sarabande
Well-Known Member
Can anyone give definitive chapter and verse about the secrecy of conversations made over licensed VHF using the public unencrypted channels, please ?
VHF transmissions - public domain ?
- Thread starter sarabande
- Start date
Graham_Wright
Well-Known Member
I thought it was stated in your licence.
EdWingfield
Well-Known Member
Er, licence?
shmoo
Well-Known Member
I think (b) below covers it.
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006
section 48 Interception and disclosure of messages
(1) A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person—
(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.
Full text at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060036_en_5#pt2-ch5-pb2-l1g48
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006
section 48 Interception and disclosure of messages
(1) A person commits an offence if, otherwise than under the authority of a designated person—
(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.
Full text at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060036_en_5#pt2-ch5-pb2-l1g48
VicS
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Er, licence?
[/ QUOTE ] Yes licence most of us are law abiding citizens and have a licence for our ships radio station. It costs nothing.
But I suppose you might just as well say bollox to it in the same way you presumably do to driving licences, TV licences, firearms licences etc etc and happily pay the the fines, serve the prison sentences and replace the confiscated equipment.
Oh sorry North Umber Land . One day law enforcement and civilisation as recognised by the rest of the western world will reach you North Umbers.
Er, licence?
[/ QUOTE ] Yes licence most of us are law abiding citizens and have a licence for our ships radio station. It costs nothing.
But I suppose you might just as well say bollox to it in the same way you presumably do to driving licences, TV licences, firearms licences etc etc and happily pay the the fines, serve the prison sentences and replace the confiscated equipment.
Oh sorry North Umber Land . One day law enforcement and civilisation as recognised by the rest of the western world will reach you North Umbers.
Csail
N/A
Must admit i can't see the point if its free and the tv licence is a rip off considering what rubbish is on telly.Driving licence renewal fee is daft too.
Have a read of convictions for more serious crims.....i reckon evading all these stupid taxes etc and paying fines (if caught) might be cheaper. Boat and car insurance are a good thing though.
Have a read of convictions for more serious crims.....i reckon evading all these stupid taxes etc and paying fines (if caught) might be cheaper. Boat and car insurance are a good thing though.
kieronriley
Well-Known Member
Now now Vic,i thought you just failed to react,so what wound you up then.Must be a southern thing this law abiding thing tell us more about it.I only know four people with radio licences and as to all of you law abiding citizens ,let he who is without sin cast the first stone(and not you mother)
jb2008
Well-Known Member
There's probably an argument that since the sender knows that other people may be listening that anybody listening is an intended recipient.
There's the "intent" reference as well, if you did it without intending to do so, I.e. you were just listening on that channel by chance then there is no offence under 1(a).
1b is ludicrously vague. Arguably a normal radio broadcast could be considered a wireless telegraphy message, so if I told you something I heard on Radio 1 I could be charged under 1(b) doubly so if it were a phone in from a mobile phone.
This is especially the case for channel 16 which is clearly a broadcast channel, anything you say on it is said in the full knowledge that everyone _should_ be listening.
Has anyone heard of anyone actually charged for it? That is VHF, not mobile phones?
There's the "intent" reference as well, if you did it without intending to do so, I.e. you were just listening on that channel by chance then there is no offence under 1(a).
1b is ludicrously vague. Arguably a normal radio broadcast could be considered a wireless telegraphy message, so if I told you something I heard on Radio 1 I could be charged under 1(b) doubly so if it were a phone in from a mobile phone.
This is especially the case for channel 16 which is clearly a broadcast channel, anything you say on it is said in the full knowledge that everyone _should_ be listening.
Has anyone heard of anyone actually charged for it? That is VHF, not mobile phones?
graham
Well-Known Member
If you listened to the weather forecast on the VHF you would then be breaking the law if you repeated it?
OFCOM can fine you £ 250 000 so Im taking no chances /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
OFCOM can fine you £ 250 000 so Im taking no chances /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
sarabande
Well-Known Member
Does "wireless telegraphy apparatus " mean a morse code device, rather than a phone or VHF handheld ?
Is there a difference between telegraphy and voice transmission ?
Has the law been overtaken by technical developments ?
Do bears...
EDIT
I have just read the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, and am now more confused. There's no reference to "wireless telephony" which I would consider to be "voice or speech" but plenty of reference to "broadcasting" where the legislation is aimed at stopping Radio Caroline type stations - fair enough.
But Section 116 (I paraphrase)
"WT ...serves for conveying messages, sound or visual images... or operating or controlling machinery or apparatus"
AND
"is used in connection with determining position, bearing or distance, or for gaining information as to the presence, absence, postion or motion of an object of class of objects"
So you can be done under this act if you are using GPS, SatNav, radar, AIS, remote windlass controllers.....
oh, fun !
