Sign in to follow this  
Guest Peter Sidoli

Loss of public navdata sources = complete BS

Recommended Posts

I don't think I'm overreacting to this news and I hope this thread isn't locked for being slightly political, but this is really the first instance post 9/11 that I can think of where I've really truly felt that the goverment is doing something in the name of "protecting me" that is actually taking away my rights.The people of this country own the airway system, not someone in the Defense Department who just arbitrarily decided that it was a security risk to publish navaid and terminal procedure info to the public. As taxpayers, we pay for the creation of such data - it is our right to access it just as much as it is the Pentagon's.QUOTE:This action is taken to accomplish the following objectives: safeguarding the integrity of Department of Defense (DoD) aeronautical navigation data currently available on the public Internet;This is the only reason that even makes any sense - hacking is a problem, HOWEVER, you're telling me the DoD is putting the master source files for the database on the Internet rather than a copy that they could care less about getting hacked?preventing unfettered access to air facility data by those intending harm to the United States, its interests or allies;Ok, so remove the diagrams dealing with military airports. Btw, if a terrorist wanted this info, couldn't they just buy a Jep subscription for a nominal fee and get even better info than the DAFIF stuff? And hey, those military airbases are in FS already usually with a pretty accurate tarmac layout etc, should the DoD/Homeland Security fly up to Redmond and order MS to strip it from FS2006?upholding terms of bi-lateral geospatial data-sharing agreements;Anyone have the text/link to said agreements?avoiding competition with commercial interests;God forbid the public be able to access the information we pay for already via our taxes without having to pay a private corporation for it. This is in line with the current administration's ideology though - privatize everything. That air you're breathing right now - someone's gonna "own" it before long and you'll be paying them too.and avoiding intellectual property/copyright disputes with foreign agencies that provide host-nation aeronautical data.If this is really an issue, remove the offending portions of the database, leaving at the very least, the USA civilian stuff intact.I'm seriously offended as a simmer by these actions, which clearly are not going to actually produce a tangible "safety" increase, but are just a way for the current goverment to further place itself into a veil of secrecy, unaccountable to those paying the bills for this stuff.I'll be writing letters to both Arizona senators and my district Representative informing them of my disgust for this decision today and I suggest anyone else upset do so as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi Ryan,Well said - I've just posted some thoughts also (hadn't seen your thread).Very concerning and equally frustrating !!RegardsEddy:-mad

Share this post


Link to post

100% PURE BS. Besides if soemone really wanted to get a hold of "navdata" they just have to order a freaking set of Jeppesen charts or something. Man if these guys get paid 100K to protect the public, heck i will do it for 90K and actually make sense at it.

Share this post


Link to post

This is basically a ripple effect of Jeppesen's earlier refusal to pay Airservices Australia license fees for using its public data.My understanding is its now a copyright infringement suit against Jeppesen, which has greatly concerned other Navdata producers. Should Jeppesen lose this fight the effect could be much greater if other countries follow suit and expect Jepp to pay them license fee's to them as well.Its just a direction they 'might' go should this thing go against Jeppesen, and subject the DAFIF producers to similar legal action. It doesn't appear to be a done deal, just the start of a plan should it be needed right now.On the other hand I see it as interesting position for Jepp to be in. As they have basically been using public data, recompiling, and publishing it for their commercial use and charging license fee's. Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm actually surprised that the US Military has provided this data with such relative ease to access thus far.Anyway, there's still a little less than a year to find an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post

I've got an idea:How much does an actual subscription to the Jeppesen data used for the database in real aircraft FMCs cost? If all of us who rely on Richard's service were to contribute to the cost of getting him access to the real deal data, I wonder if the per person cost would be low enough for it to be feasible. In essence this would turn it into a payware product, but if that's the only way to do it, I'd be totally for it. Plus, we'd get a much better database than the DAFIF derived one ever was - it would be exactly what is in the real FMCs.Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

People might not realize it yet, but the government is and has been chipping away at our basic freedoms for a few years now. As long as they get away with it , they will keep chipping. So far, there has been very little protest, by the public. In a couple of years, I may not be brave enough to write a post like this one, if the government keeps going in the direction that it is.

