|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 1, 2011 20:45:48 GMT 12
And slackie I took your hitler approach years ago and stopped the transmissions, no need to blast someone on their opinion(s) years later. Do that elsewhere and don't personally attack me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 1, 2011 20:48:45 GMT 12
I don't have a problem with people listening in on ATC comms, but recording it for broadcast is an issue. For the people involved it is a recording in their workplace, and needs to be treated with care in the same way call centres have to. They are entitled to certain protections and I'll stick with that. It is pretty creepy however how the emergency channels are monitored - With the Mooney wheels - up incident at Raglan a few weeks ago I phoned 111 and logged the incident, and within 10 minutes there was a "breaking news" story on Stuff.... frighteningly fast!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 1, 2011 20:49:05 GMT 12
I think you're missing the point Darren. It is clear that while you may listen to the transmission, it's illegal to record and broadcast a transmission that is not intended for you, i.e to disclose the contents or existence of that transmission to anyone else. 133A Offence to disclose contents of radiocommunications (1) Every person commits an offence against this Act who receives a radiocommunication and who, knowing that the radiocommunication was not intended for that person,— (a) makes use of the radiocommunication or any information derived from that radiocommunication; or (b) reproduces or causes or permits to be reproduced the radiocommunication or information derived from that radiocommunication; or (c) discloses the existence of the radiocommunication. You can listen, you can go see a plane crash, but you cannot disclose the contents of any transmission that was not intended for you. Come up with all the analogies you like, the fact remains per the law as outlined by Mike earlier. There's little point in getting hot under the collar over it mate. I'm not I'm just stating fact about Mike mentioning about ATC recordings on YouTube videos from some aircraft enthusiast that 'may be' on these forums. Good luck getting convicted on that one whoever you are. Don't think you have much to worry about...Again, distinct difference between having some background ATC chatter on a video and re-broadcasting by media organisations that was mentioned before by Mike. |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 1, 2011 20:51:17 GMT 12
Same as it's company policy that our safety demos not be filmed onboard by pax. Happens every day. Do you think I give two craps? World is really becoming a 'you can't do anything' place...
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 1, 2011 20:51:29 GMT 12
Yes I know that feeling Bruce, two small incidents at work and twice it's been in the news before I've even landed!
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Dec 1, 2011 20:51:55 GMT 12
Would you give two craps if you were charged?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 1, 2011 20:53:10 GMT 12
I don't have a problem with people listening in on ATC comms, but recording it for broadcast is an issue. For the people involved it is a recording in their workplace, and needs to be treated with care in the same way call centres have to. They are entitled to certain protections and I'll stick with that. It is pretty creepy however how the emergency channels are monitored - With the Mooney wheels - up incident at Raglan a few weeks ago I phoned 111 and logged the incident, and within 10 minutes there was a "breaking news" story on Stuff.... frighteningly fast! Buce, you and I are mates and if the governments are so concerned about all the 'oh my God people are listening' issues they should encrypt all emegency transmissions, oh hang on, Australia did that years ago...Same for ATC. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 1, 2011 21:09:30 GMT 12
As I said, I dont have a problem with people listening in - thats the inherent limitations of the system, its just recordings of peoples workplaces have to have certain protocols around them - thats why call centres tell you that your call may be recorded. I couldnt care less, but it is a required protection protocol. In this case the protocol is enclosed with a law stating no ATC recordings. Its a blunt axe approach to ensuring those protection protocols are recognised. Right or wrong, thats the law and we have to work within it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 1, 2011 21:23:12 GMT 12
Would you give two craps if you were charged? No because I have not done anything to be charged for... And Christ, this thread is like hitting a brick wall at 100km/h. It's not going anywhere... |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 1, 2011 23:30:35 GMT 12
And slackie I took your hitler approach years ago and stopped the transmissions, no need to blast someone on their opinion(s) years later. Do that elsewhere and don't personally attack me. Hold on there Darren, referring to Slackie as having a Hitler approach is pretty much an attack in itself. I'm sure that everyone else reading this can understand Slackie's frustration here. All he has done is brought to the attention of the forum community a law that is firmly established in place; which is perhaps not well known, and that people have been breaching it and need to be aware of the rules. I for one commend him for letting people know this information so they can be aware of the fact it's illegal, and there are consequences if they get caught doing it. Some civil servants would have simply potted the offenders and smugly taken the glory. Slackie has put the points across clearly and politely, and so far only one person here just doesn't seem to understand them, and has been arguing against ite, and that is you Darren. You have shared your opinion, no-one else has stood up agreeing with your views, as the rules are clearly set out and are contrary to your opinion. Several people have tried to explain why the rules are there, and how they work but you seem to have disregarded this because overseas they do things differently. This isn't overseas, this is here. So realistically further arguing on the forum to press your views on this will not do any good, you need to talk to your MP if you want the law changed. In the meantine I suggest you cut Slackie some slack, no pun intended. |
