Talk:FLARM

Comments

The Open Glider Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Glider_Network through voluntary projects collects and displays FLARM transmissions in areas served by the project ground receivers. FlightRadar24 displays FLARM transmitting aircraft as provided by OGN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushback approved (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

FLARM operates on different frequencies across the world therefore equipment is not universially interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushback approved (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fun fact: FLARM say that they will give out their RF protocol to anyone as it is an "open standard". This simply isn't the case. You can beg all you want but they refuse to give it out.

The FLARM over-the-air format is propriety and encrypted. They claim is this is necessary for safety since it is a cooperative system and this ensures that all members have a conforming implementation. There is an open message standard from their equipment to interface it's alerts to other hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.252.246 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

EASA approval

I just removed the EASA approval in the first sentence once again. The system itself is not EASA approved, only the installation of a physical unit + antennas into an aircraft. It's like a cellphone approved to be installed in an aircraft - this does not include the phone network itself being EASA approved. Please don't mix up these things. It sounds more like an advertisement saying "This System is EASA certified!" in the first sentence of this article. CitationJet 14:10 UTC, 14 Dec 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Legality of reception

There is some controversy regarding the claim that decryption is illegal. I'm having edits regarding this reverted as vandalism. It's an unsupported claim, that AFAIK is incorrect with regards to the EU countries.

Tropowriter, could you please comment?

I have rewritten the text in question and specified the references in more detail. There is no controversy regarding this; or do you have a (serious) link to somebody questioning it? If you still think that any part of the text or references are unsupported, please specify here in detail and I will either improve the text again or continue the discussion here. In the meantime, please leave the text as is. Tropowriter (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Article 6 of EU Directive 2013/40/EU is for "non-public transmissions". Since Flarm uses a public frequency, where everyone is allowed to receive and transmit we have "public transmissions". So this EU directive against cybercrime does not apply. Beside this: at least in germany and austria decryption of computer software is explicitly allowed (for DE: § 69e Abs. 5 UrhG, for AT: § 40e UrhG) KonstantinGruendger (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You're mixing up public transmission with frequency allocation. Anyone is allowed to transmit on most frequencies, provided that the requirements for the applicable frequency are adhered to. These requirements can be technical or relate to the purpose or function of the transmission. The fact that anyone can transmit on a specific frequency (provided that requirements are adhered to) doesn't make transmissions on that frequency public. A public transmission is a transmission that is intended for the general public under EU regulations, e.g. public radio transmissions. Another way to think about it, is that the Directive talks about public transmissions, not public frequencies (the latter doesn't exist). There are only a very limited number of public transmissions, e.g. radio and tv channels. The national regulations you are referring to have nothing to do with access to and decryption of transmissions. They relate only to decompilation of computer software under specific circumstances (mostly related to when corporations need to make old software compatible with new developments). Tropowriter (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I dont want to invest more time in arguing whether the eu directive against cybercrime is applicable to the decoding of flarm signals. Only a judge can judge it.

The facts are:

1. in germany there were several attempts to forbid the operation of OGN receivers which decodes flarm signals. All attempts failed far before it came to court. If you have other informations please share.
2. Both flarm and ads-b signals are signals with position, speed, ID from aircrafts transmitted to other aircrafts. The main differences are: ADS-B uses a exclusive frequency band which is strong regulated, and ADS-B sends the aircraft registration, so you have a unique assignable ID. But: to decode ads-b signals is absolutely legal in germany, see judgment "Az. VG Köln 1 L 1084/08".

