BA084 security alert: LHR
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't quite see the problem WRT disclosing information from communications on ATC frequencies; in the thread referenced, the OFCOM material quoted mentions no such restriction - PPRuNe Radar produces the 'passing on information' offence out of a hat, so to speak.
I can't see it as being an issue; unlike, for instance, police transmissions, ATC transmissions are of course on widely-published frequencies.
I can't see it as being an issue; unlike, for instance, police transmissions, ATC transmissions are of course on widely-published frequencies.
Under Section 5(1)(b) of the WT Act 1949 it is an offence if a person
"otherwise than under the authority of a designated person,
either:
(i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not, of which neither the person using the apparatus nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient;
This means that it is illegal to listen to anything other than general reception transmissions unless you are either a licensed user of the frequencies in question or have been specifically authorised to do so by a designated person.
A designated person means:
the Secretary of State;
the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; or
any other person designated for the purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
or:
(ii) except in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of any report thereof, discloses any information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any such message, being information which would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person."
This means that it is also illegal to tell a third party what you have heard.
"otherwise than under the authority of a designated person,
either:
(i) uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not, of which neither the person using the apparatus nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient;
This means that it is illegal to listen to anything other than general reception transmissions unless you are either a licensed user of the frequencies in question or have been specifically authorised to do so by a designated person.
A designated person means:
the Secretary of State;
the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; or
any other person designated for the purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
or:
(ii) except in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of any report thereof, discloses any information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any such message, being information which would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person."
This means that it is also illegal to tell a third party what you have heard.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...info/ra169.htm
Maybe OFCOM should have a test case with an indignant scanner user and see what the courts decide ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I thought I was losing my marbles when everyone was doubting what I was saying....eh, Jericho....!!
And it provoked a bit of discussion about listening into ATC as well. I didn't realise that the law was actually laid down in this way.
Still, it will take away a bit of the interest in participating in these fora if you can't relate anything of what's been heard on ATC.
As ever,
MM
And it provoked a bit of discussion about listening into ATC as well. I didn't realise that the law was actually laid down in this way.Still, it will take away a bit of the interest in participating in these fora if you can't relate anything of what's been heard on ATC.
As ever,
MM
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Jerricho i do not believe a controller would ask a pilot if the cockpit door was locked. That is now SOP. Hence even as Heathrow director mentionos having sombody standing over your shoulder telling you what to say I do not believe it would be asked. Maybe you got caught up in the moment?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Devon
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not the first time a thread started and being hijacked and now sounds completley 
oh well we live and learn any more news about the incident or more of freedom of speech act being discussed
oh well we live and learn any more news about the incident or more of freedom of speech act being discussed
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is so exciting it has not even raised a whisper on the BA bulletin board. It really is just an ordinary run of the mill incident, believe it or not! It happens so frequently- yet another boozed-up, aggressive nutter who shouldn't be allowed to hold a passport, who will be dealt with leniently by the Courts (if it ever gets there) because 'I'm just a pussy-cat, yer 'Onor, and because of an inadvertent overdose of sleeping tablets mixed with wine, I can't remember anything, so how can yer 'Onor punish me?' They all get away with it, despite behaving like disgusting savages. You should have seen the nasty, incredibly violent, drugged-up transvestite threatening AIDS to everyone I had to have restrained. Spat in almost the whole crews faces. Let off very leniently by the Australian Courts where apparently overdoing alcohol consumption is regarded a real 'boys game!', nudge nudge wink wink 'boys will be boys!'. I still don't know what that one was.
Rainboe, your attempt to characterise the working classes (with a Baldrick accent as in "so how can yer 'Onor punish me?'") as savages is admirable. However it is often the so called middle classes who get boozed up and out of control. Air Rage is classless, and not only the 18-30 charter to Palma crowd!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flash 8
I think Rainboe may have been referring here to recent case which definitely did not involve a lower case yob, but someone from the professional classes -or even more elevated.
because of an inadvertent overdose of sleeping tablets mixed with wine, I can't remember anything
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt H Peacock
HD is right. Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. You are not the intended recipient of the message. Listen if you will, act upon that information, you will not.