Share this post


Link to post

We lose access to updated Navdata - so what!This is a game not a matter of life an death. If a new navaid is brought online or one goes offline will it really ruin the simming experience? I doubt it.We must start a campaign of civil disobedience to ensure the governments of the world do not trample on our rights to boot up a computer and enter our reality based dreamworld.Power to the simmer!!Andy b

Share this post


Link to post

>I've got an idea:>>How much does an actual subscription to the Jeppesen data used>for the database in real aircraft FMCs cost? If all of us who>rely on Richard's service were to contribute to the cost of>getting him access to the real deal data, I wonder if the per>person cost would be low enough for it to be feasible. In>essence this would turn it into a payware product, but if>that's the only way to do it, I'd be totally for it. Plus,>we'd get a much better database than the DAFIF derived one>ever was - it would be exactly what is in the real FMCs.>>Thoughts?What a dumb idea.Probably cost more to transfer the funds than the per person contribution. Andy b

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,Cost of access to commercial datas (Jeppesen in that case) is only one aspect of the problem. By the way the higher side of the cost is in the cycles updates membership not in the purchase of the basic software/datas. No, the real problem is a copyright issue whereby the use of datas is restricted to license user and distribution to third parties or integration of datas in other products / softwares whether sold or freely distributed are forbidden.Michael

Share this post


Link to post

>I've got an idea:>>How much does an actual subscription to the Jeppesen data used>for the database in real aircraft FMCs cost? If all of us who>rely on Richard's service were to contribute to the cost of>getting him access to the real deal data, I wonder if the per>person cost would be low enough for it to be feasible. In>essence this would turn it into a payware product, but if>that's the only way to do it, I'd be totally for it. Plus,>we'd get a much better database than the DAFIF derived one>ever was - it would be exactly what is in the real FMCs.>>Thoughts?I don't see how it could be done without Richard violating the Jeppesen license agreement.Unless we all plan on getting a collection together pay all the legal fee's, fines, and judgements against him as well.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post

Scare tactics is very common everywhere but the US is taking it to new extremes all the time. I hope a change of philosophy soon occours over there because freedom and democracy in "the land of the free" has been going downhill for half a decade now. I know Americans who would vote Bush because that would mean lower emission taxes and they have SUV's - there's nothing wrong with voting Republican/Bush if you understand and agree with their program, understand their history and philosophy etc, but deciding who to vote for based on simple things like emission taxes or whatever is a threat to democracy

Share this post


Link to post

Jimmy<<<>>I think in every 'free' country, other than perhaps one's who have just obtained their freedom are in the same pinch. Global crisis', terrorism, crime, and such has reduced it for everyone. And no government refuses power when they see the chance to get more of it, its the nature of the beast.Whomever thought this one up, most likely believes that it is a good idea -- I find it rather stupid myself, but the theory is 'somewhere' based on a norm to preserve our way of life.Until we, the people of 'free' nations decide we have had enough of the crimes against humanity that go on in this world, and make an sincere effort to change the world, it is NOT going to get any better, and terrorism and such just gives the power mongers another excuse to make more laws, rules and restrictions in the name of our safety. Remember, freedom is a most costly commodity!"By best definition, terrorism can be weighed as the sustained, clandestine use of physical or mental violence. Be it murder, kidnapping, hijacking or bombing, it usually has a vast political purpose, coercing and intimidating the civilian population, presenting a prejudiced view to affect government policy and attracting the ever aging, news-scrounging media. Killing of civilians, delibertely, to intimidate the general populace is perhaps one of the worst characteristics of contemporary terrorism . . .because it works!I wrote those words about 9 years ago to begin a chapter on a terrorist in a novel I wrote . . . they were true then, they are true now . . . and I doubt seriously if it will change in my lifetime, and yes, it is most frustrating.Best to allClay