With these facts it is hard to believe that decoding flarm signals is illegal. Just citing a eu directive against cybercrime (especially bot nets) is not enough. Since there is (at least in germany) no single judgment against decoding flarm / ads-b signals it is not correct to write that decoding flarm signal is illegal. You should at least change it to "the legality is controversial" or something like this.KonstantinGruendger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

But you cannot just state a couple of unrelated facts and claim that you don't think decoding flarm signals is illegal based on these facts. That's not how the legal system works. There are new laws created and old laws amended all the time; just the fact that a specific circumstance hasn't been tried in court doesn't make it controversial. For something to be controversial, you need educated people (in this case lawyers specialized in the legal area in question) that make formal and opposing claims in a recognized publication or similar. For that to happen, you need some scope for interpretation, which just isn't there in this case. As a comparison, e.g. chemtrails and the moon landing isn't controversial just because some people claim so. What does exist is however a very thorough white paper published by the University of Passau ("Rechtliche Aspekte des Open Glider Networks"), which describes the many different laws that make OGN illegal in Germany. For this to be controversial, there would have to be a similar white paper with contradicting claims for each of the original claims.

Regarding your specific claims:

• The EU Directive is not about cybercrime (bot nets) as you state, but "on attacks against information systems". The exact wording from Article 6 ("illegal interception") is included in the Wikipedia article. Article 3 would also be applicable.
• What do you mean by "in germany there were several attempts to forbid the operation of OGN receivers"? They are per se already forbidden. Who has tried to do what? Is there some legal case?
• Az. VG Köln 1 L 1084/08 specifically does NOT say that decoding ADS-B signals is legal. The case was about the appeal of inhibition to sell a specific ADS-B receiver. The ruling was that the inhibition to sell was incorrect, since the receiver itself does not violate a different law (§ 89 TKG) about eavesdropping, which the inhibition to sell was based on.

The Wikipedia article is intended to be generic and not country specific. However to note, in Germany, Articles 3 and 6 of the EU Directive have been implemented in StGB §§ 202a and 202b, implying a prison sentence of up to 3 years.

The fact that the text in the EU Directive (and in Germany StGB §§ 202a and 202b) clearly bear upon systems like FLARM, together with the fact that there is a published white paper confirming the applicability specifically to OGN, together with the fact that there is no academic claim to the contrary, makes this a non-controversial issue. To write that it's controversial would be misleading and could involuntarily result in prison sentences for e.g. OGN receiver operators.Tropowriter (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Following your arguments the decoding of ADS-B signals is also illegal in the EU, correct? Please confirm. The discussion would be finished (for me). If not please tell me more :) KonstantinGruendger (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that decoding ADS-B is "obviously legal", but looking at Articles 3 and 6 in Directive 2013/40/EU the most likely conclusion would be that it's legal. There are several significant differences between FLARM and ADS-B with regards to these Articles. Article 3 reads "the access without right [...] where committed by infringing a security measure". Article 6 reads "non-public transmissions [...] intentionally and without right".

• ADS-B is a public and official standard. The standard is available to anybody and no license is required. It could therefore be interpreted as a public transmission, and possibly also as the public having right to access (the latter although more questionable, but as public transmission it would nullify the applicability of Article 6). FLARM is a proprietary standard that has not been legally published.
• ADS-B is not encrypted and has no security measures, thus nullifying applicability of Article 3. FLARM is encrypted. Tropowriter (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You argumentation is based on the assumption that flarm signals are "non public" transmissions.

• where is the definition of what is a "public" and a "non public" transmission
• assuming flarm signals are "non public": am I allowed to buy a old flarm device to receive and decode "non public" flarm signals?

KonstantinGruendger (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Public is basically anything where there is no intent to keep it secret from anybody (i.e. it's intended for the public). Personally I can't see how an encrypted message intended only for the system within which it's used could be interpreted by anybody as public. But to find a more formal definition, I Googled a bit and found the following documents discussing "non-public transmission" in the current context:

• Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime, UNODC, Feb 2013, p. 86:

Most multilateral cybercrime instruments define the object of illegal interception as ‘non-public’ transmission of computer data, thus limiting the object to ‘private’ transmissions. This limitation refers to the intended nature of the transmission. For example, a communication that has a private nature but is sent via public Wi-Fi network can be protected for the purposes of illegal interception, even though the transmission goes through a public network.

• Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime CETS 185, Council of Europe, Nov 2001, p. 10:

54. The offence applies to "non-public" transmissions of computer data. The term "non-public" qualifies the nature of the transmission (communication) process and not the nature of the data transmitted. The data communicated may be publicly available information, but the parties wish to communicate confidentially. Or data may be kept secret for commercial purposes until the service is paid, as in Pay-TV. Therefore, the term "non-public" does not per se exclude communications via public networks. Communications of employees, whether or not for business purposes, which constitute "non-public transmissions of computer data" are also protected against interception without right under Article 3 (see e.g. ECHR Judgement in Halford v. UK case, 25 June 1997, 20605/92).

• Understanding cybercrime: Phenomena, challenges and legal response, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Sep 2012, p. 186:

A transmission is "non-public", if the transmission process is confidential. The vital element to differentiate between public and non-public transmissions is not the nature of the data transmitted, but the nature of the transmission process itself. Even the transfer of publicly available information can be considered criminal, if the parties involved in the transfer intend to keep the content of their communications secret. Use of public networks does not exclude "non-public" communications.

I don't understand what you mean by "old flarm device", but as far I know, using a flarm does not give you access the the contents of the radio message (which is part of the information system in the legal sense). You get collision warnings and, selectively, relative positions of other airplanes, based on a set of rules. Compare with your cable tv at home. Just because you have legal access to watch cable tv (since you paid for it) using the decoder does not give you the right to intercept the encoded signal.

In any case, the discussion about Article 6 is actually not that relevant, since Article 3 in the Directive already makes it illegal. And in Germany, and similarly in other countries, there are a bunch of other laws making it illegal as well (see the paper from University of Passau). Maybe I should add Article 3 to the text as well, and/or the above definitions? That would however risk making the text unnecessarily long. If somebody is really interested they will probably check this talk page anyway... Tropowriter (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Following your argumentation only the fact that the flarm protocol was not published by flarm technologies make flarm signales "non public". Correct? : KonstantinGruendger (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, first of all I'm not arguing anything, I'm merely stating what the law says. Second, what the definitions say is that what's relevant is the intention to keep the transmission private or public. E.g. if some form of encryption or obfuscation is used it would be very difficult to argue that it was intended for it to be public. If flarm would have published the protocol AND not have had any encryption, then it would be difficult to argue that the intention was to keep it private. But lack of encryption also doesn't per se mean that the intention was to keep in public. There are probably many digital transmission that are not encrypted but still not intended to be public, and thus not public per definition. At the same time, there are probably open standards (published) for other systems which are encrypted (key not published). In that case, it's still not public. So you have to look at the intention. Maybe it's confusing, but "intent" has a core significance for a lawyer, so it's not as confusing as it might sound. If it went to court (in regards of Article 6 of the EU Directive), the court would look at all the circumstances and decide if there was intention to keep it private. If you compare with ADS-B, the protocol is public AND there is no encryption, so it would be difficult to argue that it's not public. Tropowriter (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Blacklisted Links Found on FLARM

Cyberbot II has detected links on FLARM which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://www.change.org/p/mr-urs-rothacher-flarm-chairman-petition-against-flarm-decision-to-encrypt-the-communication-protocol

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FLARM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201100558/http://old.ostiv.org/o_fame.htm to http://old.ostiv.org/o_fame.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Baro or GPS altitude (January 2018)

The article says: "Barometric pressure sensor, which measures cabin pressure to estimate the altitude (not used for collision avoidance, which uses GPS altitude)".

This may be true Flarm to Flarm, but I don't think it is true for Flarm to ADS-B and transponders. Historically transponders only had baro sensors, and so the whole system was set up to transmit baro. So to fit in with this evolution, Flarm must be transmitting baro when talking to transponders.

Mythosmann (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)