Lotta questions on ADS B Privacy here on VAF--lately

[DanH]

In addition, we have the "Terrestrial ADS-B Network", enthusiasts (apparently with boring lives) who set up receivers and feed the data to Flightaware.

https://flightaware.com/about/datasources/

They will send you a receiver, free, if they determine there isn't enough coverage in your area. There are something like 16 of them already in my area. And yes, they now have UAT filters available.

https://flightaware.com/adsb/flightfeeder/

Anyway, the real issue here is future surveillance, not who logs your ICAO now. As Flightaware is demonstrating, the technology to log you from that first data burst is readily available. and coverage is growing.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Regardless of all the anonymizing, if you're operating from/to a controlled airport you'll be given a discrete code on first ATC contact
re.

In the US, true at some class D airports but not most.

[Steve Iacoviello]

Originally Posted by airguy

Arguably QUITE far away... https://aireon.com/

As you likely already know but for others:
From Aireon' web site "Aireon's space-based ADS-B transceivers don't receive the 978 MHz signal". The GDL-82 is 978 MHz.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by Steve Iacoviello

"Aireon's space-based ADS-B transceivers don't receive the 978 MHz signal".

...at this time.

[dtw_rv6]

I don’t think this is the case. Uavionics transmits a randomly generated identifier instead of the icao code in anonymous mode. You are “anonymous”at the point of transmission without second party manipulation of the data stream. The FAA gets the same randomized identifier.

Originally Posted by roadrunner20

To clarify & correct me if I'm wrong...

The FAA still receives your aircraft ICAO in the ADS-B OUT datastream.
They know who you are, but the rebroadcast transmits a randomly assigned ICAO & anonymous tail# to protect your privacy from other aircraft that are receiving ADS-B IN.

[N546RV]

Originally Posted by DanH

...at this time.

The receiver payloads have no capability of receiving 978 transmissions. There simply is/was no economic justification for essentially doubling the receiver complexity just to pick up the niche "market" that is UAT. Particularly since the primary purpose of the Aireon constellation was to provide global coverage (ie over oceans/poles), which isn't going to apply to anyone running UAT (except for maybe some really unusual cases).

[Steve Iacoviello]

Originally Posted by DanH

...at this time.

Dan
I am enjoying the conversation. You and I are in violent agreement. Anonymous should be anonymous. But in my situation I usually leave the anonymous switch off (not always). Flight Aware does show portions of my fights, as boring as they may be, but not all of the flights. I am surprised that they miss portions; but I like having the switch. Do you have data that shows that my start up between hangar rows is being monitored and recorded?

[N546RV]

Originally Posted by Steve Iacoviello

Dan
I am enjoying the conversation. You and I are in violent agreement. Anonymous should be anonymous. But in my situation I usually leave the anonymous switch off (not always). Flight Aware does show portions of my fights, as boring as they may be, but not all of the flights. I am surprised that they miss portions; but I like having the switch. Do you have data that shows that my start up between hangar rows is being monitored and recorded?

Assuming your aircraft is UAT-equipped (which I think is a good assumption since you mention the anonymous mode), we simply don't have anywhere near the coverage for UAT that we do for 1090ES, and for the same reason that Aireon doesn't support UAT - there's far, far more to be gained from tracking the latter. Only in about the last six months have we nailed down a modified software package for UAT, and receivers can only receive one frequency, not both.

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of your flights that show up on FA are by virtue of test hardware we have in our office in Houston. That might explain why tracking is particularly sporadic.

As for picking up transponder emissions immediately after startup, it's very plausible, though dependent on receiver coverage. Receivers pretty much need solid line-of-sight to the source, but if there's one on the airport (a good possibility, though it's probably a 1090ES version), then that's easily covered.

Finally, I'd like to note that our CEO has spent a fair amount of time this year working with the FAA in an attempt to get movement on an anonymizing solution for 1090ES users. I'm not privy to any real details, but I believe it's based on offering designated-anonymous Mode S codes, which will not be directly tied to a tail # (unlike current codes).

As much as our business is based on freely available flight data, we also believe in people's right to opt out, and we will respect blocking requests. (And I can tell you from personal experience that we take blocking very seriously. Bugs relating to possible inadvertent disclosure of blocked-aircraft information are of the "stop what you're doing and fix this right now" priority.)

[GWZ]

At Osh I spoke with Melissa Rudinger at the AOPA booth regarding the 1090ES anonymous mode. She said that all parties (industry and FAA) felt that the concept of ?rolling ICAO codes? was an inelegant solution and has pretty much been abandoned. This rolling code concept was to involve retrieving a random code from a pool of codes from the FAA then fat fingering it into your transponder each time you wanted to fly anonymously. I think the FAA now realizes the real solution is an encrypted system but that will take years (decades?) to implement.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by Steve Iacoviello

You and I are in violent agreement.

Where's my Like Button?

Do you have data that shows that my start up between hangar rows is being monitored and recorded?

Again, not at this time.

Seriously, this is about the future, not tracking hardware currently in place.

Originally Posted by N546RV

Only in about the last six months have we nailed down a modified software package for UAT, and receivers can only receive one frequency, not both.

A software package for UAT eh? The future arrives sooner than we think.

I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of your flights that show up on FA are by virtue of test hardware we have in our office in Houston. That might explain why tracking is particularly sporadic.

Hmmm, software development and test hardware. All we need now is an economic case to justify hardware deployment...and obviously someone thinks there will be one, sooner or later.

As for picking up transponder emissions immediately after startup, it's very plausible, though dependent on receiver coverage. Receivers pretty much need solid line-of-sight to the source, but if there's one on the airport (a good possibility, though it's probably a 1090ES version), then that's easily covered.

Can you tell us how many Flight Feeder boxes FA sends out in a year? Put another way, what is the current rate of growth for the Flight Feeder network? The growth rate is probably public information, as FA promotes the extent of their coverage.

Finally, I'd like to note that our CEO has spent a fair amount of time this year working with the FAA in an attempt to get movement on an anonymizing solution for 1090ES users. I'm not privy to any real details, but I believe it's based on offering designated-anonymous Mode S codes, which will not be directly tied to a tail # (unlike current codes).

As much as our business is based on freely available flight data, we also believe in people's right to opt out, and we will respect blocking requests. (And I can tell you from personal experience that we take blocking very seriously. Bugs relating to possible inadvertent disclosure of blocked-aircraft information are of the "stop what you're doing and fix this right now" priority.)

Phillip, I really do value your input, and also appreciate your personal position.

We both know the realities of business, even if we sometimes try to ignore it. Your boss may be a great guy with good intentions, but in the end, the almighty dollar drives the decisions. FA is a tracking company selling data. If a private firm or government agency wants to buy UAT tracking, FA will be all over it, and based on what you have told us here, your CEO wants to be ready. No argument from me. I'm all for enterprise, and I expect the tiger to do what tigers do.

This isn't about blocking, a different 1090 option. This is about "anonymous" UAT transmitters which turned out to have a big hole in the burka. It leaves us exposed to ID, via little more than a cheap local receiver connected to the net.

And it's about being a well-treated consumer. The manufacturer advertised anonymous, I bought anonymous, and I think I'm owed an anonymous transmitter, not one which spits out my real ID every time I turn it on.