Share this post


Link to post

Reading these replies and complaints is rather entertaining. First of all, it seems that a lot of people think that flight simmers should be consulted before any policies or practices are amended. It seems that some think that if all U.S. simmers get together, you would have the power to vote out elected officials. Right.It also seems, from reading the article, that the real reason for the change in policy is not security, but copyright issues (as others have mentioned). The data comes from various sources, and some have decided that they don't care to provide it for free for the whole world to download, when they can sell it. And don't blame it all on the U.S., because there are groups from outside the US involved in producing this information.You also complain about the loss of freedoms. Which freedoms have YOU really lost? Don't confuse convenience with freedoms or rights. These same people complaining about loss of freedoms, would be raising holy hell if another terrorist act is carried out against the U.S. - "why didn't THEY do more?", "how could THEY let this happen again?". How would YOU go about protecting us?Remember how, after 9/11, everyone was saying that we should have had stronger airport security and immigration policies BEFORE 9/11? I think I'm safe in assuming that the same people saying that, would have been trying to remove any elected official that had anything to do with causing so much inconvenience for them, "for no reason". People wouldn't have accepted that.Keep in mind - no one is sitting up there trying to come up with ways to pi$$ off flight simmers. There are reasons for most of the things that are done that many citizens don't understand. I work in security at a high security facility, and even though all of changes we've made since 9/11 are VERY clear to me and other security people, many general employees/workers only see them as an inconvenience. Some just don't see it as trying to keep them, their families and thousands of other people safe. People seem to think that these changes are the end of the FS world. Remember the reaction to the PT/American Airlines debacle? Look in the Avsim library now, and tell me that there is lack of AA repaints in there. Just wait and see what happens. Things USUALLY work out.Don't fly off the handle when things like this happen. There is USUALLY good reason for it, and it's not the end of the world. You may not understand it all, right now, but maybe someday...Just chill, and see how it all works out. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Bob wrote:"I work in security at a high security facility, and even though all of changes we've made since 9/11 are VERY clear to me and other security people, many general employees/workers only see them as an inconvenience. Some just don't see it as trying to keep them, their families and thousands of other people safe."Amen...

Share this post


Link to post

There's a fine line between "keeping people safe" and removing rights in the name of keeping people safe, though. When I read about kids being questioned by the police because they want to buy FS2004 and such, things have obviously gone too far. Same with destroying public property (Meigs) or trying to install spyware on everyone's PC etc.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no doubt that in some cases authorities have gone overboard to "protect us", but at the same time, I have to wonder what the TRUE story is, when I read some of these accounts. MANY times, what you read, and what actually happened, are two entirely diffrent things. People here don't hesitate to criticise the media when they read or hear a totally (messed) up account of a plane crash, or other aviation-related event, but they don't apply that same grain of salt to other stories. Trust me, they screw up stories other than avitation stuff, all the time too. Whatever sounds good, and will get you attention is all that matters. And of course we know that the media is completely un-biased. :)Now, when it comes to local authorities closing airport viewing areas in the name of 'security', that's another story. That's "BS". :)

