AirNav Systems Forum
AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com => AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com Discussion => Topic started by: AirNav Development on July 06, 2010, 11:35:12 AM
-
As on airliners.net forum:
Hello everyone,
The new UK government has launched a web site called Your Freedom to invite proposals of old UK laws which should be repealed. It may come as a surprise to some enthusiasts but it is against the law to discuss, rebroadcast or even listen to ATC communication within the UK. Amazingly, it is not illegal to own an airband radio, but you can't actually listen to anything on it ! This was passed as law under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, and clearly needs to be repealed.
Apart from the obvious lack of harm and security issues associated with airband listening, it provides vital training for pilots, and many other beneficial purposes. With huge numbers of countries' ATC now listenable via the Web, the UK remains one of the few countries (maybe the only country) where law forbids it. This needs to change. I know enthusiasts around the world who listen to ATC online are frustrated by the inability to listen to UK airport, radar and sector communication, and this is the first OFFICIAL chance to have your say and get the law repealed.
Please visit the link below, RATE IT and if you have supportive COMMENTS, please post them in the box at the bottom of that page. The more ratings and comments, the more likely it will be to get selected and, hopefully, effected. Past petitions have failed, but now the UK government itself wants to know about these archaic laws, and this is DEFINITELY one of them.
For the future of global ATC broadcast streaming to include the UK, and for us Brits to be able to use our scanners without breaking the law (!), please support the proposal I have created at the link below.
Many Thanks,
Paul
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/air-traffic-radio-listening-rebroadcast
-
please support the proposal I have created at the link below.
Many Thanks,
Paul
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repeal...raffic-radio-listening-rebroadcast
That's going to be rather difficult as the link doesn't work ...
-
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws
second one down i support it.
-
Correct link:
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/air-traffic-radio-listening-rebroadcast
-
"the UK remains one of the few countries (maybe the only country)"
Many Thanks,
Paul
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/air-traffic-radio-listening-rebroadcast
Is not the only, Portugal is another one of those stupid countries.
-
True, it always has been illegal to listen to air traffic,and other such transmissions, but by and large a ''blind eye'' has been turned on behalf of the authorities. Look at all who hang around Heathrow with scanners! The unwritten law is, I believe, not to talk too much to ''outsiders'' about what is overheard, or be tempted to approach the media with any snippets which may have arisen out of listening. I vividly remember the so-called ''Dianagate'' affair of the late eighties or early nineties. That nearly did cause big problems for listeners.
-
We Brits are lucky enough to live in a country where laws that are generally regarded as silly, like this one, tend not to be actively enforced.
I can't help thinking that drawing attention to its non-enforcement might not necessarily have the intended effect ...
-
We Brits are lucky enough to live in a country where laws that are generally regarded as silly, like this one, tend not to be actively enforced.
I can't help thinking that drawing attention to its non-enforcement might not necessarily have the intended effect ...
Agreed Dave.
-
I agree as wll.
If you bring to the attention that this law exists and the motion to scrap it is defeated, it then brings its existance back to the fore and it might cause even bigger problems in the future.
-
We Brits are lucky enough to live in a country where laws that are generally regarded as silly, like this one, tend not to be actively enforced.
I can't help thinking that drawing attention to its non-enforcement might not necessarily have the intended effect ...
Are you allowed to rebroadcast (as an example) Heathrow ATC on the web?
It is my opinion that "silly" laws should simply not exist instead of existing and authorities not looking at them. Anyway that would bring us to a discussion on how laws are interpreted all over the world...
-
i`ve just registered on the site and given them a blast
-
A terrorist strike could change the law again/ its a dodgy topic.
-
I would love to have LHR, LGW ect re-broadcast as it is a long trip there from "Down Under" and I do miss listening to the London traffic.
I have never really understood those who say that the ban is partly in place to protect against terrorism. I don't think that the terrorists are ever very observant about following "the laws of the land". I would imagine it is against the law to let off bombs, but it doesn't seem to stop them and nor would an enforcement of the radio monitoring ban. It only affects those law-abiding citizens who use their radios to enjoy their hobby.
My 2p worth.
Cheers
Mark
-
I think a terrorist will have his own ANRB and radio and will rely on those transmissions to do his deed rather than rely on a website
-
Hahahaha this is getting so funny. Those that say it could be used by terrorists, make me giggle. There is a zero point zero percent linkage between terrorism and recievers. That is like saying we should blanket ban nails or oyster cards because they were used by 7/7 bombers, or white vans as previously used by the IRA. This law was written because in 1949 there was no pure recieving equipment. Morse keys and early radios could transmit, which can be used maliciously. There was an issue with organised crime listening to police frequencies, but they are now fully encrypted. The WTA should retain full licencing and enforcement on transcievers as originally designed, but should remove all reference to multiband receiver equipment.
-
I think a terrorist will have his own ANRB and radio and will rely on those transmissions to do his deed rather than rely on a website
Haven't noticed any network coverage from the Pakistan/Afghan border recently?
They must have turned off the "share data" option ?
Anyhow, the current database is in such disarray, they wouldn't have a clue as to what they were tracking anyway!
:-)
Good post ACW - spot on!
-
Hahahaha this is getting so funny. Those that say it could be used by terrorists, make me giggle. There is a zero point zero percent linkage between terrorism and recievers. That is like saying we should blanket ban nails or oyster cards because they were used by 7/7 bombers, or white vans as previously used by the IRA. This law was written because in 1949 there was no pure recieving equipment. Morse keys and early radios could transmit, which can be used maliciously. There was an issue with organised crime listening to police frequencies, but they are now fully encrypted. The WTA should retain full licencing and enforcement on transcievers as originally designed, but should remove all reference to multiband receiver equipment.
Terrorist in Ireland/world used to listen to local airports, and using something like say the airnav would be a help to them.
