First of all, I would like to commend you for developing such a useful tool for the amateur radio community. Ham Alert has become a widely used service that significantly enhances real-time monitoring for operators.
However, as a member of several CW operator associations, I have observed growing concerns about the misuse of alert services like Ham Alert. The ability to monitor specific operators in real time without their consent has, in some cases, led to unwanted attention and interference.
To address these concerns, I would like to suggest the introduction of an option that would allow Ham Alert users to control their availability for monitoring. This feature could enable users to decide when they are open to being tracked by others, providing greater privacy control and preventing misuse of the system.
I am also reaching out to the developers of the Reverse Beacon Network (RBN) with a similar request to consider an opt-out feature on their side. I believe that implementing such options in both systems could greatly improve the experience and privacy for operators within the amateur radio community.
Thank you for considering this suggestion, and I look forward to your thoughts.
Thank you for your message. First, let me express that it saddens me that even in amateur radio, there seem to be individuals who find it necessary to spoil the fun for others. Although considering the number of people involved, it’s nearly inevitable that a few will act irrationally.
However, I also have to say that I find the assumption that there can be privacy on a public broadcast medium with worldwide coverage to be a bit absurd. After all, what would stop these people from simply running their own CW skimmer with a little script to alert them to certain callsigns? That’s pretty easy to do.
Also, any feature that would allow users to block “their own” callsign in the system could also be abused – for example, someone could register the callsign of an upcoming DXpedition, and block it. To prevent this, we’d have to require some proof of callsign ownership, perhaps using a LoTW certificate. But it would still only be a half-baked solution for the reason given above.
I guess if we did go the route of blocking individual callsigns, then it would be best to do it at the source of the spots, i.e. the RBN and perhaps PSK Reporter, so that anyone trying to circumvent it would at least have to run their own skimmer.
For fun and giggles, I asked ChatGPT to write me a Python script that connects to the RBN, filters spots for a given callsign and sends email alerts. It worked almost out of the box – only one line that sends the login callsign at the start of the Telnet connection had to be added (and ChatGPT even did that for me once asked).
If I wanted to “fly under the radar”, I would probably send my callsign in a way that causes the popular CW skimmer software not to pick it up. Perhaps some spacing between prefix/suffix would suffice…
As a user of HamAlert, and a telnet cluster sysop, there is no way that spotting, or (tracking) will stop. What is next shutting off the clusters to prevent people to know when you are on and where? Then we revert back to the days where we just use the VHF/UHF radio to alert friends or use the telephone…cannot put reverse decades of development… K0XM
Another thing that came to my mind: at least in theory, the RBN should only react to CQ calls, and not direct calls (XXXXX de YYYYY kn) or other mentions of a callsign in a non-CQ context. Actually calling CQ rightfully invites “the whole world” to transmit and potentially triggers spots/alerts. If that is not desired, e.g. if a closed group wants to meet on the air, then perhaps some other way of attracting the other group members’ attention – omitting “CQ” – can be agreed upon.
@HB9DQM Thank you for your thoughtful response, Manuel. I agree that privacy on a public medium like radio is complex, and it’s easy for anyone to set up a skimmer and track callsigns. My suggestion was not about stopping technology or turning back the clock but providing a simple temporary opt-out option for operators in certain situations, which would not be prone to abuse. In fact, Felipe (CT1ANO) from RBN mentioned that while they lack resources to implement this now, it might be considered in the future.
Also, while you mentioned RBN reacting to CQ calls only, in practice, it seems that callsigns are spotted even when responding to a CQ or giving out a callsign in a pile-up. This raises further questions about when and how spots are triggered.
@N6TA Thank you for your question, N6TA. An example of privacy abuse might be when an operator is being tracked persistently, either due to unwanted attention regarding their location or simply because someone is maliciously interfering with their transmission. This kind of behavior can become harassment and make the operator feel uncomfortable on the air.
Thank you for your input, @K0XM. Just to clarify, no one is asking to stop spotting or roll back decades of progress. I’m only suggesting that operators should have a temporary opt-out option if needed, for example, in cases of harassment or privacy concerns. This is technically a simple blacklist filter, something a telnet cluster sysop might be familiar with. It wouldn’t detract from the overall benefits of the system.