Is it illegal to listen to Air Traffic Control transmissions in the UK? According to Is it illegal for Joe Public to listen to ATC in the UK? over on Aviation.SE, although aviation transmissions are broadcast publicly, in the clear, unencrypted; it is illegal to listen to them live on a scanner or such. What law prohibits this? I believe it dates to WWII fears of spies. I also believe the UK is the only country with such a law. You can freely listen to New York's JFK or Amsterdam Schiphol's ATC without a problem. Has anybody been successfully prosecuted under this law?
The Radiocommunications Agency (now OFCOM) issued some guidance about this in 2001. The specific offence is defined by s5 Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949: Any person who ... uses any wireless telegraphy apparatus with intent to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message (whether sent by means of wireless telegraphy or not) of which neither the person using the apparatus nor a person on whose behalf he is acting is an intended recipient ... shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. It's also an offence under s5(1)(b)(ii) to disclose the contents of any such message, so the reception and disclosure of radio messages not sent by or addressed to you are both offences. I don't know if there have been any successful prosecutions specifically for monitoring aircraft communications. I doubt whether a hobbyist listening for his own enjoyment would attract the attention of the authorities, but if he started to publish recordings of the traffic then that might well do it.
In the U.S. this is a notoriously perilous area of the law, particularly because the laws regarding recording vary so much between the states. A good source for this question is the RCFP. To give you an example: In Pennsylvania it is a felony to record "oral communication" in any circumstance in which the speaker would be justified in expecting it to not be recorded. Legally, as soon as you turn on an audio recorder in PA, you had better make sure nobody unaware that you're recording wanders within range of your microphone!
I can't comment on tactical considerations, but legally there is nothing preventing submitting a Subject Access Request to support litigation. The case law has developed (and been somewhat inconsistent) over the years, culminating with the &quot;no other purpose&quot; rule being clarified by the Court of Appeal in Dawson-Damer v. Taylor Wessing LLP, [2017] EWCA Civ 74 by saying that... ...a SAR would not be invalid if it had been made with the collateral purpose of assisting with litigation. Delivering the leading judgment, Arden LJ noted (at paragraph 107) that the EC Data Protection Directive “makes it clear that the rights given by the Directive are to protect fundamental rights conferred by EU law. We have been shown nothing in the DPA or the Directive which limits the purpose for which a data subject may request his data, or provides data controllers with the option of not providing data based solely on the requester’s purpose”. Source and further reading
There are several Official Secrets Acts that are in force in the U.K. The one relevant for your question is the Official Secrets Act 1911. See Section 3: For the purposes of this Act, the expression “prohibited place” means ... any work of defence, arsenal, naval or air force establishment or station, factory, dockyard, mine, minefield, camp, ship, or aircraft belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty ... [and there are other things that can be prohibited places, including places declared by order] To be in violation of the Act, it is not enough to merely be in the area. See Section 1: If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State... approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act... he shall be guilty of felony There is a bill before Parliament that would redefine prohibited place (but still capturing the base you have photographed) and create additional offences in relation to prohibited places. See this factsheet and the current text of the bill. Importantly, Section 5 would create a new offence of &quot;unauthorized entry etc to a prohibited place,&quot; which would make it an offence to access a prohibited place without authorization while knowing (or while one reasonably should have known) that the access was unauthorized. No purpose prejudicial to the U.K. would be required. However, given the lesser severity of the wrong, the maximum punishment would be six months in prison or a fine.
You do need to know the location of both parties. U.S. Federal law (18 USC 2511(2)(d)), which prohibits the interception of wire and electronic communication, states: It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. California Penal Code 632 requires the consent of all parties to a confidential communication in order for the conversation to be recorded. The statute defines a "confidential communication" as follows: The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded. Once AT&amp;T, or anyone else for that matter, states that the communication is being recorded, it is no longer considered a confidential communication requiring the consent of all parties in order for any party to record it. Part of the California Civil Jury Instructions for this code requires that the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the plaintiff had a "reasonable expectation that the conversation was not being overheard or recorded." You can see the full jury instructions here: https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1800/1809.html
It would probably already be illegal based on national laws that comply with Directive 95/46/EC (of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995). What's new with GDPR include: the sanctions that can be imposed the accountability i.e. you must be able to provide documented evidence on your practices even before something happens the obligation to report all data breaches. So you'd definitely have more concrete responsibility to follow good security practices under the GDPR.
A private venue normally has discretion over who may attend their premises, as long as it is not because of membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law. Note that the communication, as quoted, did not say that the banned person was a threat, but only that one of the performers felt uncomfortable. I do not think that the banned person has any legal recourse, unless they can plausibly assert that this is a case of unlawful discrimination, which the question does not suggest.
A property owner can give you an easement for the air rights of their property, which can allow you to put your own structure over their property or prevent them from putting a structure over their property (depending on the terms of the easement). For instance, a railroad might sell the air rights to an urban rail yard to a private developer so that the developer can put buildings over top of the yard. A high-rise owner might buy an easement for a neighboring property that bans them from building above a certain height in order to keep the views from the high-rise unblocked. However, a property owner can't sell you rights that they themselves don't have. The US government has exclusive sovereignty over US airspace, and there's a public right of transit through navigable airspace (defined as airspace above minimum safe flight altitudes). While the traditional rule was that a property owner owned their land up to infinity, with the development of airplanes this rule has been changed to significantly limit the rights of property owners. The FAA doesn't limit how tall a property owner can build (although too-tall structures can be declared hazards to navigation, which can cause issues with planning boards or insurance companies). However, if there are no obstructions, the airspace above 500 feet in rural areas (in built-up areas it depends on local obstructions) is open for pilots to fly through. The only way to get obstruction-free airspace restricted is to try to get the FAA to issue a flight restriction. If you're trying to get large swaths of airspace restricted, this is extremely unlikely to happen.