Radiomaritime comms and secrecy

[Roberto]

Are Maydays covered by secrecy?
likewise, Panpan and Securite messages?
I cannot find the reference in the ITU Radio Regulations, apart from the general "secrecy about communications not directed to you", those comms category above are "all stations" by definition, so seem to be freely distributable. ?
Also, is there a different legal treatment for relaying information to other radiomaritime users or external users? Apart from forum , think about relaying information to some other person whom might happen to represent a life insurance company, or similar cases.

 

[ShinyShoe]

Are Maydays covered by secrecy?
likewise, Panpan and Securite messages?
I cannot find the reference in the ITU Radio Regulations, apart from the general "secrecy about communications not directed to you", those comms category above are "all stations" by definition, so seem to be freely distributable. ?
Also, is there a different legal treatment for relaying information to other radiomaritime users or external users? Apart from forum , think about relaying information to some other person whom might happen to represent a life insurance company, or similar cases.

Not entirely sure I understand the question.

You seem to be saying "Can you share the content of a Mayday/Pan/Securite"

If the question is can you use this information for the purpose it was intended. Absolutely. So you receive a Securite Message and are in the company of 2 other boats who don't have radios - can you tell them by text message - yes. Could you upload it to the internet as a searchable document for the area - can't see why not it is intended to be used to inform mariners of a specific issue. Could you tweet it and its content... can't see why not.

You receive a MayDay 20 miles away along the Solent. HMCG are on the case. You are too far away to be of assistance. Can you tweet it... can't see a reason to do so... unless you can justify that you know there is a fleet of boats near that location who follow your twitter stream but don't have VHF... then you might be able to justify it so that they can offer assistance...

But I don't understand the life insurance question?

 

[Topcat47]

Ch 16 and possibly ch67 are basically broadcast frequencies and as a consequence both open and “not secure”. Rebroadcast or sharing by other means is not a problem. Once contact with a third party has been established and transferred to a new frequency, such correspondence is private and should be treated in confidence by anyone overhearing.

 

[ShinyShoe]

Ch 16 and possibly ch67 are basically broadcast frequencies and as a consequence both open and “not secure”. Rebroadcast or sharing by other means is not a problem. Once contact with a third party has been established and transferred to a new frequency, such correspondence is private and should be treated in confidence by anyone overhearing.

That is NOT what the law says.

 

[Topcat47]

That is NOT what the law says.

So what exactly does the law say?

 

[Roberto]

But I don't understand the life insurance question?

Apologies, I have not been clear/explicit enough.

You receive a Mayday, Pan pan or Securite, radio procedures are clear enough about the fact that there may be the need to relay the information. Classical examples Mayday Relay, or after a securite message there may be someone asking for a repeat, if no MRCC hears them then one radiomaritime station can relay the message.

Suppose you (unpersonal you of course) listen to an ongoing Mayday communication between a station in distress and the MRCC, ch16 or other working channel. You hear all the details: names, persons involved, type of accident, behaviour of people onboard, etc. The MRCC is sending the nearer Rnli boat, so there is no technical need to relay, you just listen.
Could you legally repeat orally or in writing the information you heard to other people, possibly at a later moment?
Could you legally repeat it to radiomaritime stations only (example a nearby boat), or also to you friends at home? As an example is it legal to write a post in a forum describing most/the whole of the content of the mayday you heard? Name of boat, persons involved, dynamics, outcome, etc.
The sort of details about radio communications the MAIB often write in their reports (often sentence by sentence of both stations), could it be made known to the public by other persons having heard the same conversation?

The life insurance example came from insurance people calling at hospitals and asking about health details of severely ill people for example.

 

[ShinyShoe]

Well its printed on you paperwork...

But I'd suggest you read Section 46 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act

Interception and disclosure of messages
(1)A person commits an offence if, [without lawful authority] —
(a)he uses wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of a message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither he nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient, or
(b)he discloses information as to the contents, sender or addressee of such a message.
(2)A person commits an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information only if the information disclosed by him is information that would not have come to his knowledge but for the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus by him or by another person.
(3)A person does not commit an offence under this section consisting in the disclosure of information if he discloses the information in the course of legal proceedings or for the purpose of a report of legal proceedings.
[A person does not commit an offence under this section consisting in any conduct if the conduct—
(a)constitutes an offence under section 3(1) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (offence of unlawful interception), or
(b)would do so in the absence of any lawful authority (within the meaning of section 6 of that Act).]
(4)A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

 

[ShinyShoe]

I quoted the law for Top Cat

Suppose you (unpersonal you of course) listen to an ongoing Mayday communication between a station in distress and the MRCC, ch16 or other working channel. You hear all the details: names, persons involved, type of accident, behaviour of people onboard, etc. The MRCC is sending the nearer Rnli boat, so there is no technical need to relay, you just listen.

Could you legally repeat orally or in writing the information you heard to other people, possibly at a later moment?

I'd argue that is breaching section 46-1b. However, if the RNLI then post about it on the internet - you can talk about what they posted. (46-2).
The difficulty usually lies in what you might / might not be allowed to share. So can you come ashore and say to the misses "Oooh there was a nasty head injury on another boat out there?" Probably technically not. But would anyone know. Can you come on the forum and post up something along the lines of

"Mayday in the solent this afternoon.
Boat called 'Sinking Feeling' - sounded like the skipper had been hit on the head by the boom and was in a bad way.
Anyone know what happened or how he is?" Definitely not.