Share this post


Link to post

>I don't think I'm overreacting to this news and I hope this>thread isn't locked for being slightly political, but this is>really the first instance post 9/11 that I can think of where>I've really truly felt that the goverment is doing something>in the name of "protecting me" that is actually taking away my>rights.Your...RIGHTS? I just paged through the US Constitution and its amendments, and I don't see a right to free navdata in there. Perhaps you can point me to it?>The people of this country own the airway system, not someone>in the Defense Department who just arbitrarily decided that it>was a security risk to publish navaid and terminal procedure>info to the public. As taxpayers, we pay for the creation of>such data - it is our right to access it just as much as it is>the Pentagon's.As said in the federal register, DoD has no statutory obligation to provide free navigation data to the public. Maybe the FAA should be doing this for the US airway system.As taxpayers we pay to compile the databases...but we pay to compile the databases for intended use by DoD. To secure unrestricted free-distribution rights to the foreign national navdata contained in DAFIF would be quite expensive and not in the public interest, at least from a DoD budget perspective.As to your "right" to access it...read the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) where it delineates fairly well what you can expect in terms of access to government-maintained information. You have an incorrect perception as to your "rights" in this regard. Don't like that? Start a political movement..."Simmers for Free Navdata." Fund a Capitol Hill lobbyist or two. >QUOTE:>>This action is taken to accomplish the following>objectives: >>safeguarding the integrity of Department of Defense (DoD)>aeronautical navigation data currently available on the public>Internet;>>>This is the only reason that even makes any sense - hacking is>a problem, HOWEVER, you're telling me the DoD is putting the>master source files for the database on the Internet rather>than a copy that they could care less about getting hacked?No, it doesn't need be the master source file...if you hack the same approach plate a C-17 crew is about to use to fly into Tinbuktoo Intl airport at night in bad wx with 200 of our sons and daughters in uniform aboard, you might be able to replace altitudes or procedure courses in a way that causes the jet's crew, using an approach plate obtained from that same site, to drive into a mountain, for example. Integrity of this kind of operational data IS important.>>preventing unfettered access to air facility data by those>intending harm to the United States, its interests or allies;>>>Ok, so remove the diagrams dealing with military airports. >Btw, if a terrorist wanted this info, couldn't they just buy a>Jep subscription for a nominal fee and get even better info>than the DAFIF stuff? And hey, those military airbases are in>FS already usually with a pretty accurate tarmac layout etc,>should the DoD/Homeland Security fly up to Redmond and order>MS to strip it from FS2006?Unfettered access means we aren't going to just hand it over to them. Nobody expects that we're going to make the info vanish from view. >>upholding terms of bi-lateral geospatial data-sharing>agreements;>>>>avoiding competition with commercial interests;>>>God forbid the public be able to access the information we pay>for already via our taxes without having to pay a private>corporation for it. This is in line with the current>administration's ideology though - privatize everything. That>air you're breathing right now - someone's gonna "own" it>before long and you'll be paying them too.The government buys licenses for software for the computers used in its offices...do you argue that it should buy a license for the Microsoft Office suite for every American as well? When DoD obtains access to for-fee data from a foreign country, it's licensed for a specific DoD audience...a wider audience will cost more.This has nothing to do with the current U.S. administration. The privatization that drives this intellectual property issue is being done by governments outside the U.S.>>and avoiding intellectual property/copyright disputes with>foreign agencies that provide host-nation aeronautical>data.>>If this is really an issue, remove the offending portions of>the database, leaving at the very least, the USA civilian>stuff intact.Why? What DoD interest is served by spending time and resources to create and distribute a dumbed-down version of the database for a non-DoD user? DoD does not have a statutory obligation to provide this info to the public.>I'm seriously offended as a simmer by these actions, which>clearly are not going to actually produce a tangible "safety">increase, but are just a way for the current goverment to>further place itself into a veil of secrecy, unaccountable to>those paying the bills for this stuff.>>I'll be writing letters to both Arizona senators and my>district Representative informing them of my disgust for this>decision today and I suggest anyone else upset do so as>well...There are a number of tangible benefits as outlined in the federal register. There are issues of data integrity, DoD exposure to legal action on an issue (intellectual property rights) that is near and dear to the US economy, DoD's continued access to critical foreign flight data, and maybe a little bit of added security on the periphery.But...by all means write your Congressmen...precious few even know who those people are. I am quite sure the 13 calls for immediate action that will be received in Sen McCain's office will literally catapult this one to the front of his otherwise frivolous policy agenda. :-)RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone who is truly honest with themselfs would have to admit that Government corporate crimes against humanity is the root cause of global terrisim.The big question is, are we going to graduate beyond that,or end up as one big ###### Germany?

Share this post


Link to post

>Anyone who is truly honest with themselfs would have to admit>that Government corporate crimes against humanity is the root>cause of global terrisim.No way, Jim.I do think this Berkeley-esque hyperbole would be better posted on alt.despair.whipped.and.beaten.democratsand maybe crossposted to alt.no.matter.what.it.is.its.all.our.faultWho knows, maybe a support group is forming in your area...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

>Anyone who is truly honest with themselfs would have to admit>that Government corporate crimes against humanity is the root>cause of global terrisim.Sounds like from a mouth of a dumb Berkeley leftist. If you are truly honest with yourself you should get a mental therapy - perhaps 2 weeks in a resort in Noth Korea would suffice.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Share this post


Link to post

>Anyone who is truly honest with themselfs would have to admit>that Government corporate crimes against humanity is the root>cause of global terrisim.>Sounds like from a mouth of a dumb Berkeley leftist. If you>are truly honest with yourself you should get a mental therapy>- perhaps 2 weeks in a resort in Noth Korea would suffice.Now that's just wonderful ... breathtaking argumentation sir! I'm always astounded about the sides of people the internet brings about ... Please, just TRY to back up your remarks, or say nothing if there is nothing sensible you have to say. Insulting people isn't getting nobody nowhere. You know the great thing about freedom? You're entitled to have your own opinion! So

Share this post


Link to post

Please stay on topic and keep personal stabs out...Thank you for your cooperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this