R1
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It even went a bit further than just the Wireless Telegraphy Act. When I first got an R/T Licence (back in Nineteen Canteen) the Official Secrets Act had also to be signed, in triplicate.
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe OFCOM should have a test case with a... scanner user and see what the courts decide ??
Not indignant; not aggressive....
I feel that they (OFCOM) won't take the bait; since they would find themselves defending the indefensible.
Listening or monitoring should, to my mind, be a given right. Passing on or using for personal gain information derived by such monitoring is a completely different matter.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nr. Edinburgh
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although in practice, nothing is likely to happen, remember that is is not only illegal to pass on information but it is illegal even to listen to any transmission for which you do not possess an operating licence.
This is mentioned in the extract of the Act in a post above.
And Joe Public generally do not get licences to receive anything other
than "Authorised Broadcast Stations" and the like (which also means that listening to a pirate music station is also an offence).
(But the odd thing is that you can buy and possess such equipment so long as you don't use it!!).
The position seems to be that although it is technically illegal, so long as no harm is done then it is tolerated - but for how long, with all of these Anti-Terrorism rules creeping in?
This is mentioned in the extract of the Act in a post above.
And Joe Public generally do not get licences to receive anything other
than "Authorised Broadcast Stations" and the like (which also means that listening to a pirate music station is also an offence).
(But the odd thing is that you can buy and possess such equipment so long as you don't use it!!).
The position seems to be that although it is technically illegal, so long as no harm is done then it is tolerated - but for how long, with all of these Anti-Terrorism rules creeping in?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flash- there was no attempt at a class thing. From the United First Class passenger who allegedly 'defecated on a First Class trolley' to the musician from R.E.M. who did a berserker to the great morass of 'run of the mill' middle class savages who let themselves go on an aeroplane, it is not a class thing. I've known stewardesses punched in the face by them, these people struggling to open doors inflight. I've taken meek alcoholics who promise no trouble and turn into monsters when airborne- I regard them all with complete contempt- no class thing involved! But they all seem to get away with it, which is why by and large, it raises little comment in the airlines involved. Because I dropped an Aitch, it doesn't mean I was making a class comment!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike America, Britain claims to see, but it does not observe...
Nice to see the debate about ATC transmissions continuing aplenty with vigour as ever, and the same entrenched stalwarts defending the barricade with the same pathetic diatribe.
The WT Act of 1949 lends itself very nicely to framing up spies and those individuals willing to perform grievances against the British Empire in a period of extreme political turmoil at a time when the iron curtain was already being drawn across Europe.
In 2006, the worlds’s changed a wee bit and the attitudes of modern society (Joe public) to politics, religion, patriotism and camaraderie mean a lot less and frankly are not issues which the state can readily depend upon to ensure national security - whether it is of her road, rail or air transport links or indeed her airspace. Indeed, developments such as the internet (prune and its subscribers included) are far guiltier of providing an arena for the development of subversive fervour relating to specialised topics (in this case, aviation) than anyone sharing a piece of information they once heard in a broadcast conversation.
The WT Act – if it were taken literally – would also suggest that no one could discuss radio programmes for fear of breaking the law. This is a pity, because I much prefer Jane Jones to John Humphreys. (Oops, sorry to let that slip – it’s a fair cop) After all, it is illegal to tape anything you hear from a commercial radio station irrespective of the nature of the license they have to broadcast. (..and rightly so)
I hope no one is under the illusion here that every law that has ever been made (ever) is defended to the last by the state at a time when that regulation might have some loose relevance to the case at hand. Besides, anyone with a Neolithic appreciation of the laws of the state should appreciate that regulations such as these would be implemented as guidance to the action of the case in question. If you were relaying the activities of a QRA base back to Moscow then I should think you would expect short shrift from a 1950s (crown) court hearing. But in the year 2006, pooh-poohing those discussing RT conversations within commercial activities in spite of the many hundreds of “more dangerous” forms of threat to Society seems more like professional anal retention than an informed appreciation of the bigger issues where air travel is concerned.
I wonder how much money and time Alistair Darling has spent on this particular issue when thinking of ways to make air travel safer. Yes tricky one that….