But, slightly oddly, you can post exactly that information if you were told it by someone at the marina...

It would be considered seaman like to make an entry in your log, although I doubt that once you are clear you no longer need to participate in any way that the remaining conversation needs to be logged for seaman like behaviour.

Could you legally repeat it to radiomaritime stations only (example a nearby boat), or also to you friends at home? As an example is it legal to write a post in a forum describing most/the whole of the content of the mayday you heard? Name of boat, persons involved, dynamics, outcome, etc.

Some people feel they can anonymise it by not naming the boat. I'm not clear it is legal. Looking for the RNLI post and linking it and simply someone saying "Anyone know what happened" would be a far better solution...

Something is only genuinely anonymous if the people involved can not be traced. So posting tonight about a mayday heard today in the Solent... probably not truely anonymous as I can probably add information from other sources (RNLI, HMCG Press Office etc) to provide information. Posting about "A yacht going aground in the last few weeks" with no location, no name, no date... probably is anonymous. But then what is it that I am posting... Its not exactly exciting to report that at some point a yacht touched the bottom somewhere!

The sort of details about radio communications the MAIB often write in their reports (often sentence by sentence of both stations), could it be made known to the public by other persons having heard the same conversation?

MAIB would fall into Section 46-3

The life insurance example came from insurance people calling at hospitals and asking about health details of severely ill people for example.

Can't see that an insurer will be asking random sailors what they know...

 

[Roberto]

...
.

thanks! I begin to see the subtleties.
regards r

 

[mersey]

http://www.cruiserswiki.org/wiki/VHF_Procedures

And current DSC VHF holders will have signed this : https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/training/Web%20Documents/RYA%20Training/Exams/SRC_App_form_Dec2016.pdf

DECLARATION OF SECRECY IN THE OPERATION OF RADIO APPARATUS

I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not improperly divulge to any person the purport of any message which I may transmit or receive by means of any radio apparatus operated by me or which may come to my knowledge in connection with the operation of the said apparatus. In addition, I declare that all of the information that I have provided on this form is true to the best of my knowledge.

 

[rotrax]

http://www.cruiserswiki.org/wiki/VHF_Procedures

And current DSC VHF holders will have signed this : https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/training/Web%20Documents/RYA%20Training/Exams/SRC_App_form_Dec2016.pdf

DECLARATION OF SECRECY IN THE OPERATION OF RADIO APPARATUS

I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not improperly divulge to any person the purport of any message which I may transmit or receive by means of any radio apparatus operated by me or which may come to my knowledge in connection with the operation of the said apparatus. In addition, I declare that all of the information that I have provided on this form is true to the best of my knowledge.

The word " improperly " is the key in that passage.

Ambiguous - I think so, unless what and what is not improper are clearly and unambiguously stated.

As they are not, it is hard to know what is and is not proper.

 

[prv]

I'd argue that is breaching section 46-1b.

A requirement of that section is that you’re not an intended recipient. Some argue that every station is an intended recipient of a Mayday signal. I don’t know whether I fully agree with that interpretation - especially the later traffic between casualty and MRCC as the situation develops - but I don’t think it can be dismissed out of hand.

MAIB would fall into Section 46-3

MAIB reports are not legal proceedings - indeed they say so in big letters on the front

Pete

 

[duncan99210]

MAIB reports are not legal proceedings - indeed they say so in big letters on the front

Pete

MAIB investigations and subsequent reports are not judicial proceedings but they are legal ones, conducted under the UK Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012 - Regulation 5. What the report preamble does clearly state is that they cannot be used to ascribe blame.

 

[ShinyShoe]

A requirement of that section is that you’re not an intended recipient. Some argue that every station is an intended recipient of a Mayday signal. I don’t know whether I fully agree with that interpretation - especially the later traffic between casualty and MRCC as the situation develops - but I don’t think it can be dismissed out of hand.

Ah the terrible "OR" at the end of 1a that implies 1b doesn't required the conditions in 1a to apply... ...but then uses grammar to loop it back in..

In which case - the initial call is an all stations call. The subsequent communication is (almost always) directed to a named station and so is no longer directed to you.

I've never given AIS much thought - but all those shore stations receiving AIS traffic data and positing to the web are presumably using the same legal reason... AIS is an ALL STATIONS message and they are sharing that information to the wider web to enhance traffic safety...

It would seem quite legitimate to be sharing Mayday initial messages for the purpose they were made - so if you had a local "network" of people who could be able to render assistance you could share it. It still seems hard to justify (and therefore improper) posting on the forum several hours later when the incident is resolved...

There may be an arguement that some of the identifiers (ship name etc) are actually covered by GDPR...

Certainly when HMCG have flagged concerns in the past about Mayday's being shared via facebook etc it has always been with a "How would you want to hear your loved one is in distress?" I'm certainly inclined to agree... ...while the media etc are a work of the devil - they generally do hold key information back for a period of time even though it may be known. (People's names, vessel names, car number plates often blurred out etc). Social media makes some of that impossible.

MAIB reports are not legal proceedings - indeed they say so in big letters on the front

What Duncan said!

Plus - in the vast majority of cases - the transcript is provided by the parties involved in the communication. They don't tend to interview passing vessel X who sailed on past but announced on twitter they were near by, unless they are likely to offer up something that more official sources couldn't.