UK ATC Listening Ban: Support Repeal Proposal

[Marpleman]

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!

[air7677]

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.

[bratters]

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.

[Chris11]

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

[ACW367]

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.

  

[DaveReid]

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 ... ?

[bratters]

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.

[Marpleman]

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.

[tarbat]

Anyone got a link to where we can post for this one?

Submit your suggestion at http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws

[Chris11]

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.

[jannuh]

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  ;-)

[AlanF]

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.

[ACW367]

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.

[Johnn]

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