Admittedly, anyone espousing arguments with directly offensive intentions with malice should be dealt with accordingly and such laws (like the WT Act) implemented with full force (1950s style) but one must remain conscious of cause and effect, as thankfully the British legal system do more often than they get it wrong. Arguably, they do cock it up – one only needs to look at our immigration policy to get an understanding of the States view of ‘Right VS Might.’ Or our willingness to entertain obvious threatening individuals in our own country for many years safe in the knowledge that these individuals were direct threats to the social stability of the state and the fabric of civilised native society…
….but anyway, better switch your radio off, keep mum, and one last thing captain….
….did you remember to lock the door?
Just some w@#ker pleb sticking his oar in; obviously…
The WT Act of 1949 lends itself very nicely to framing up spies and those individuals willing to perform grievances against the British Empire in a period of extreme political turmoil at a time when the iron curtain was already being drawn across Europe.
In 2006, the worlds’s changed a wee bit and the attitudes of modern society (Joe public) to politics, religion, patriotism and camaraderie mean a lot less and frankly are not issues which the state can readily depend upon to ensure national security - whether it is of her road, rail or air transport links or indeed her airspace. Indeed, developments such as the internet (prune and its subscribers included) are far guiltier of providing an arena for the development of subversive fervour relating to specialised topics (in this case, aviation) than anyone sharing a piece of information they once heard in a broadcast conversation.
The WT Act – if it were taken literally – would also suggest that no one could discuss radio programmes for fear of breaking the law. This is a pity, because I much prefer Jane Jones to John Humphreys. (Oops, sorry to let that slip – it’s a fair cop) After all, it is illegal to tape anything you hear from a commercial radio station irrespective of the nature of the license they have to broadcast. (..and rightly so)
I hope no one is under the illusion here that every law that has ever been made (ever) is defended to the last by the state at a time when that regulation might have some loose relevance to the case at hand. Besides, anyone with a Neolithic appreciation of the laws of the state should appreciate that regulations such as these would be implemented as guidance to the action of the case in question. If you were relaying the activities of a QRA base back to Moscow then I should think you would expect short shrift from a 1950s (crown) court hearing. But in the year 2006, pooh-poohing those discussing RT conversations within commercial activities in spite of the many hundreds of “more dangerous” forms of threat to Society seems more like professional anal retention than an informed appreciation of the bigger issues where air travel is concerned.
I wonder how much money and time Alistair Darling has spent on this particular issue when thinking of ways to make air travel safer. Yes tricky one that….
Admittedly, anyone espousing arguments with directly offensive intentions with malice should be dealt with accordingly and such laws (like the WT Act) implemented with full force (1950s style) but one must remain conscious of cause and effect, as thankfully the British legal system do more often than they get it wrong. Arguably, they do cock it up – one only needs to look at our immigration policy to get an understanding of the States view of ‘Right VS Might.’ Or our willingness to entertain obvious threatening individuals in our own country for many years safe in the knowledge that these individuals were direct threats to the social stability of the state and the fabric of civilised native society…
….but anyway, better switch your radio off, keep mum, and one last thing captain….
….did you remember to lock the door?
Just some w@#ker pleb sticking his oar in; obviously…
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by speedbirdzerozeroone
The WT Act – if it were taken literally – would also suggest that no one could discuss radio programmes for fear of breaking the law. This is a pity, because I much prefer Jane Jones to John Humphreys. (Oops, sorry to let that slip – it’s a fair cop) After all, it is illegal to tape anything you hear from a commercial radio station irrespective of the nature of the license they have to broadcast. (..and rightly so)
Just some w@#ker pleb sticking his oar in; obviously…
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by speedbirdzerozeroone
Just some w@#ker pleb sticking his oar in; obviously…
You're giving the others a bad name again.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of scanners/legality/posting things heard has gone round and round on PPRune.
The facts are there. make up your own minds. No more discussion on this thread - and it is sliding rapidly downhill (and breeding......... )
The facts are there. make up your own minds. No more discussion on this thread - and it is sliding rapidly downhill (and breeding.........
)