Is there a difference between telegraphy and voice transmission ?
Has the law been overtaken by technical developments ?
Do bears...
EDIT
I have just read the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, and am now more confused. There's no reference to "wireless telephony" which I would consider to be "voice or speech" but plenty of reference to "broadcasting" where the legislation is aimed at stopping Radio Caroline type stations - fair enough.
But Section 116 (I paraphrase)
"WT ...serves for conveying messages, sound or visual images... or operating or controlling machinery or apparatus"
AND
"is used in connection with determining position, bearing or distance, or for gaining information as to the presence, absence, postion or motion of an object of class of objects"
So you can be done under this act if you are using GPS, SatNav, radar, AIS, remote windlass controllers.....
oh, fun !
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Does "wireless telegraphy apparatus " mean a morse code device, rather than a phone or VHF handheld ?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it means any radio device capable of transmitting on channels for which a licence is required
[ QUOTE ]
Is there a difference between telegraphy and voice transmission ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in law, ut's a question of defining the word. The Act makes the definition clear.
[ QUOTE ]
Has the law been overtaken by technical developments ?
Do bears...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
Depends on the personal habits of the bear.
As to "why the point of a free licence" (csail), the point is that now only DSC sets can be purchased, as time removes all the old non-dsc sets the database of MMSI numbers will become more comprehensive, thus assisting SAR operations around the world, and to help prevent the installation of imported sets not meeting UK standards which may cause interference on essential emergency frequencies due to poor construction / design standards.
Does "wireless telegraphy apparatus " mean a morse code device, rather than a phone or VHF handheld ?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it means any radio device capable of transmitting on channels for which a licence is required
[ QUOTE ]
Is there a difference between telegraphy and voice transmission ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in law, ut's a question of defining the word. The Act makes the definition clear.
[ QUOTE ]
Has the law been overtaken by technical developments ?
Do bears...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
Depends on the personal habits of the bear.
As to "why the point of a free licence" (csail), the point is that now only DSC sets can be purchased, as time removes all the old non-dsc sets the database of MMSI numbers will become more comprehensive, thus assisting SAR operations around the world, and to help prevent the installation of imported sets not meeting UK standards which may cause interference on essential emergency frequencies due to poor construction / design standards.
PuffTheMagicDragon
Well-Known Member
I have said it before on these fora, and I will repeat it here:
That regulation goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!, specifically, it may be challenged under Article Ninteen of that Declaration. I believe that your country is a signatory to this declaration, albeit with some reservations (your country, not me) re specific areas involving national security.
"Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
The part that I have italicised would cover the situation of VHF transmissions. Case Law in many countries has tended to follow the principle that, the onus of ensuring the secrecy or confidentiality of transmitted data lies squarely with the originator.
In other words, if you don't want everyone to know what you are transmitting, it is up to you to take precautions.
I am not aware of any cases where someone has been booked for 'eavesdropping' on VHF transmissions. I know that if anyone tried to pull that one on me, my next destination would be Strassbourg! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
That regulation goes against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!, specifically, it may be challenged under Article Ninteen of that Declaration. I believe that your country is a signatory to this declaration, albeit with some reservations (your country, not me) re specific areas involving national security.
"Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
The part that I have italicised would cover the situation of VHF transmissions. Case Law in many countries has tended to follow the principle that, the onus of ensuring the secrecy or confidentiality of transmitted data lies squarely with the originator.
In other words, if you don't want everyone to know what you are transmitting, it is up to you to take precautions.
I am not aware of any cases where someone has been booked for 'eavesdropping' on VHF transmissions. I know that if anyone tried to pull that one on me, my next destination would be Strassbourg! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Boat44
Well-Known Member
Just been looking at the Icom catalogue and they sell scramblers for their VHFs, either as inbuilt or optional.
I would therefore guess that anything you broadcast on VHF is fair game.
(Seem to remember some article about this a few years ago, but can not remember where!)
I would therefore guess that anything you broadcast on VHF is fair game.
(Seem to remember some article about this a few years ago, but can not remember where!)
rhumlady
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Just been looking at the Icom catalogue and they sell scramblers for their VHFs, either as inbuilt or optional.
I would therefore guess that anything you broadcast on VHF is fair game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I reckon that at present you would be traced pdq if you were using a scrambler on marine VHF. You would be answering questions for a while in the local special branch office as to why you need to encode your transmission. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Just been looking at the Icom catalogue and they sell scramblers for their VHFs, either as inbuilt or optional.
I would therefore guess that anything you broadcast on VHF is fair game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I reckon that at present you would be traced pdq if you were using a scrambler on marine VHF. You would be answering questions for a while in the local special branch office as to why you need to encode your transmission. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
PuffTheMagicDragon
Well-Known Member
Precisely!
