Shutting down AIS

[Discovery 15797]

For those of you concerned that "big brother" is tracking you via your AIS, I would suggest your ego may be slightly over-inflated, or you've watched/read too many spy thrillers. It is very likely nobody really cares where you are (unless you are in the list of the worlds most top 100 wanted criminals), and even if they did they would likely rely on the myriad of security cameras in public space for positive ID.

The only 'private' info given out by AIS is vessel location. MMSI, Call Sign, etc. is public record. There is likely more valuable personal info available about you via easier online resources than any info garnered via AIS messages (other than your vessel's position which may or may not be YOUR location).

I have stated before AIS use by private vessels who only navigate inland waters is ridiculous to the point it should be banned IMHO. AIS use by private vessels who only do coastal waters is valuable, but should not be your only tool for collision avoidance. AIS use by private vessels offshore is indispensable.

When I lost my forestay 850 nm off the west coast this year, the USCG tracked me via AIS back to San Francisco, despite me informing them I had an Iridium Go to broadcast my position every hour.

I also used AIS to positively contact 2 larger ships at night who were dangerously close (within 3 nm) to notify them of my restricted maneuverability situation and they altered course to give me a wider berth.

I have AIS on anytime my vessel is underway. I often turn it to silent mode at anchor (unless I am in a country that requires it by law), and at dock in a marina. I use a keyed switch to turn it off in those situations. The default is the 'on' position anytime I leave the boat in case the boat is stolen and hope the thieves do not access unit which is hidden from sight.

Your experience (and paranoia) may vary...but for me it is a useful tool and i wouldn't cross an ocean, or navigate certain areas at night without AIS and radar. And if broadcasting my vessels information helps other professional captains in the vicinity...or helps 'big brother' track me back to safety...I'm all for it.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Not transmitting AIS signals is one tiny way to hold our privacy ground. And yes, it comes at a price; one I am happy to pay.

It’s kind of lucky you are in the minority. If you weren’t, you could save yourself the trouble of receiving AIS signal because there would be nothing for any of us to receive and a quite valuable resource would be lost to a lot of people.

Interesting also that you have no problem at all with people worldwide knowing far more detail than AIS provides if/when you need to trigger your EPIRB. Your privacy concerns appear to go out the window when your arse is on the line. Apparently the price in such an event is one you’re OK with.

I normally agree with your opinions but in this instance I really don’t. I think your focus on privacy as a reason is, in this instance, pretty weak - the data your AIS would transmit is of little value/use to anyone who is not trying to avoid you.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

For those of you concerned that "big brother" is tracking you via your AIS, I would suggest your ego may be slightly over-inflated, or you've watched/read too many spy thrillers. It is very likely nobody really cares where you are (unless you are in the list of the worlds most top 100 wanted criminals), and even if they did they would likely rely on the myriad of security cameras in public space for positive ID.

The only 'private' info given out by AIS is vessel location. MMSI, Call Sign, etc. is public record. There is likely more valuable personal info available about you via easier online resources than any info garnered via AIS messages (other than your vessel's position which may or may not be YOUR location).

I have stated before AIS use by private vessels who only navigate inland waters is ridiculous to the point it should be banned IMHO. AIS use by private vessels who only do coastal waters is valuable, but should not be your only tool for collision avoidance. AIS use by private vessels offshore is indispensable.

When I lost my forestay 850 nm off the west coast this year, the USCG tracked me via AIS back to San Francisco, despite me informing them I had an Iridium Go to broadcast my position every hour.

I also used AIS to positively contact 2 larger ships at night who were dangerously close (within 3 nm) to notify them of my restricted maneuverability situation and they altered course to give me a wider berth.

I have AIS on anytime my vessel is underway. I often turn it to silent mode at anchor (unless I am in a country that requires it by law), and at dock in a marina. I use a keyed switch to turn it off in those situations. The default is the 'on' position anytime I leave the boat in case the boat is stolen and hope the thieves do not access unit which is hidden from sight.

Your experience (and paranoia) may vary...but for me it is a useful tool and i wouldn't cross an ocean, or navigate certain areas at night without AIS and radar. And if broadcasting my vessels information helps other professional captains in the vicinity...or helps 'big brother' track me back to safety...I'm all for it.

Actually factually “big brother” is tracking all of us (that’s just a fact)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance
This is just another another way to better track and likely later tax us even more of what little they don’t already take.

As much as I’d like to believe what you said and ignore the facts, between modern algorithms (like those creepy recommends on sites like Facebook) and 19th and 20th century history has shown, presume sending raw data about your location, stops, routes, etc to be forever stored for who knows what future use, is ether safe or smart is misguided.

