It will be interesting to see how this works in practise. When everything is broadcast on open airways, there's not much to prevent the FlightAware's of the world from just receiving that data and posting it. *Your* ADS-B system will still broadcast your identity, I suspect (apart from the Anonymous mode).
Right. It's going to come down to "convincing" the various 3rd party groups to play ball with the anonymous guidelines. Anybody with enough receivers under their own control effectively sidesteps the effort.
Exactly. Rotating random 1090ES codes won't fix the problem but it'll make it harder for the casual airplane tracker to specifically identify us.I think the idea here is that the 1090ES transponders will be programmed with a "private" ICAO code that can't be translated into or traced back to an N Number. Obviously, if someone can get a visual or radio ID on an aircraft (and N number) while tracking it's ICAO code, this system can be defeated unless the codes change periodically. An aircraft owner canchose to have their identity removed from the public aircraft registration database if you really want privacy.
I An aircraft owner canchose to have their identity removed from the public aircraft registration database if you really want privacy.
There is what I would call a parallel system to the FAA radar system that identifies aircraft by receiving Mode S data and markets the information to FBOs and others. It is run by a company called Passur. Check out Passur.com for more info. The key element here is that Passur collects the data with there own equipment independent from the FAA. From what I learned from one of their reps some years back, they had been at it for over 10 years at that time. They're still going strong from what I can tell. Even when aircraft were in the BARR program, FBOs, subscribers like Signature, always knew who was inbound to an airport to park at their ramp or a competitors.
I can't find anything when I google "third party callsign." Anybody else have luck with that?I hope the FAA does not allow anyone to monetize the third-party call signs in Phase 2, like third parties do now for special N-Numbers!
I can't find anything when I google "third party callsign." Anybody else have luck with that?
But apparently you *can* buy your own callsign from ICAO for the bargain price of $4,000...
ds
google "dot com call sign"
The solution is on the back-end, not the front, but it's probably too late for this: stop publishing in the open all the information about a plane's ownership, address, etc., or the pilot's personal information. Think of this data like auto licenses and license plates...I can set up all sorts of cameras and install license plate ID software, but if all I get is a plate number, and I can't get to the owner info (and from there to owner's address, etc.), it's no good to me.
The reality is that the technology genie is out of the bottle on this one, and it's going to be **** near impossible to put it back. You've been legislated to install systems that have unique identifiers built into an open-air broadcast stream. Calls to ATC are also done on open-air broadcasts. Correlating ATC calls to your unique identifiers probably isn't a difficult task for some combination of voice recognition and other software.
It was my understanding that once equipped, it was a violation to disable the ADSB out if the aircraft is in motion. When asked, the Approach guy (Joshua Approach) indicated that he "had no ADSB capability".
And it's that very fine line between benign (though still creepy) snooping and nefarious intent that some of us find so disturbing.
Creepy? Ouch!. To me it's not much different than virtually hanging out at the airport and watching planes. I like to look at N numbers and google who they are and where they're from.
Or sitting on the deck, seeing a plane going overhead and calling up FlightAware because I fly vicariously know and I wonder who it is and where it's going.
But maybe I'm alone in being transfixed by such things. Wouldn't surprise me.
I'd be curious to know what sort of nefarious things people have been doing with FlightAware/FlightRadar24? I get the competitive/security concerns of the corporate types, I'm just unfamiliar with what's happening with GA types.
Ok, let's try the scenario in a different context:
A guy is hanging out in the Walmart parking lot and is watching cars come and go. Let's pretend he has the ability to Google license plates and see where the cars are from and who the owner is. This guy spots your wife or daughter and takes an interest. He decides to track her movement for the rest of the day on his iPad because he is transfixed by such things.
Even if the Walmart guy takes no action, is such behavior creepy or acceptable? And if you think it's acceptable, certainly you can imagine a nefarious next step, no?
Let's not get pedantic. There is a big difference between watching airplanes (things), and taking an uninvited interest in where specific people are, and what they are doing. Both behaviors have been described in this thread.
I appreciate the invite Sam. I hope you are not offended that I cant extend the same to you.
I'm not in a position to determine what behavior society seems unacceptable - I just live here. I just don't think pilots get a "pass" on an activity that, in in virtually any other circumstance, would be highly offensive and or borderline criminal.
If they put transponders on cars and allowed the public to determine ownership and track movement in real time there would be an immediate public uproar - and with **** good reason.
It's hypocritical to apply a different privacy standard because of our chosen mode of transportation.
I'm not in a position to determine what behavior society seems unacceptable - I just live here. I just don't think pilots get a "pass" on an activity that, in in virtually any other circumstance, would be highly offensive and or borderline criminal.
If they put transponders on cars and allowed the public to determine ownership and track movement in real time there would be an immediate public uproar - and with **** good reason.
It's hypocritical to apply a different privacy standard because of our chosen mode of transportation.
Here, here!
I'm installing an echoUAT unit and, based on this thread, plan on making it "removable." Reg says "must be on if installed," I say uninstall it unless absolutely needed.
If putting transponders in cars would eliminate nearly all traffic collisions and deaths I suspect a huge portion of the general population would be on-board.
A lot of things sound like a great idea on the surface, I'm not busting on you. Well maybe a little - I think you just haven't thought it through.
The reality (alternately, MY reality) is that I value privacy and see no need for the 7 (?) billion people on earth to know where my airplane is at any given time. Certainly, ATC has a need to know, but beyond that, I only see downsides to that information being public. I can come up with dozens of scenarios (and I guarantee some will come to fruition) where the information can and will be used for less than beneficial purposes.
The reality (alternately, MY reality) is that I value privacy and see no need for the 7 (?) billion people on earth to know where my airplane is at any given time. Certainly, ATC has a need to know, but beyond that, I only see downsides to that information being public. I can come up with dozens of scenarios (and I guarantee some will come to fruition) where the information can and will be used for less than beneficial purposes.
The DPPA was passed in reaction to the a series of abuses of drivers' personal information held by government. The 1989 death of actress Rebecca Schaeffer was a prominent example of such abuse. In that case, a private investigator, hired by an obsessed fan, was able to obtain Rebecca Schaeffer's address through her California motor vehicle record. The fan used her address information to stalk and to kill her. Other incidents cited by Congress included a ring of Iowa home robbers who targeted victims by writing down the license plates of expensive cars and obtaining home address information from the State's department of motor vehicles.
Senator Barbara Boxer, who sponsored 103 S. 1589, a version of the DPPA, cited other examples where stalkers were able to find victims by simply visiting a DMV. She argued that in "34 States, someone [could] walk into a State Motor Vehicle Department with your license plate number and a few dollars and walk out with your name and home address." Senator Boxer also said:
"In Tempe, AZ, a woman was murdered by a man who had obtained her home address from that State's DMV.
And, in California, a 31-year-old man copied down the license plate numbers of five women in their early twenties, obtained their home address from the DMV and then sent them threatening letters at home.
On the mild end, imagine someone who despises "those ****ed little airplanes" and uses a tracking website to pick out airplanes flying near their house, then sends threatening letters to the owners...
Once the FAA has generated a performance report after your initial installation they know your aircraft is a 2020 ADS-B installation.......suspect your logic would be sketchy if push came to shove. Then there is that pesky logbook entry.......
Privacy is a touchy subject, but privacy is pretty much a thing of the past in our current technological culture.....way to many breadcrumbs being dropped to stay totally anonymous.