61–70 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an odd law. Anybody aware of the reasoning behind this?
A friend had mentioned that listening to ambulance broadcasts led to this ban (since ambulances were broadcasting personal information). Instead of fixing the tech, they decided to make listening a felony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I did my PPL one of the instructors gave us a CD full of recordings that we could listen to to train our ear for it. Matching that to transcripts helped - and it also helps once you know the lingo, since it's mostly a limited set of words and the phraseology has a specific structure. For example: Altitudes and flight levels: 3,500 is spoken as "three thousand five hundred". 13,500 is spoken as "one three thousan…
Interesting, thanks! I bet it's international ? The french transmissions were also following this patterns.
You can read the ICAO Radiotelephony Guide[1], should you be interested.
Searching for something like "ICAO Phraseology Reference Guide" might give you good results too.
[1] http://www.icao.int/safety/acp/Inactive%20working%20groups%2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it normal to be allowed to eavesdrop on conversations you're not a party to? Wouldn't it be odd for that to be the default position? There's a cultural norm embedded here. What you think is odd and what's normal is strongly dependent on your priors.
It's not a question of cultural positions but more a question about why airport communications were added to an exclusion list when it's perfectly legal listen into all other private signals bar police radio (as far as I'm aware). Even collecting data on private WiFi broadcasts is fair game; as we learned when it was exposed that Google Street Car was doing just this. It's pretty obvious why it was made illegal to ea…
As far as I know there have been investigations into the Google wifi case but I have never heard of anything coming out of it.
The law in its current form is pretty new, it even was clarified just a few months ago to specifically mention non-acoustic communication.
Do people easily understand these transmissions? I always think there must be something wrong with either my English, or my ears because I barely understand a number here and there, even with headphones.
But... not understanding isn't necessarily a bad thing, I can't listen to this and work because I can understand it
Awesome.
I also recommend the ISS feed (with orbital video!)
Do people easily understand these transmissions? I always think there must be something wrong with either my English, or my ears because I barely understand a number here and there, even with headphones.
When I did my PPL one of the instructors gave us a CD full of recordings that we could listen to to train our ear for it. Matching that to transcripts helped - and it also helps once you know the lingo, since it's mostly a limited set of words and the phraseology has a specific structure. For example: Altitudes and flight levels: 3,500 is spoken as "three thousand five hundred". 13,500 is spoken as "one three thousan…
Wow, surprised to see this on HN! Creator here, if you have any feedback, please just comment here or ping me on twitter @andersaberg, I'll take airport requests etc there :) Have a good one, A
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a question of cultural positions but more a question about why airport communications were added to an exclusion list when it's perfectly legal listen into all other private signals bar police radio (as far as I'm aware). Even collecting data on private WiFi broadcasts is fair game; as we learned when it was exposed that Google Street Car was doing just this. It's pretty obvious why it was made illegal to ea…
Capturing any communication is a criminal offense in Germany unless you were explicitly allowed to or it was intended as a broadcast. This is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the people communicating. There is no blacklist. Police, ATC, and similar are not even mentioned in the laws that are used to prosecute those cases. As far as I know there have been investigations into the Google wifi case but I have never…
I'm not sure if this is the relevant legislation but I've found the following in section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006:
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.
Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48
Wow, surprised to see this on HN! Creator here, if you have any feedback, please just comment here or ping me on twitter @andersaberg, I'll take airport requests etc there :) Have a good one, A
Slowed down to a halt. Nexus 6p. Firefox took 15s to close.