Opsec

If AIS just contained location and generic classification of ship (small power, tanker, large sail) that would be a good safety device, but when the signal contains individually identifiable data, that is no longer about safety.

Safety is the sales pitch not the product.

It’s a great set up for yet another tax, maybe by the mile you travel by that fancy boat, since you have a boat you must be a billionaire, that’s a easy pitch to the drooling masses, and you’re already sending all the data to do it, easy enough to even automate the billing.


I’d love to agree with you, I really would, but history and current practices unfortunately paint a different picture about how these things nearly always end up playing out.


Mac’s crystal ball, wager in the next 10yrs unless you’re part of government it will soon be illegal to turn them off, later I’d imagine the tech will be embedded in things like all radars and all ship mounted plotters/VHFs and without a option to even turn it off, perhaps requiring activation/authentication before you can even use it.
Or maybe I’m wrong and it’s all sunshine and lollipops.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

If AIS just contained location and generic classification of ship (small power, tanker, large sail) that would be a good safety device, but when the signal contains individually identifiable data, that is no longer about safety.

Perhaps my AIS is different. Mine has entries for:

MMSI number
Name of vessel
Country of origin
Call sign
Vessel type

The second page has vessel dimensions that describe the location of the AIS antenna on the vessel

There is nothing else significant that it asks for. And I don’t need to complete all of the above fields. In fact many vessels that appear on my AIS have some of these fields missing.

So if other units are the same as mine, how much paranoia is out there that people think sharing this info is somehow dangerous. Mine has absolutely no info about the owner. No signals from other vessels that I receive show even one piece of “individually identifiable” data. It’s all about the vessel. How on earth would anyone find a way to tax the owner? Even if he was in his own country’s territorial waters? Wow!

Until recently I resisted AIS but not because I was frightened that some feral government official was going to tax me, rather because I didn’t believe I needed one. That anyone would actually buy one and then severely limit its ability to do its job, goes right by me.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

I also cruise this area since 1990's.

The number of actual 'attacks' on private yachts in SE Asia is infinitesimally small. Also, anyone in these areas who is spending $10 a day to track a vessel are likely not interested in private yachts which are easy targets, but are not likely highly profitable targets.

The waters of the Sulu and Celebes Seas especially around Mindanao are especially dangerous primarily due to Abu Sayaff activities, and the Philippine Navy has issued multiple warnings.

The article you cite is from 2014 and the targets were primarily cargo ships; not private boats.

In fact, the majority of confrontational (sometimes armed) 'piracy' on private boats in the past 4-5 years has been in the Caribbean and South American waters.

Also, the majority of 'pirate incidents' in SE Asia are typically petty burglaries and opportunistic crime; not confrontational. There are a greater number of these incidents in the South Pacific than SE Asia. But, statistically there are a greater number of private boats in SoPac compared to SEA.

Indonesia, Thailand, and other countries are now requiring ALL vessels to transmit AIS info. Failure could result in heavy fines and possible detainment. I suspect Vietnam will also require AIS as well as it opens it's waters.

Also, with Chinese incursion and increased tensions between China and Vietnam and China and Philippines private vessels may come under greater scrutiny in very specific areas of geo-political disagreements.

Hi Discovery..... I agree, yachts are not a primary target, but as an added precaution I do everything I can ......to remain anonymous

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I have a pretty good sense of the ubiquity of surveillance in our societies. It's everywhere, from the constant tracking of every key stroke here, to the monitoring of your international movements, to the disturbingly cute 'smile, you're on camera' messages that make light of the fact that we are being visually monitored almost everywhere we go.

Mike, could you move a little to the left? You're not center screen.

There you go - much better. *grin*

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

It’s kind of lucky you are in the minority. If you weren’t, you could save yourself the trouble of receiving AIS signal because there would be nothing for any of us to receive and a quite valuable resource would be lost to a lot of people.

Thanks Cassidy. I agreed. This is the price I am easily willing to pay. Personally don't believe AIS to be particularly vital; it's a useful tool, but far from vital. If it was, there should be an identifiable decrease in collisions since the growth and adoption of this wonder technology. I've looked for such data and found no clear benefit in the accident data, but if someone can show evidence that AIS actually makes a measurable improvement, I'd love to see it.

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Interesting also that you have no problem at all with people worldwide knowing far more detail than AIS provides if/when you need to trigger your EPIRB. Your privacy concerns appear to go out the window when your arse is on the line. Apparently the price in such an event is one you’re OK with

Well, as a simple fact, I don't'T own an EPIRB. Never have. I haven't looked at the privacy implications of such ownership -- that is not why I don't own one, but you've got me thinking, so thanks.

