Peter, I think it could be argued that in the UK, aviation and marine channels are like CB, so that if we talk on the radio we expect anyone to hear and perhaps record what we say.
But rather than ask us, why not put your question to OFCOM?
LeSving wrote:
As long as they are not encrypted, they are considered public.
Not here. 194 states, 194 different laws.
LeSving wrote:
You simply cannot do that in a public space using open communication channels.
In my country, you can.
LeSving wrote:
Privacy requires that you do something so that other people understand it is something private
Not here. 194 states, 194 different laws.
Peter, I think it could be argued that in the UK, aviation and marine channels are like CB, so that if we talk on the radio we expect anyone to hear and perhaps record what we say.
You could argue that, but you’d be wrong. Aviation broadcasts are intended for pilots of aircraft in the air or on the ground at the time, as the case may be.
You could ask OFCOM but their answer will probably match this page on the OFCOM website:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/spectrum-enforcement/guidance
As the guidance points out, not only is it an offence to listen but also to disclose anything that you illegally listened to. So every time someone listens to your illegal recording you commit another criminal offence.
Lovely, eh?
what_next wrote:
Not here. 194 states, 194 different laws.
I think until year 2000 or something it was “illegal” to listen to police radios (police frequencies on the VHF band). This stopped when it was made clear that there was no legal basis for it in the laws. Around the same time, or maybe a bit later? privacy laws started to be more detailed, in connection with internet, e-mail, mobile phones and so on. The police (obliged to follow the law) had no other option but to renew the whole communication structure to an encrypted standard. Encryption is the only legal way to claim privacy on any radio channel. The reason is very simple, you have to willfully do an (illegal usually) act, de-crypt in this case, or else how can anyone prove you have done something illegal.
You cannot go to the toilet in the middle of the public road, and at the same time demand privacy. You can however, go to a public restroom, lock the door and sue anyone who brakes open the door and posts pictures of you on the internet.
I think you are actually talking about a different thing. With a radio telephony license that enables you to own and use a transmitter, there is a clause saying you agree to not spread information obtained on the radio. This is just part of the contract between you and the authorities, and has nothing to do with privacy laws, or any laws for that matter. The worst thing that can happen is the authorities comes and take your telephony license because you have broken the contract. I have never heard of that happened though.
LeSving wrote:
to own and use a transmitter, there is a clause saying you agree to not spread information obtained on the radio
And what information would one obtain by using a transmitter?
I don’t see what’s hard about the concept of it being unlawful to listen to radio communications that aren’t intended for you. Even if they’re not encrypted. I can leave my front door unlocked and wide open – it’s still a criminal offence to steal my lunch. Criminal acts need some kind of intentional act of will, for sure, but you don’t just fall over in the kitchen one day and find your receiver has accidentally turned itself on, tuned itself to ATC or police frequencies and set the volume to an audible level – these are all intentional acts.
LeSving wrote:
This stopped when it was made clear that there was no legal basis for it in the laws.
Again, I repeat myself, not everywhere. Where I live, paragraph 89 Telekommunikationsgesetz (telecommunications law) explicitely forbids to listen to radio communications not intended for you. Encrypted or not makes no difference at all.
LeSving wrote:
You cannot go to the toilet in the middle of the public road, and at the same time demand privacy.
Again, I repeat myself, not everywhere. Where I live, articles 1 and 2 of the constitution and paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 33 of “Kunsturheberrechtsgeset” (copyright law) forbid the publication of pictures and other recordings of individuals without their consent. You are allowed to record a video of the person who misuses a public road as toilet, but if you publish that video without his permission (e.g. on YouTube) you commit a felony.
I don’t think anybody is arguing with the grammatical meaning of whatever law there is.
The Q I posted is whether there have been any prosecutions.
What-next reported some in Germany. Have these been to individuals who pi55sed off the establishment (as in e.g. the Brits who went plane spotting to Greece and got arrested, 100% predictably)?
Has anyone been prosecuted over youtube or vimeo videos?
Peter wrote:
What-next reported some in Germany. Have these been to individuals who pi55sed off the establishment
Something like this I guess. Police officers like to be taken seriously around here – everywhere. So whenever a police car drives by a group of plane spotters who hold airband scanners to their ears, the policemen expect them to hide those at least as long as they are in sight. Just like you don’t walk over a red pedestrian traffic light while in view of a police officer. If you do something illegal in plain view of a law enforcement person he has no choice but report it.
Regarding recorded air band transmissions on YouTube, I guess that the authorities will not take measures against those on their own. They have more important things to do. But if someone recognises himself in one of those videos and doesn’t want the world to know when and where he has been flying, things might be different. If he informs the authorities about it, they have to investigate. The chances for that are probably minimal, but not zero.
I think that you could form an argument, one that wouldn’t be unreasonable, that all aircraft on a particular frequency are the intended recipient of the transmission. French ATC talking to French aircraft in French is a common complaint among non-French speaking pilots. Pilots often argue that it degrades situational awareness.
So it’s not unreasonable to argue that it’s intentional that everyone on the frequency can listen in, so that they can build up their situational awareness.
If this argument is accepted, then you’re not simply overhearing a transmission by accident, but you are one of the intended recipients. That changes things a bit in the UK I believe.
