Secrecy of Radio Communications

[nomorecatering]

It comes up again from study points in presentations.
What is secret about radio comms, if it's plastered all over Youtube.
What is supposed to be secret.....what do we have to keep secret from the public?
Am I supposed to keep my ERSA, DAPS and AIP in a locked cabinet at all times.
Why is secrecy even mentioned when there's 1 million+ Youtube videos that contain aviation radio calls, even ones made by the FAA, CASA, EASA etc.

[currawong]

Can't say.

It's a secret...

:E

[swells]

Aren’t they downloadable on the web?

[Lead Balloon]

Who’s telling you that radio communications are supposed to be “secret” and on what basis is the person making that assertion?

[Sunfish]

The old comms regulations when I sat my marine licence were that while you couldn’t be prevented from overhearing, you weren’t allowed to make use of the information.

[Torres]

Same secrecy provisions apply to Amateur Radio License holders who generally have access to far larger sections of the radio spectrum. Probably a bit out of date now with digital and coded transmissions but still in the rules.

[Ixixly]

The secrecy rule is there so that it's illegal for everyone to keep talking about that one bloody time I accidentally did the passenger briefing over the radio!! :P

[CaptainMidnight]

The Wireless Telegraphy Regulations originating in 1905(!) and in force up till 1980 had provisions re secrecy, and is no doubt the source of "rules" originally published in the various radiocommunications licensing schemes (amateur radio service, marine etc.). Copy below to bring back fond memories to some :)

Those Regulations were subsequently incorporated into a variety of acts including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, Privacy Act etc. and in these the requirements for privacy tend to be specific e.g. the privacy of phone calls, electronic messaging etc. and personal information.

In short, if something is transmitted by radio of a general nature and not being matters covered by the telecommunications or privacy acts I don't believe any secrecy applies, hence the streaming of airband, marine, emergency services communications etc. despite what the originators might like. As a result, police and some other services have moved to using encryption, taking their own steps to preserve the secrecy and privacy of their communications.

However I stand to be corrected, if someone can point to a specific current act or regulation :)

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS - SECT. 36.
Provisions as to secrecy 36. (1) Any person operating an authorized station or having access to wireless messages transmitted or received by an authorized station shall make, in accordance with a form approved by the Minister, a declaration that he will preserve the secrecy of all commercial, naval, military or air force wireless messages transmitted or received by that station.

(2) The licensee of an authorized station shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure the secrecy of wireless communications transmitted or received by the station.

(3) A person shall not, without lawful authority, divulge, or make any use whatsoever of, any portion of the text of any message transmitted or received by any station whether situated in Australia or elsewhere, or disclose in any manner whatsoever the existence of any such message.

[Lead Balloon]

How quaint!

I note that the ‘unit of competency’ called ‘maintain aircraft radio communications’ for aviation-related diplomas published on the training.gov.au website lists as ‘assessment requirements’ knowledge of ‘responsibilities of an aeronautical radio operator, including secrecy of communications and unauthorised transmissions.’

Methinks the secrecy bit is based on folklore rather than existing law, at least in relation to the content of civil aircraft-related radiocomms. I could be wrong. But it would be a very frequently breached law!

[Duck Pilot]

No secrecies in aviation RT, just listen to Live ATC, quite a few Australian airports on it.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Lotsa airport 'operators' listening in to get a callsign, or auto tape / chip - so that they can post out the 'landing fee' invoice...….So, use somebody else's c/s.....

"FKB, You're where? Doing What?"
So this 'wacker' again says wot he says......U know.....'This is FKB...doing whatever'...…..
That bit was a troo story which occurred at Kunners not long after the FSU was shut down and remoted back to Perth FSC.

Then, miracle of miracles......up popped the REAL 'FKB' (Fk-28 RPT) on descent for a landing, with the remark, I'm gunna see U'..!!!

Dreadfully quiet after that...…….
Cheeerrrsss….

[BDAttitude]

From ITU Radio Regulations Vol. 1 from 2016

Administrative Provisions:
17.1 In the application of the appropriate provisions of the Constitution and the Convention, administrations bind themselves to take the necessary measures to prohibit and prevent:
17.2 a) the unauthorized interception of radiocommunications not intended for the general use of the public;
17.3 b) the divulgence of the contents, simple disclosure of the existence, publication or any use whatever, without authorization of information of any nature whatever obtained by the interception of the radiocommunications mentioned in No. 17.2

18.4 § 2 The holder of a licence is required to preserve the secrecy of telecommunications, as provided in the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Convention. Moreover, the licence shall mention, specifically or by reference, that if the station includes a receiver, the interception of radiocommunication correspondence, other than that which the station is authorized to receive, is forbidden, and that in cases where such correspondence is involuntarily received, it shall not be reproduced, nor communicated to third parties, nor used for any purpose, and even its existence shall not be disclosed

Aeronautical Services:
36.3 § 3 Except as otherwise provided for in these Regulations, the person responsible, as well as all the persons who may have knowledge of any information whatever obtained by means of the radiocommunication service, are placed under the obligation of observing and ensuring the secrecy of correspondence.

37.11 § 4 Each administration shall take the necessary steps to place operators under the obligation to preserve the secrecy of correspondence as provided for in No. 18.4.


I guess some countries fall short of enforcing what they signed up for. My home country doesn't. You won't find any ATC streams from this little part of the world.

[Whopity]

Much of this goes back to the days of ships radio officers who were placed on ships to provide an element of safety. Much of the time they had little to do and to pay for them they would pass messages on behalf of the public (passengers) for which a charge was made. It was very like the land based telegram service. It was not unreasonable to expect a degree of confidentiality regarding such messages and so the secrecy of communication came into place. None of these messages involved the operation of the ship, but that was also covered by the legislation.

