New: Automatic Squawk Alerts on Twitter, Facebook and Forum

[bratters]

My last word:

Some years ago I consulted various interested parties including NATS and Ofcom about a similar matter. These messages are transmitted by a licenced sender to a licenced receiver. They are not in the public domain; they are not meant to be in the public domain and therefore they should not be intercepted and published.

I repeat my SkyNews analogy. Consider Sky broadcasting a "breaking-news" hijack alert while at the same time the security services are desperately trying to keep things under wraps. All hell would break loose - and rightly so. Would things be any different were the Hijack alert to be tweated or put on YouTube?? No - equal stupidity.

And this applies to all alerts - there is a duty on the parties involved not to unnecessarily alarm the public.

Fortunately SKY and the other major broadcasters are unlikely to use hacked info.  or to publish without checking first. But this is not the case with Twitter and YouTube where it is the contributor who is responsible.

[Marpleman]

Initially, I wasn't going to bother posting on this topic, but having thought about it long and hard.........................

Why,why. why is time being wasted, and attention drawn towards this "gimmick", when there remains countless issues with the existing application we are using?

What would the users really want?

A fix for all the ongoing bugs? Yes
Some long overdue help for the Updater team? Yes
A credible update on MLAT? Yes

The forum members keep asking for some movement on all the above, yet are told resource is scarse, so we have to be patient.

You clearly have plentiful resource to go off and develop a diversion elsewhere, on what (although I admitedly have no knowledge or understanding of) appears at the very least to be a controversial if not illegal practice!

What enhancement does this rubbish seriously give the users?

I've not even mentioned ShipTrax...........................

I think it's time common sense prevailed over all this

Get back on track, and give the users something useful!

Regards

Rich

EDIT - I wrote the above before stumbling up on the new part of the board relating to "squawk alerts"

I cannot believe you're willing to post onto the internet, details of a "supposed" hijack of an EasyJet flight - apart from this potentially being very distressing to some people who may have family onboard that particular flight, it does make the site look incredibly silly in my opinion - ok, we may know the reasons why this happened, but many don't appreciate this do they?

I'm flabbergasted!

[CoastGuardJon]

My last word:

Some years ago I consulted various interested parties including NATS and Ofcom about a similar matter. These messages are transmitted by a licenced sender to a licenced receiver. They are not in the public domain; they are not meant to be in the public domain and therefore they should not be intercepted and published.

I repeat my SkyNews analogy. Consider Sky broadcasting a "breaking-news" hijack alert while at the same time the security services are desperately trying to keep things under wraps. All hell would break loose - and rightly so. Would things be any different were the Hijack alert to be tweated or put on YouTube?? No - equal stupidity.

And this applies to all alerts - there is a duty on the parties involved not to unnecessarily alarm the public.

Fortunately SKY and the other major broadcasters are unlikely to use hacked info.  or to publish without checking first. But this is not the case with Twitter and YouTube where it is the contributor who is responsible.

Hi John,
Many thanks for your contributions above, and I have to say, on consideration of your valuable and valid points, that I agree with you wholeheartedly about that side of the discussion; but I still feel that the issue needs testing - when you go to any airport or air show, you see hundreds of enthusiasts using airband and scanning receivers, and on this point the law needs to be pushed, tested and changed in free and democratic societies.   Technically illegal.    At the time these laws were made, very necessary, but anyone up to no good would carry on regardless.   Times, communications and technology have changed so hugely in the subsequent decades, that the law is now totally out of date and unfit for purpose, and urgently needs revision.

[tarbat]

So retailers such as Maplins, ML&S, etc. are breaking the law by running Radarbox in their stores?  Unlike a scanner, which can be used to scan "legal" frequencies, the Radarbox only has one purpose, which is "illegal".

[CoastGuardJon]

So retailers such as Maplins, ML&S, etc. are breaking the law by running Radarbox in their stores?  Unlike a scanner, which can be used to scan "legal" frequencies, the Radarbox only has one purpose, which is "illegal".

Hi Chris, How's tricks? - Good, I trust.     Yes, they probably are, but as long as no one complains, is anyone going to take any action, when there are far bigger and badder fish to fry!   It's all a question of resources these days, and there ain't much to spare, a copper (a beat PC, not any sort of specialist) recently blue lighted 80 miles from Helston (sw Cornwall) to the scene of a small helicopter crash at Marhamchurch, (nr Bude, n Cornwall) - presumable as there was no-one else nearer, and obviously drastically reducing cover in Helston area..............., I had an AM CB set (well 2 actually on separate occasions) confiscated around 1976, when I was still a PC - post office officials weren't interested in who the individuals were - but if you wanted to dispute the confiscation, you would've had to go to Court to do so, and then face the consequences.   Well, the rest is history, the Government had to give way and allow, CB, but what a cr*p system they chose (in spite?), but if there hadn't been all the illegal activity, the law would never have been altered or new laws introduced to permit CB at all, I still have 3 illegals now that I'll never part with!   The best is the Uniden 2830 - a semi-legal amateur rig that is readily converted by connecting 2 pins to cover 26 - 30 MHz, on AM, FM, USB, LSB and CW modes with 10 - 25W output!

[Burnley]

A harmless hobby that should have had the rules changed some time ago.  Even letting people gain a license in some way to monitor if they don't abuse it.  I'd be happy to pay for a license, and it's a good money earner for the Government.

[airdata]

I have to agree with Marpleman's post above.  I cant' imagine that anyone except for the sensationalist media would be interested in this.  We've been waiting over a year now for the new version that eliminates all the software bugs that exist in version 4.03.  How much longer do I have to keep unticking and ticking the "Process hardware flights" box just to see aircraft actually on the map even though they show as being tracked in the flight list.  I had to do this at least 12 times today.  Airnav, please put some priority on sorting the software bugs before embarking on gimmicks.