But you present a false equivalency. Everything comes with benefits and costs. The benefit of saving your life probably is worth the privacy cost. The benefit of having another method of avoiding collision at sea is not -- at least no to me. Others can come to different conclusions, but my real point is that most people don't even think about it. This is because we are all being trained to believe privacy is unimportant. It is not.

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Mike, could you move a little to the left? You're not center screen. There you go - much better. *grin*

Cute Dave. I resemble those comments .

But to be a bit (too) serious, privacy and protection of our liberties shouldn't be a left/right issue.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Cute Dave. I resemble those comments .

But to be a bit (too) serious, privacy and protection of our liberties shouldn't be a left/right issue.

Hmm. I was being literal and making a feeble joke about being lined up with the camera on your presumed laptop. Not a political comment at all.

My wife's new laptop has a physical shutter over the camera. Mine makes do with a piece of tape.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Hmm. I was being literal and making a feeble joke about being lined up with the camera on your presumed laptop. Not a political comment at all.

My wife's new laptop has a physical shutter over the camera. Mine makes do with a piece of tape.

Ah, well then... still funny. My camera is covered, of course .

But it's telling that the new laptop comes with this feature. I believe the tide is starting to turn on privacy awareness. Although I could be cynical and point out this is an easy distraction. The most significant privacy breaches are happening with every key stroke or mouse hover. Almost all of this happens behind the veil.

[transmitterdan]

All personal computers, phones and tablets should be fitted with mechanical covers for the camera(s). Also, microphone on/off switches should be such that they cannot be overridden by software. Alas, almost none are.

[fgd3]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I know… someone’s going to say “then you’re not helping others avoid you.” This is true, but it’s not someone else’s responsibility to avoid me. That’s my job.

Following the same logic, I take it you sail at night without lights, is that right?


If you're the stand on vessel it is the other vessel's responsibility to avoid you. Your job is to maintain course and speed.


Your choice of receiving AIS signals but not transmitting them is fine, but your justification for doing so doesn't hold water.


Fabbian

[Mike OReilly]

Perhaps this is too subtle a concept for some to grasp, but the world is not black and white. All these choices come as trade offs. Some, such as sailing with lights on, comes with almost no privacy implications. Transmitting AIS signals comes at a higher cost. But as an example, I bet you would (Fabbian) run without lights on in known pirate zones. Why? Because the privacy price too high.

If you think the price is fair, then broadcast your AIS signal. I suspect in some areas it may be. But to me it is unnecessary, and not worth the benefit.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Ah, well then... still funny. My camera is covered, of course

Indeed and with respect to your initial reaction the political spectrum reference I did not make would have been subtle. Nice. That would be an interesting discussion over a drink. I won't go there here.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

All personal computers, phones and tablets should be fitted with mechanical covers for the camera(s). Also, microphone on/off switches should be such that they cannot be overridden by software. Alas, almost none are.

Nope. Solid bypass of microphones on most laptops is easy. TRRS plug with a 15k ohm resister between ring 2 and sleeve. Same with your phone or tablet.

[tony.keel]

That was an excellent video animation and if the facts are correct, a good explanation of events. Also some really good comments by the group.
I agree with those that said the recommendations were lame and not specific enough. As one example, the transmission from one vessel to the terminal traffic advisory makes a vague passive statement not requiring a response, something like 'we have not received information on (the other vessel)'. A better transmission to the terminal traffic advisor would be 'Say the position, course and speed of the (other vessel). This transmission requires a response and the response should contain useful information to prevent a collision.
I am not familiar with regulations governing big ship communications around large ports, but I have listened to it. It seems rather non-structured and informal compared to aviation communication which I am familiar with. I know this may be because of the high speed and low visibility involved with aircraft, but large ships are slow to change course so it seems it is too late to turn too often. Having accurate information from all available sources is beneficial in bringing to light preconceived beliefs such as 'that light is a stationary object'. It allows cross-checking of information sources to resolve any ambiguities or human misconceptions. What's more, there is plenty of time to use all available sources of information on a ship. While there are many elements in the accident chain, my suggestion would be step up the game when it comes to radio communications.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

If AIS just contained location and generic classification of ship (small power, tanker, large sail) that would be a good safety device, but when the signal contains individually identifiable data, that is no longer about safety.

You can easily look up exactly what information is contained in an AIS message.

Existing AIS messages do not contain any personal or 'individually identifiable data' that is not in the public domain other than boat location, speed, direction, etc. (which is not personal data).

But, maybe you have some unique AIS signal that does contain your personal information that I'm not familiar with. But, don't be concerned because if you do...base stations and other commercial AIS devices cannot interpret those messages that your unique AIS transmits.