[Lead Balloon]

The questions remain: (1) Why does ‘secrecy’ of civil aviation radiocomms continue to be a ‘unit of competency’ in some civil aviation-related qualification, and (2) What is the current source of that obligation?


Methinks (still) that this ‘competency’ has been folklore-based for some time.

[zanthrus]

I have never heard of this regulation in over 30 years of flying. Why? Because no one cares.

[Sunfish]

The operative word is “correspondence”. We are not talking about announcements. If you are flying and a passenger has a medical episode and you relay details of their name and condition to a doctor on the ground then that is correspondence - a communication that is normally private. If joe blow intercepts it and uses the information for example blabbing to a newspaper, then that is illegal.

[Lead Balloon]

Under what law, precisely?

[exfocx]

Ixixly, lololol.......you only did it once, you're bloody good!

[Sunfish]

Wireless telegraphy Act S36. Refers to messages - obviously private, not broadcasts. And “Authorised stations.” You can blab about what are broadcasts, not about private matters.

[CaptainMidnight]

Wireless telegraphy Act S36.
No longer in force.

Read posts from the top.

[MJA Chaser]

The current Act that is in force in Australia is found here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00336
There are many regulations and licence conditions with various names that are derived or based on this act. You would need to review them all to see if any secrecy porvision applies to the license you are operationg under, such as an aeronautical license, the license conditions for this are found here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L00495 . No mention of secrecy in that.
In its assesment criteria the UoC AVIE4001 - Maintain aircraft radio communications does refer to:

responsibilities of an aeronautical radio operator:

secrecy of communications
unauthorised transmissions


Though the actual compentancy document found here: https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AVIE4001 makes no mention of secrecy.

Must be a CASA thing I'd say......

[Lead Balloon]

Almost certainly folklore, then. Probably the product of someone with 50 years’ experience, comprising the same year over and over again.

I remember being over the middle of the Simpson Desert on Melbourne Cup day a few years ago and someone broadcast the name of the winning horse on 121.5. I told my friends in the cockpit the name of the winning horse. I’ll hand myself into police. (I hope the criminal that mis-used 121.5 hands himself in as well.)

[MJA Chaser]

And in news just in this is from the Maritime Radio Handbook:
10. Secrecy of Communications
10.1 Under the International Radio Regulations, an operator and any other person who becomes aquainted with the contents of a radiotelegram, radiotelephone call or radiotelex call is placed under an obligation to preserve the secrecy of such information
10.2 Secrecy restrictions do no apply to distress, urgency or safety alerts or messages or any message that is addressed to "all stations".

[Duck Pilot]

I’m 49 years old now and I remember as a very young child listening to TAA and Ansett 727s and DC9s together with IPEC Argosys’ going in Launceston at night communicating with Launy Tower, listening to the pilots on a big radio - not a scanner back in those days, thanks to my old man. It would have been back in the mid seventies, probably about 74 and 75.

So exactly what has changed in 45 years or more? I’ve also got a scanner stuffed away in a draw somewhere that I haven’t used for years, however I could throw a few new batteries in it and scan the airwaves to my hearts content. It’s about the 4th airband receiver that I’ve owned.

There are more important things in the world to deal with than these useless regs, that have probably been drafted and implemented by a few public servants on the gravy train milking taxpayers.

[Lead Balloon]

And in news just in this is from the Maritime Radio Handbook:
10. Secrecy of Communications
10.1 Under the International Radio Regulations, an operator and any other person who becomes aquainted with the contents of a radiotelegram, radiotelephone call or radiotelex call is placed under an obligation to preserve the secrecy of such information
10.2 Secrecy restrictions do no apply to distress, urgency or safety alerts or messages or any message that is addressed to "all stations".
None of which has anything to do with the legal obligations of a pilot (of whatever description - flying or floating) in Australia.

[MJA Chaser]

Agreed. There is no legal obligation under Austrlaian law for secrecy of this type of general radio transmission.

[Sunfish]

you miss the difference between broadcast and message. As a licensed radio operator, you are entitled to pass messages on behalf of passengers that have nothing to do with aviation. An example “boss would you ring 5674534 and tell mrs. bloggs that her husband wants her urgently to reduce the reserve on the house by $20000 and sell it quick smart..” You are legally entitled to pass that message, but you and any authorised station listeners are prohibited by law from divulging or making use of that information.

If this was not the case then the regs would say that you are not allowed to use the radio for anything other than operational comms. That is what was taught to me on my marine VHF and HF Courses many years ago. I know it’s unlikely that this would arise today, but it’s still there.

To put it another way, if someone asks you to send a private message on their behalf or you overhear one, you aren’t supposed to blab about the contents. This is the same confidentiality condition that applies to Telstra, Optus, etc.

....and yes, I have heard hubby telling the missus he has to work late and then call the girlfriend saying he will be right around.:p

[CaptainMidnight]

“boss would you ring 5674534 and tell mrs. bloggs that her husband wants her urgently to reduce the reserve on the house by $20000 and sell it quick smart..”
I would expect the husband and your boss to give you a severe kick if you passed such a message over airband, which is clearly an unsecure and non-private mechanism. Everyone knows many people have receivers and scanners, which is why telephone calls instead are used to provide privacy and confidentiality.

but you and any authorised station listeners are prohibited by law from divulging or making use of that information.
Quote the "law" please -

This is the same confidentiality condition that applies to Telstra, Optus, etc.
No it isn't..

Privacy and confidentiality of telecommunications and messaging systems are specifically covered in the Act I mentioned. Privacy and confidentiality for such communications includes radio communications if the radio link is directly connected into the PSTN e.g. cordless phones, a telephone call made via one of the HF RadTel networks.

If instead the radio communication is simply people conversing over airband, CB radio or whatever, there is no privacy nor should there be any expectation of same.