Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
#1845515
T67M wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:Whilst I'm fully aware of the potential air-to-air benefits, we really must resolve the privacy issues and ensure our data remains air-to-air, air-to-traffic control only. The day it is announced that EC is to become mandatory, will be the same day I petition OfCom to go after every single FR24 et al, receiver station under Section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act.


The problem is that criminals by definition don't obey the law, and we cannot put the Software Defined Radio genii back in the bottle. The problem is that (almost) all of the current EC transmitters are fundamentally insecure from a privacy point of view. Changing the receiving end isn't the solution - it's the sending end which needs to change to achieve what you're looking for.


The transmitters and protocol doesn't need to be secure. As it is at the moment, an engine thief can sit with a phone using starbucks free WiFi to research and locate engines in any part of the country. ADS-B websites like FR24 make that simple, as demonstrated in my earlier post.

Under Section 48, the interception and retransmission of voice or data not intended for you, is a criminal offence. Any pilot fitting EC is doing it to transmit to other aircraft and ATC stations only, not for the benefit of random geeks that get a kick out of relaying it, not for criminals looking to steal engines and not for nimbys to spy on GA movements.

Why isn't there any websites relaying ATC from UK airports? Because it is illegal, so why is the rebroadcasting of ADS-B allowed when it is clearly a criminal offence?

As a footnote, I think Rotax thefts are likely to be less frequent now brexit has made exporting them much more difficult.
Aerials, lobstaboy liked this
#1845566
Under Section 48, the interception and retransmission of voice or data not intended for you, is a criminal offence. Any pilot fitting EC is doing it to transmit to other aircraft and ATC stations only, not for the benefit of random geeks that get a kick out of relaying it, not for criminals looking to steal engines and not for nimbys to spy on GA movements.


I dont dispute the law, but it is interesting a blind eye seems to be turned to the activities of flight trackers. I wonder if there is an argument they arent caught by section 48, or, there are other reasons?
#1845570
Pete L wrote:Bit like Uber - preferring to break the law and then have the discussion. Although I suspect the operator could make a claim that the users who do the monitoring are the actual lawbreakers and the central site is just working with data.


The second part of your thought is interesting. Were this not (possibly) the case, they would seem an easy target presumably for Ofcom or whoever it is now. The same would be true of live UK ATC but they seem to have shut this down so I it seems more like a blind eye.

Some of the information is gathered by satellite so I guess this makes it even more difficult if the servers are not in the UK.
#1845609
I put in a request to the CAA, just to get their official view on G-INFO - I pointed out I had received unwanted marketing material & that my information was being published on the various trackers.

Here is the response, looks like they hide behind the ANO & CAA Regs 1991. A bit of a cop-out as in 1991 there was no internet, no EC, no social media !

I am writing in respect of your enquiry relating to ‘G-INFO’ which, as you know, is the UK Register of Civil Aircraft.

The CAA is responsible for maintaining the UK Register of Civil Aircraft in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 2016 (ANO). The ANO details what information must be held against each aircraft and this includes the name and address of the registered owner of the aircraft. The CAA is also required by the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 1991 to make the UK Register available for inspection by any person.

The CAA does not insist that you use your residential address. If you wish to supply an alternate address please advise the CAA by following the process at https://www.caa.co.uk/Aircraft-register ... t-details/, and there is no charge for the re-issue of a Certificate of Registration for an address change.

Should you have further concerns you can contact the Information Commissioner at:-

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx

However, you should be aware that this matter was raised with the ICO previously and they agreed with the CAA's position.
By Rjk983
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845661
ls8pilot wrote:
IMCR wrote:Presumably the suggestion is either an office address or a PO box?


Neither is really what you want in case of emergency.... but I guess those are the choices.


And eventually it will achieve the aim, once you move house as the previous registration details are all available.
#1845864
ls8pilot wrote:
IMCR wrote:Presumably the suggestion is either an office address or a PO box?
Neither is really what you want in case of emergency.... but I guess those are the choices.
Hilarious, the 'solution' is you you hide your address, they won't secure the data they publish. It looks like a slam dunk GDPR violation, by the government!
Meanwhile, every insurance call insist on spamming my personal data so that I can prove I'm me, without them proving who they are... It's a brilliant way of conditioning the unwary, aged or feeble minded to be victims of telephone fraud, nice job data commissioner.
FTAOD No, I haven't been in an accident that wasn't my fault , I just took the car to a garage for a minor service,.... and they sold my data.
(I make sure all my accidents ARE my fault ;-} )
#1845881
HansGruber wrote:Meanwhile, every insurance call insist on spamming my personal data so that I can prove I'm me


My usual script unless I am feeling very chilled

Caller: Can you just confirm your address?

Me: Yes. Certainly

Long pause

Caller: I'd like you to confirm your address please

Me: I know, I am waiting for you to suggest what it might be and then I will confirm it if it is correct

Caller: A bit baffled. This is for security I would like you to tell me your address so that I know it is you

Me: Why have we suddenly changed from 'confirming' my address to me telling you what it is?

etc etc etc

Rob P
#1846002
Hmmm, just to go back to @Dave W's OP, I have just come across this YouTube video.
Associated AVweb article here: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bridge-stunt-leads-to-ads-b-revocation/

OK, that's the US of A but given the oft complained about CAA approach to 'just culture' or 'guilty until proven innocent' would you believe it couldn't happen here in the soon to be '...best place in the world got GA'?
#1846024
“Busted and revoked pilot’s licence”

Wow! All because of ADSB?

Well, no.

All because a very high profile 78 year old pilot who should have known much better, decided to fly under a bridge. Just for the hell of it!

Yes, but even then not fingered because of ADSB! Martha Lunken’s stunt was caught on a camera on the bridge, which is what drew attention to their stupidity! Only having identified the pilot did the FAA look at their ‘ADSB out’ to find they had switched off ADSB in order to conceal their cowhand tendency!.

It was THAT single act that has led to license revocation.

No sympathy whatsoever!

Should EC (particularly if based on ADSB) become mandatory, which many here are advocating in order to enhance safety. I would fully expect any CAA legislation to mirror the FAA’s with regard to concealing rule breaking.

Oh. In case anyone is struggling with the concept of ‘just culture’. It’s a mechanism for handling those making mistakes. It’s not a mechanism to forgive those who intentionally break the law and go to great lengths to conceal their illegal acts!
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10