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Dec 2, 2011 8:35:21 GMT 12
Hold on there Darren, referring to Slackie as having a Hitler approach is pretty much an attack in itself. I'm sure that everyone else reading this can understand Slackie's frustration here. All he has done is brought to the attention of the forum community a law that is firmly established in place; which is perhaps not well known, and that people have been breaching it and need to be aware of the rules. I for one commend him for letting people know this information so they can be aware of the fact it's illegal, and there are consequences if they get caught doing it. Some civil servants would have simply potted the offenders and smugly taken the glory. Slackie has put the points across clearly and politely, and so far only one person here just doesn't seem to understand them, and has been arguing against ite, and that is you Darren. You have shared your opinion, no-one else has stood up agreeing with your views, as the rules are clearly set out and are contrary to your opinion. Several people have tried to explain why the rules are there, and how they work but you seem to have disregarded this because overseas they do things differently. This isn't overseas, this is here. So realistically further arguing on the forum to press your views on this will not do any good, you need to talk to your MP if you want the law changed. In the meantine I suggest you cut Slackie some slack, no pun intended. Very well said. Errol |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Dec 2, 2011 10:16:54 GMT 12
And slackie I took your hitler approach years ago and stopped the transmissions, no need to blast someone on their opinion(s) years later. Do that elsewhere and don't personally attack me. Godwin. |
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Dec 2, 2011 12:31:07 GMT 12
Just out of interest, is it only NZ that prohibits recording of ATC?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Dec 2, 2011 13:19:04 GMT 12
Just out of interest, is it only NZ that prohibits recording of ATC? Not only that, but do some countries have digital/encrypted comms, and how do airlines cope with a dual system? |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 2, 2011 17:34:49 GMT 12
Fair call Dave. Cut Slackie some slack. We were talking about this whole issue today. I never said that I think recording ATC transmissions and broadcasting them in the media or wherever was ok. I said there is a distinct difference between that and background chatter on someones You Tube video. I broadcast the ATC here until I found out I could not then I stopped the broadcast. Simple yeah? I did not say "I'm going to continue to broadcast it". Again, (and by this I will stand by my guns), some audio in someones You Tube video in the background, harmless and obviously far from being live. I'd bet almost everything I had in the fact you would not get prosecuted for something that's in the background of an aviation enthusiasts You Tube video. Again, live distribution/broadcast, fair call. Don't know what they are hiding here anyway. They don't even have proper air force planes ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 2, 2011 17:36:31 GMT 12
Just out of interest, is it only NZ that prohibits recording of ATC? Probably. And the USA even allow it  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 2, 2011 20:09:14 GMT 12
Darren, putting any film clip or audio of any sort onto Youtube is broadcasting it. Broadcasting simply means widely distributing an item to the public. If you look at Youtube's slogan it is "Broadcast Yourself".
But whether or not anyone chooses to put such a recording on Youtube or anywhere else accessible to the public is by the by, the actual act of recording it alone even if you never listen again to it, is illegal. Clear and simple.
By the way, in this discussion I have been trying to speak generally about this rule and not about you personally, what you ahve done in the past is not the relevant thing as far as I am concerned. Nothing personal is meant by my comments or anything like that, it's simply about clearly understanding the law, and that is all. No hard feelings are meant toward anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 2, 2011 20:21:31 GMT 12
Darren, putting any film clip or audio of any sort onto Youtube is broadcasting it. Broadcasting simply means widely distributing an item to the public. If you look at Youtube's slogan it is "Broadcast Yourself". But whether or not anyone chooses to put such a recording on Youtube or anywhere else accessible to the public is by the by, the actual act of recording it alone even if you never listen again to it, is illegal. Clear and simple. By the way, in this discussion I have been trying to speak generally about this rule and not about you personally, what you ahve done in the past is not the relevant thing as far as I am concerned. Nothing personal is meant by my comments or anything like that, it's simply about clearly understanding the law, and that is all. No hard feelings are meant toward anyone. None taken  |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Dec 2, 2011 20:30:57 GMT 12
Oh, would you all shut up! How the hell can I record NZ ATC transmissions on my computer with you lot carrying on and making so much noise in the background?  ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Dec 3, 2011 9:41:02 GMT 12
Oh, would you all shut up! How the hell can I record NZ ATC transmissions on my computer with you lot carrying on and making so much noise in the background? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
