foil it. There would not be an
incentive
f=
or the pilot to change anything in their transmitter, unless they
want to
b=
e leached on. I wonder though whether that would create an
incentive to
st=
art 10 minutes after the best pilots?


10 minute delay ? I thought the idea of FLARM was for safety,
perhaps they are they expecting messages such as:
“there was a glider 2 miles out on a collision course 10 minutes
ago, the fact that you are reading this message suggests that you
saw and avoided it without my help ! Have a nice day”
Sounds rather like something the late Douglas Adams would come
up with.

Aren't we confusing tracking capability with collision avoidance capability?
This appears to be a move to build a new "live" tracking mechanism. Latency is an option often used for contest tracking.
Jim