Month: October 2018

In an earlier post I argued that the Region 1 rules, as currently written, are not restrictive enough on the use of satellite navigation systems in ARDF. In a subsequent post I maintained that satellite navigation systems, particularly those contained in personal electronic devices, should be used much more in ARDF, and that it can be done is such a way that prevents the misuse of those devices. In this post, I will explore how smart devices can be brought into ARDF without changing the nature of the sport, and without putting additional burden on event organizers.

In 2017 we are marking the end of the first decade of the iPhone, which ushered in official manufacturer support for independently-developed smartphone applications: apps distributed through online stores run by the device manufacturers. But the use of these capable devices, and the apps that run on them, has made little headway in ARDF over the past decade; due in large part to how capable those devices are! The unchecked use of GPS, mapping, and communications capabilities of modern cell phones could totally transform the sport of ARDF from an individual test of navigation and radio skills, into a mass collaborative-geocaching event.

But banning all use of smart communications devices is unnecessary. Device capabilities can be restricted, and those restrictions enforced, by the same application software that makes them so useful. Rules should be put in place encouraging the legitimate use of smartphones and tablets, while putting the onus of proving rules adherence squarely on those who choose to utilize those devices during competition. Likewise, the burden of developing, testing, certifying, and distributing ARDF-approved applications should also rest on the app developers, while the event organizers monitor rules adherence, and enjoy the benefits of improved safety and efficiency afforded by the new technology.

Below is a description of how a very secure system might work. The full system needn’t be implemented if an Organizing Society considers it unnecessary. But verifiable adherence to the rules is possible, and could be used for World Championships, and similar “high stakes” competitions.

The components and participants include:

ARDF-Approved Apps: These are the only applications allowed to run on electronic devices carried by competitors. And an approved app must be running in the foreground at all times while a competitor is competing.

Rules: There must be rules in place governing what ARDF-Approved Apps must, and must not, do; As well as how they are published, stored, distributed, and utilized.

Device-Carrying Competitors – those who choose to carry a personal electronic device (smartphone, tablet, etc) during a competition are subject to certain rules that do not apply to other competitors, and must accept certain risks in order to take their devices with them on the course.

App Developers – those who write ARDF-approved applications will need to adhere to the rules regarding the apps, and apply to organizers for app approval well in advance of a competition.

Organizers – event organizers will need to take certain measures to ensure adherence to the rules by all participants. They will need to designate an Independent Authority responsible for building and submitting apps for distribution, and other technical details. Most of the adherence assurance tasks can be automated.

Independent Authority (IA) – this is an individual or a small group designated by the event organizers. The IA must have sufficient technical knowledge and resources to build and submit apps to the app stores for distribution. Those involved in IA responsibilities should be independent in the sense that they have no personal interest in the outcome of the event, or as a group they are able to oversee one another to ensure .

ARDF-approved applications must have the following characteristics:

1. Open Source – so that anyone can examine the source code and verify its capabilities and restrictions, and even compile and run it to test its operation.
2. Distributed Publicly, Worldwide, Free of Charge – on official device-manufacturer app distribution sites. This will help provide a level of control over the source of apps, making it possible to require participants to download an app under supervision, for instance.
3. Built and Released by an Independent Authority – an appointed individual or team will build and submit the openly-available software to the official device-manufacturer app store(s) for distribution.
4. Licenses applied to any software must allow others to freely copy, modify, and use the code for any purpose: truly Open Source.

Rules governing the operation of ARDF-approved applications must include at least the following restrictions:

1. Apps must not provide any features or functionality expressly prohibited by the rules. This would include being able to communicate with others, display digital maps, etc.
2. Apps must record a continuous log file in a specified format along with the competitor’s name, bib number, and any security “key” data. Logging must begin automatically at app start-up, and end when the app is closed or terminated, logging at least the following information at 10-second (or shorter) intervals: Lat/Lon position, UTC time, device’s battery level. It must also specifically log the position and time of certain device events: shutting down the app, placing the app in the background or accessing any other app, placing or receiving a phone call or digital message.
3. Apps must provide a verification mechanism (specified by the rules), allowing a key or code to be entered to verify two things: that the app is genuine, and that any log it generates can be traced to that installation of the app.

Competitors choosing to carry a smartphone would accept the following responsibilities:

1. To run a single approved app at all times while on the course, never shutting the app down, placing it in the background, running another app, or using the device for communication (except in emergencies).
2. Submit the full log file recorded during the event directly from the device to the organizers, within 5 minutes of reaching the finish. This could be done automatically by email after reaching the finish.
3. Accept the consequences of a system crash, loss of the phone, or any other event that could affect the recorded log file: resulting in the disqualification of the competitor.

ARDF-approved-app developers would accept the following responsibilities:

1. Release and publicly post all source code to a version-controlled open-source distribution site (e.g., GitHub) before the published deadline: this could be six months or more prior to the date of a championships, to allow time for the Independent Authority to build and submit the apps to the app stores, and for the apps to be approved and released on the stores.
2. Defray any cost incurred by the Independent Authority in order to submit the app to the app store(s). A nominal fee could be charged to the developers in order to cover any costs incurred by the IA.