Now the encrypt side of it if you have enough money you can buy hardware/software to decode any radio system.
As the British army found out about the clansman radios in Afghanistan.
and there talk the bowman system is the same,
that why i say its a dodgy topic, i agree the law needs to be change but for the right reasons and to save a terrorist attack.
-
We Brits are lucky enough to live in a country where laws that are generally regarded as silly, like this one, tend not to be actively enforced.
I can't help thinking that drawing attention to its non-enforcement might not necessarily have the intended effect ...
Are you allowed to rebroadcast (as an example) Heathrow ATC on the web?
It is my opinion that "silly" laws should simply not exist instead of existing and authorities not looking at them. Anyway that would bring us to a discussion on how laws are interpreted all over the world...
Dave - totally agree.
Airnav - Are you allowed to rebroadcast (as an example) Heathrow ATC on the web? NO.
-
The problem with a silly law that is not policed is that the real honest guys abide by it and the less honest ignore it
-
Hahahaha this is getting so funny. Those that say it could be used by terrorists, make me giggle. There is a zero point zero percent linkage between terrorism and recievers. The WTA should retain full licencing and enforcement on transcievers as originally designed, but should remove all reference to multiband receiver equipment.
Terrorist in Ireland/world used to listen to local airports, and using something like say the airnav would be a help to them.
Now the encrypt side of it if you have enough money you can buy hardware/software to decode any radio system.
As the British army found out about the clansman radios in Afghanistan.
and there talk the bowman system is the same,
that why i say its a dodgy topic, i agree the law needs to be change but for the right reasons and to save a terrorist attack.
In which scenario are you thinking. This would mean you are thinking about criminal elements using radio recievers to support indirect fire on a target. Again the risk assessment is that there is no credible evidence that this could be successful. A complete red herring. Scanners or even live radar replays are zero factor in the types of attacks that could be successful.
Criminal elements will use direct fire weapons if they chose to utilise this form of attack, as occured with the PFLP attack on El Al jet in Paris 1975 using RPGs. Whether or not they had a scanner or radar replay was irrelevant and had no bearing on any targetting, they could see and target the aircraft visually, other methods would be ancilliary. Would you discriminate if another member of their organisation was further up the approach and warned the attacker by mobile phone that the intended target is on its way. At the end of the day airport arrival boards online also give this info. Use of any extenal device is extraneous to the act and a red herring. Direct fire targetting using the Mk1 eyeball is the only thing we should be interdicting, legislating against.
Turning to your second point on encryption. The decryption of security forces radio transmissions for direct support of wider criminal activity should in my opinion be clarified in the WTA with a maximum penalty. This of course would not affect the free broadcast of ATC messages, as they provide no benefit to other criminal activity.
-
The problem with a silly law that is not policed is that the real honest guys abide by it and the less honest ignore it.
And the problem with that is ... ?
-
The problem with a silly law that is not policed is that the real honest guys abide by it and the less honest ignore it
That's also the problem with the perfectly sound laws that are not policed.
Peronally I would prefer a government committment not to introduce any more laws unless or until all the existing ones were being enforced.
If they want to repeal anything, let's start with all the guff from Brussels.
-
If they want to repeal anything, let's start with all the guff from Brussels.
Here here!
Anyone got a link to where we can post for this one?
I'd be on it like a shot.
-
Anyone got a link to where we can post for this one?
Submit your suggestion at http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws
-
The problem with a silly law that is not policed is that the real honest guys abide by it and the less honest ignore it.
And the problem with that is ... ?
The honest people get inconvenienced. If the law is unnecessary then it should be removed so that the honest people do not get messed around.
PS - I live in a country where if a law is not obeyed then they do not police it, they just make it stricter.
For example there was a road with a 120km/h speed limit which was broken by a number of people so the limit was reduced to 100kmph. All that meant is that more people went over the limit so they reduced it to 80kmph - still no policing. So the honest people drive at 80 on a road that is suitable for 120kmph and those that do not abide by the laws drive at the speed they feel like driving. There are also substantially more people driving over 80 than were driving over 120. Guess what - the accident rate has not come down.
-
Chris11, You must, like me, be from the Netherlands.. :-)
In the Netherlands in a recent law it is forbidden to monitor AIS signals, everything else is free; You may just not give the information further to anyone else!
But in practice, some skipper who finds a website where realtime AIS found, must self take action (go to court) to stop it, government wouldn't do that themselves.
jannuh
AIS, live Marine comms, Planeplotter and Air comms online ;-)
-
I generally think that the use of scanners at airports is more than often ignored. Manchester Airport Viewing park is the one I use the most. Virtually everybody openly uses a scanner. The police regularly patrol round. I have never seen anybody questioned about their use. In fact they actively encourage the enthusiasts to look out for anything suspicious. Manchester maybe more relaxed than other airports. I know at Leeds, people sit in the terminal using scanners. Maybe we should just let things be and not draw attention to it.
-
I generally think that the use of scanners at airports is more than often ignored. Manchester Airport Viewing park is the one I use the most. Virtually everybody openly uses a scanner. The police regularly patrol round. I have never seen anybody questioned about their use. In fact they actively encourage the enthusiasts to look out for anything suspicious. Manchester maybe more relaxed than other airports. I know at Leeds, people sit in the terminal using scanners. Maybe we should just let things be and not draw attention to it.
Casual use of scanners is generally ignored. However the CAA do go after and shut down people trying to rebroadcast RT transmissions from non-commercial stations on the web with sites like LiveATC.net or dxradio.co.uk
This is the part that is enforced and need repealing.
-
I agree, I would love to have listening to ATC legal, but the thing I do not get is, It is a law but most people carry on and ignore it?
I am in for making it legal, what harm can it do?
Thanks
John