There was a thread on here (I don't recall which forum) a couple of years ago where I set out the scenario in more detail. I recall that some were in disagreement, particularly a forumite who was, at that time, in 'enforcement' - according to his profile. As long threads are wont, things became rather heated, the longer the thread grew. In fact, someone else described it as a 'punch-up'! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
There was a thread on here (I don't recall which forum) a couple of years ago where I set out the scenario in more detail. I recall that some were in disagreement, particularly a forumite who was, at that time, in 'enforcement' - according to his profile. As long threads are wont, things became rather heated, the longer the thread grew. In fact, someone else described it as a 'punch-up'! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Searush
Well-Known Member
Why, oh why do you all make it seem complicated like a fascist/ communist/ papish/ (insert own demon) plot?
The spirit of the act is to provide PHONE CALLS over VHF the same level of "security" afforded over landlines. This, no doubt, goes back to the era when only rich people & important business people used the phone (prior to about 1950).
Ship to ship comms etc are effectively accepted as open, but could be interpreted as private if information from them was used for personal advantage (insider trading perhaps). Forecasts, Nav warnings, Pan Pan, Maydays etc are BROADCASTS for the general good of all, you can repeat them to anyone who cares to listen 'til the cows come home.
It seem very simple & straight forward to me. And the licence is to encourage people to take the course/ test that ensures competence in using the VHF - I bet you can see the sense of that given some of the examples of "VHF speak" that we hear every weekend in popular sailing areas.
The spirit of the act is to provide PHONE CALLS over VHF the same level of "security" afforded over landlines. This, no doubt, goes back to the era when only rich people & important business people used the phone (prior to about 1950).
Ship to ship comms etc are effectively accepted as open, but could be interpreted as private if information from them was used for personal advantage (insider trading perhaps). Forecasts, Nav warnings, Pan Pan, Maydays etc are BROADCASTS for the general good of all, you can repeat them to anyone who cares to listen 'til the cows come home.
It seem very simple & straight forward to me. And the licence is to encourage people to take the course/ test that ensures competence in using the VHF - I bet you can see the sense of that given some of the examples of "VHF speak" that we hear every weekend in popular sailing areas.
theforeman
Well-Known Member
i doubt it, lots of fishing vessel have scramblers.
EdWingfield
Well-Known Member
"But I suppose you might just as well say bollox to it in the same way you presumably do to driving licences, TV licences, firearms licences etc etc and happily pay the the fines, serve the prison sentences and replace the confiscated equipment.
Oh sorry North Umber Land . One day law enforcement and civilisation as recognised by the rest of the western world will reach you North Umbers."
Vic my friend, leave the civilisation of the western world for a minute and think about how YOU respond in an emergency.
I am not vhf perfect but I have done a fair job a couple of times.
Have you?
Oh sorry North Umber Land . One day law enforcement and civilisation as recognised by the rest of the western world will reach you North Umbers."
Vic my friend, leave the civilisation of the western world for a minute and think about how YOU respond in an emergency.
I am not vhf perfect but I have done a fair job a couple of times.
Have you?
exfinnsailor
Well-Known Member
Mobile Phones - public domain ?
Use to call on a customer who was into amateur radio .. One Friday afternoon we spent a couple of hours listening to Mobile Phone conversations of people trying to sort out their PLANS for the weekend ......... So you don't know who is listening .. or taking notes .. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Use to call on a customer who was into amateur radio .. One Friday afternoon we spent a couple of hours listening to Mobile Phone conversations of people trying to sort out their PLANS for the weekend ......... So you don't know who is listening .. or taking notes .. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
William_H
Well-Known Member
Re: Mobile Phones - public domain ?
This whole question of secrecy to be kept by a licensed radio operator is one of those historical things. It has been taken over by technology. Particularly the amount of technology. Almost every man and his dog uses 2 way radio in some form. So the law emains that if you are a licenced operator or not even licensed then any message heard that is not for you must be kept confidential. Years back when taking Ham licence exams the confidentiality thing used to be emphasised.
Yeah Right!!!! Now days no one has any reason to believe anything said on the air can be kept confidential.
regarding licenses. The station licence and operators licence are a requirement by international convention. So too the laws on confidentiality. olewill
This whole question of secrecy to be kept by a licensed radio operator is one of those historical things. It has been taken over by technology. Particularly the amount of technology. Almost every man and his dog uses 2 way radio in some form. So the law emains that if you are a licenced operator or not even licensed then any message heard that is not for you must be kept confidential. Years back when taking Ham licence exams the confidentiality thing used to be emphasised.
Yeah Right!!!! Now days no one has any reason to believe anything said on the air can be kept confidential.
regarding licenses. The station licence and operators licence are a requirement by international convention. So too the laws on confidentiality. olewill