Organizing Society Responsibilities

The society responsible for organizing a competition will have the following responsibilities:

1. Validate personal electronic devices to be used by competitors to ensure compliance. Entering a short unique “secret key” into each competitor’s ARDF-approved app should be all that is needed to accomplish this task.
2. Collect all log files submitted by competitors, and confirm that the logs are genuine (inspect recorded key), and contain no entries indicating rules violations. This process could be totally automated. A sophisticated analysis tool could even identify exclusion zone violations, or following.
3. Investigate any detected or reported rules violations.
4. Organizers must have the authority to revoke the approval of any app at any time, even the day of the competition, if it is demonstrated to violate any rules. Developers of apps shown to be in violation can be banned from future participation

Since the applications are open source, freely available, and run on standard commercially-available hardware, everyone can inspect them for violations. It is in the competitors’ interest to find and report app violations, since others who use them could gain an unfair advantage. Reports of violations should be investigated by an Organizing Society, or by the ARDF Working Group, and dealt with appropriately.

 

We, the Signatories to this petition, recognizing that:

o Amateur Radio Direction Finding (ARDF) has been practiced in IARU Region 2 for the past 20 years.

o The IARU Region 2 ARDF Working Group has members with decades of experience in administering the sport, who are well qualified to create and establish permanent rules for Region 2.

o IARU Region 2 can better promote the growth of ARDF if the Region’s rules are tailored to best serve its participants.

o There is precedent for permitting personal electronic satellite positioning system receivers (GPS) in ARDF World Championship competitions, codified in current IARU Region 1 ARDF rules.

o The properly-administered use of smart personal electronic devices (smartphones) running specialized apps poses no greater risk of misuse than do GPS devices.

o ARDF in Region 2 can benefit from the use of smartphones, in terms of safety, and broader appeal of the sport among the Region’s populace.

o The lack of permanent rules specifically allowing the use of smartphones, provides no assurance that their use will be permitted on an ongoing basis, and therefore is a disincentive for experimenters and innovators to develop useful apps for the sport.

o The IARU Region 1 ARDF rules documents constitute a proven template for the establishment of permanent rules for Region 2, shortening the process for creating a preliminary rules document.

Therefore, we call upon the IARU Region 2 ARDF Working Group to act swiftly to:

• Establish permanent ARDF rules for Region 2 no later than January 1, 2018.
• Include provisions in those rules for the use of smartphones running suitable apps.
• Establish that Region 2 championship competitions be conducted under Region 2 rules from January 1, 2018 onward.
• Work with IARU Region 1 ARDF Working Group members to reconcile any rule differences between the Regions as appropriate, while retaining any Region 2 rules differences that specifically benefit that Region.

Allowing competitors to carry smartphones needn’t pose a significant risk that those devices will be used for an unfair advantage. Indeed, relatively simple GPS devices carry a much greater risk of abuse.

GPS is Easily Abused

Consider that even the dumbest GPS wrist devices can provide undetected navigation assistance to the user. Simple GPS watches can record waypoints and measure distances and angles to those waypoints. They also often provide graphic displays that can be used to view user-created waypoints and the user’s track. A single waypoint entered by a competitor near the start area of a course enables a GPS to provide distance and angle to the start from any location on the course. Then it is a simple matter to utilize that GPS-derived information to deduce one’s location on the map – no compass or map-reading ability required! Much more advanced navigation features are available on some GPS models.

Smartphones Can Prevent Abuse

Unlike GPS devices, most smartphones, even very old ones, are sophisticated enough to run a monitor app that would prevent the undetected use of the smartphone’s navigation or communication features. While an app is running in the foreground, a smartphone is capable only of performing those functions that the app is capable of providing. A monitor app that provides no navigation or communication features would effectively prevent the misuse of such banned hardware features for so long as the app is running. A monitor app could also detect when the app itself has left the foreground or has been closed, and record (or even report in real time) the event for review by a Jury. So a smartphone running a properly-designed monitor app would not be able to provide banned features without the violation being detected by authorities.

Monitor apps could also provide allowed features, such as GPS  track recording for post-competition analysis, thereby allowing smartphones running monitor apps to replace more easily-abused GPS devices. A clever monitor app could even “geofence” exclusion areas, preventing competitors from entering them undetected. A geofence around the entire map boundary might be used to enhance safety by informing competitors when they have left the region covered by the map.

Summary

There is no need to ban competitors from carrying hardware devices capable of providing an unfair advantage. Rather, competitors must be required to run appropriate software on any devices that they choose to carry. That software must disallow competitors from accessing and utilizing the hardware in an unfair manner without detection.

Instead of banning particular hardware devices, rules should be written to address the unreported use of disallowed functionality, such as navigation assistance, or 2-way communications.