Skip to main content
Is ADS-B scanning breaking the law in the UK?
Technically of course this is illegal. The UK’s somewhat draconian Wireless Telegraphy Act (current incarnation circa 2006) has several lines that radio enthusiasts in this country need to worry about, and their meaning is summarised in an advice document published by Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator:
A license is not required to use a radio receiver or scanner as long as it is not capable of transmission. It is not illegal to sell, buy or own a scanner or any other receiver but it should only be used to listen to transmissions meant for general reception. The services that can be listened to under the definition of general reception are: 1. licensed broadcasting stations; 2. amateur and citizens' band radio transmissions; and 3. weather and navigation transmissions Radio scanners should not be used to listen to any other radio services.
Of course, “worry” is a very relative term. Do airband listeners get hassle from Ofcom? No, absolutely not. Have they said they don’t care publicly? Not in so many words. But their whole aim seems to be to act against interference. That’s what all of the court cases involving them in this area seem to be about anyway. And if thousands of scanner listeners were going to court we’d know about it.
In another advice document the following note is made:
The largest proportion of prosecutions under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts are for breaches of Section 8 of the 2006 Act. Such breaches take one of two forms, either the user: has no licence at all; or has installed or is using radio equipment outside the terms of the licence or exemption.
Pretty clearly, then, talking about transmitting.
Sharing is caring
According to the law sharing any transmissions or the content of them is illegal. Does sending data to flight tracker websites come under this definition? I would argue right now that it does. Firstly there’s the question of whether ADS-B signals are meant for regular ground-based-human consumption (non-pilots, basically). The other big conundrum is if Ofcom care about the sharing of the data. People don’t stream UK ATC streams on Live ATC because of the WTA. I would think some streams elsewhere on the web have been shut down, but I’ve not seen any reports of that happening. Maybe the legal threat from the WTA is enough.
But surely voice communications and ADS-B data are signals received. If streaming ATC isn’t tolerated then why is ADB-B, seemingly?
With these questions in mind I set out to get some answers. I emailed Ofcom’s Spectrum Group and fired off my queries. I was hoping to convince them that with ADS-B technically being a navigational broadcast - plus the fact that the “B” literally stands for broadcast - I may be able to convince them that it would be something the public would be allowed to receive.
I fired off an email:
Hi folks,
I was wondering if you could provide guidance on the following matter relating to signal reception and the law.
There are a growing number of people who are contributing to internet-based services that show ADS-B data from aircraft. This includes an awful lot of UK-based users, if the information on these sites is anything to go by. It is an area I would like to try out with my Raspberry Pi and suitable equipment as a hobbyist project.
The key question here is whether this would be illegal under the current incarnation of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. At first it would appear as though the signals would come under the same banner as airband radio and not counted as being for "general reception" - although this appears to be tolerated in this country. However, the B in the name standing for broadcast makes me wonder if that is correct. Certainly they could be classed as navigation signals and hence exempt from the restriction.
Another question raised would be if sharing the received data after reception would also fall foul of the WTA, since sharing information received is a specific provision of this part of the act.
This specific reception case hasn't been tested in court to my knowledge, so I don't wish to be the first test case.
Any guidance you can provide on this matter would be very gratefully received.
The response I got was weird. I'll keep it anonymous, but here's the reply I got:
In paraphrase, the law states that if you're not the intended recipient of a given message, then you mustn't set out to receive it. You commit a further offence if you pass on to another person, information that was gleaned by committing the first offence, whether it was you or someone else who did the receiving.
Really irritating. They've just given me the guidance I already had (and even linked to the document I cited earlier). The specific question I asked regarding whether ADS-B counts as broadcast, and hence exempt from the sharing exemption - entirely to make sure I wasn't breaking the law - hasn't been answered. Which was annoying. Let's try and clarify with them:
Hi xxx,
Many thanks for your reply on this.
Would it be possible to get the comment of Ofcom regarding such services as I've highlighted and the issues surrounding UK users contributing to them? There are UK-based shops selling kits that do this task and multiple named users who have blogged about their work in this area online. Is there a concerted effort to go after people like this or is it something you tolerate? Evidence would suggest the latter, and I can appreciate that there may be operational reasons why this is the case.
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.
Thanks,
Mark
Their reply:
Thank you for your further message about ADS-B.
On the law relating to listening to radio transmissions, I'm not sure that we can add to our last reply. You should be guided by what we have published (for example here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement/spectrum-offences/radio-interception).
We cannot give specific advice on legal issues associated with the use of receiving apparatus and you should therefore seek whatever further specialist legal advice you may need. Our enforcement work tends to be orientated towards remedying interference. We explain this on our website here: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/interference-enforcement.
So, it’s a bit up in the air still. Reading between the lines it seems as if I’m being told in a roundabout way that I’ll be fine - only without them actually saying the words. They seem to be confirming the apparent focus on the prosecution of people causing interference to transmissions. Listeners would seem to be fine as long as they don’t take the piss. But I still don’t understand how there’s a difference between sharing ATC (or other) audio and sharing digital data. The only way that'd be ok is if the broadcasts were termed as just that - broadcasts. And the reply I got didn't do that at all, despite me explicitly offering that point up for discussion.
I understand they can't give specific legal advice, but as the UK's communication's watchdog they should definitely be in a position to tell me which services on the bands they are responsible for are considered a "broadcast".
Part of me wants to stream the Edinburgh Airport tower frequency as well and see what they’ll do and then fight a glorious test case in court, but I fear that would be very foolish. However, I do feel that the law on these points is open to some interpretation. Ofcom have limited resources to protect and manage our extraordinarily complex electromagnetic spectrum. Probably the reason why they leave you alone as long as you aren’t doing something stupid.
Obviously scanner listeners are fine as long as they don’t share anything: they’ll never find you. But the act of sharing the data being a specific, separate offence - in my view - puts anyone sharing ADS-B data at risk of being in breach of the law. The holy grail, of course would be a huge reworking of the WTA to make it more sane. However, our increasingly right-shifting Overton Window and a succession of authoritarian governments mean that won’t happen any time soon.
So obviously I’m still gonna do it.
Comments
Post a Comment