Why the need for encryption of DB3 database?

[Bell 407]

The debate is progressing really well and some valid comments all round. Please let's keep it going.

I suppose it would be interesting to see what users would prefer if presented with only one of two options: (1) A software update or (2) Access to the database?

Another consideration: What if a group of V4 users got together and started developing their own Master Database for use by other users? How would that impact on the current discussion?

[Runway 31]

While a very small number of Radarbox users are interested in manipulation of the database in this manner, as can be seen by the numbers commenting, it must be remembered that the main focus of Airnav in this is the protection of the database contents and having taken the decision I doubt if there will be any change of heart on their part.

[Runway 31]

The Airnav database is there to be used to provide the information on screen that users are picking up with their Radarbox.

The information contained within it is freely available from any number of sources with no copyright restrictions for example national registers, publicly accesible websites etc, various forums etc, all it takes is the time and effort to comb through all these and find it.  I even send data picked up in such a way to my database provider and they never ask me where or how I obtained the information.  Where did your database provider get the info bet they got it from the same places we all get it so i wouldnt worry.  There are plenty of databases out there and one thing they have in common is that their contents are locked down so that it can only be used within the application, I can see no difference to what we are discussing here.

I can see no good reason why the Airnav Radarbox database should be available for others to then go on and sell that info to their subscribers and can see no reason why it should be available for conversion to provide a database for other receiver types.  Let them build their own database same as we have done, let them put in the time and effort we have done.

Alan

[thedouth]

Can I add to what Alan says .The database is used for us to identify what we are seeing on our screens . I use another database for all my spotting requirements as i cannot take my laptop everywhere . I only use my radarbox for what i can see . I dont need to know what is elsewhere . If i cant see it I cant count it . That is my personal view


Ben

[AirNav Support]

Ok while we like to see this issue debated and ideas put forward to please both sides we will NOT stand for certain people trying to push their agenda and turning this thread into a platform for them. Please post in a civilised fashion. 

By that we mean no personal insults/no trying to post on this thread to encourage it appear at the top of list/no trying to incite tensions.

Lets keep this discussion to find a way to keep both sides happy.

[Bell 407]

Ok while we like to see this issue debated and ideas put forward to please both sides we will NOT stand for certain people trying to push their agenda and turning this thread into a platform for them. Please post in a civilised fashion.

By that we mean no personal insults/no trying to post on this thread to encourage it appear at the top of list/no trying to incite tensions.

Lets keep this discussion to find a way to keep both sides happy.

I'm not sure who this was intended for but quite frankly I think this debate has been conducted in a very civilized manner. It could so easily have descended into a slanging match as other topics have done before but I think the importance of the encryption issue has seen it conducted professionally and with cordial respect.

But moving on, it is becoming clear that it will be very difficult for AirNav to offer both options (i.e. data base encryption and database access) within one package. So maybe therein lies the solution which could be to separate this out into two distinct versions of V5 as described below:

V5A
Upgrade with encryption and supplied with the current full database. All database update functionality provided within the software.

V5B
Upgrade without encryption and supplied with a blank database. All update functionality removed from within the software.

In this way users will have a clear-cut and definite choice as to how they would like to run their RadarBox. But more importantly ALL users of RadarBox can upgrade to V5 as that surely is also the ultimate goal for AirNav?

Some users may be happy to opt for the upgrade which gives them updates as provided by AirNav. Furthermore, AirNav gets to keep its database encrypted and protect its information as proprietary.

Other users will have to start from scratch with a blank database but will be happy to build up their own database of information as they can access it, edit it and populate it with data they source themselves. AirNav may even consider a nominal charge for V5B but make V5A free.

Thank you,

[Runway 31]

It may be an interesting possiblity Bell407.  I will make the suggestion to Airnav to see if it is feasible to provide a version with a blank unecrypted database with no server access to update for the 2 or 3 users with that preference.

Alan

[Bell 407]

Thanks Alan. It certainly would be good to see AirNav's approach to what has been presented above.

I do somehow think that there may be more than 2 or 3 users interested in this option. I tried to see if I could post a Poll but no where on my interface can I find that option to do so. That being said, I do think more users would have interacted with a Poll topic as many do not feel comfortable posting their views on an open forum. A poll would have allowed them to express an opinion simply by selecting an option 1, 2, 3 or 4 etc.

Looking forward to feedback from AirNav as the debate is certainly allowing us to explore other options to encryption.

Thank you,

[Runway 31]

My feeling from comments on here is that users of the utility are not really interested in compling their own database but would rather manipulate ours thats why I suggested 2 or 3.  It would be interesting to find out how many users of the utilty actually own a Radarbox.

Alan

[Bell 407]

My feeling from comments on here is that users of the utility are not really interested in compiling their own database but would rather manipulate ours that's why I suggested 2 or 3.

OK, understood and a fair point.

[Chris11]

Quote from Alan "Let them build their own database same as we have done, let them put in the time and effort we have done."

Remember the database has been built by US. just have the look at the length of the various Update topic to see how much data has been supplied by users.l

[Runway 31]

While I am very appreciative of any assistance we get from users Chris, how many of those were just hex codes Chris.  Out of the 208,000 aircraft records and all the route records how many had all the data provided by users, a very small number out of the total so to suggest that the database has been built by users couldnt be further from the truth.

Take your own country of South Africa, apart from the ones provided by your self the vast majority came from my efforts and most of them are never seen on screen by anyone outwith the country.  A couple of hours ago I added a Phenom which was delivered in the middle of last month never heard about it from within SA and the same with the helicopters added last night.  During the period covered by your decision not to provide any further info for the database, a large number of SA registered aircraft were added again without any assistance.

Are you really saying that we should make the contents of our database available to the users of other boxes and database producers.  Why shouldnt these companies do as I said and build their own and if necessary get their subscribers and users to help them instead of poaching our efforts.  The database is there to show the details of the aircraft picked up by Radarboxes, nothing else.

Alan

[Marpleman]

Agree entirely Alan.

I think we need to realise also, that most other spotting based software providers actually charge for the privilege of receiving database updates.
Admittedly, the Radarbox database is not as expansive ad other software db's, but generally, if you don't subscribe for updates, then any additions , deletions or edits are completely down to the user.

There's also little difference in how their data is sourced, as the majority of commercial software providers have very healthy communities made up of enthusiasts, willing to provide information, whilst still being prepared to pay for the privilege of having it returned in a format applicable to use with the software.

God forbid we start getting charged for the updates, but from a business perspective this would make perfect sense.

I do believe that you could only "get away" with this if the database was considerably more complete. This may have been more realistic if AirNav had embraced the issue of their hopelessly inept database several years ago. At the time, the task of the updaters in moving things forward was all but disowned by AirNav.

Sometimes, software users have to just move on with what the software providers decide to do.

[LSZS]

My feeling from comments on here is that users of the utility are not really interested in compling their own database but would rather manipulate ours thats why I suggested 2 or 3.  It would be interesting to find out how many users of the utilty actually own a Radarbox.

I use the utility and I have a radarbox.

I hope that Airnav considers the Bell 407s proposal about have a version with blank unencrypted database.

[GreekSpy2001]

I own a RDB and manipulate the DB to extract MIL hex codes to use in another alerting utility for my own use. 

So no encryption for Navada use is of interest however a blank db is of no interest to me.

How about considering a licensing/partner program where partner apps can get access to the decryption algorithm.  OK would probably mean a charge for the third party app but I'm sure RDB users that need the utility would be happy to buy the app.  People seem to have no problem buying apps on their phone or tablet

Graham