zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
> Update: Musk just weighed in on the suspensions, characterizing them as intentional. “Same doxxing rules apply to “journalists” as to everyone else,” he tweeted in a reply.

> It’s worth noting that the policy these accounts violated, a prohibition against sharing “live location information,” is only 24 hours old.

It seems like a good rule, but in this case the application of the rule seems less impersonal than it could be

Let’s try to make a comment that creates less outrage than most…

This is why it would be interesting to post public information about politicians collected from the online spyware that tracks all of us. It would rapidly motivate new laws that at least somewhat improve privacy.

This always happens when rule makers are personally affected by a problem: the problem starts getting attention

>>barbar+Ae
Those journalists weren't reporting specific locations of his jet...they were reporting on a legit news story about it. Musk didn't like it so the journalists are now banned.

The dude is truly off his rocker now. The "rules" are whatever he makes up on the spot. He's self-destructing before our eyes...no longer the richest man in the world. Telsa stock tanking all because he can't STFU and acts like a spoiled 12 year old.

>>Goofba+uh
>Those journalists weren't reporting specific locations of his jet...they were reporting on a legit news story about it.

Come on now. They were linking directly to the tracker that Sweeney was banned for, not just reporting on the story about it.

It was a childish petulant doxxing on purpose and they got treated the same as Sweeney.

>>Natura+Gl
How is it "doxxing" to use public flight data? Am I missing something here?

>>Tulliu+Lr
What adsbexchange, flightradar & co. are doing is almost certainly illegal in Europe under the GDPR.

This isn't exactly "public flight data", in many cases it's illegally collected and published flight data.

E: I can't reply to "imnotjames" below thanks to HN ratelimits, but here you go:

It's an obvious GDPR violation, just like it'd be an obvious GDPR violation to publish a similar database but with phone IMEIs and associated locations instead of aircraft.

>>rosnd+YI
I don’t see how it is an obvious GDPR violation. The GDPR is a lot more nuanced than “all private data is protected”. It has exemptions for data published based on a legal requirement (could be the case here), data that cannot easily linked to an individual (number plates are not protected by themselves) and data regarding companies is also exempt. This jet isn’t owned by musk, it’s owned by a company. Journalists (including citizen journalists) also have broad protections in European law and those must be weighed against the GDPR protections.

There’s so much nuance to this that it’s possible this might fall under GDPR, but it’s very far from obvious.

>>Xylaka+pW
> It has exemptions for data published o based at n a legal requirement (could be the case here)

Couldn't, there's no legal requirement for anyone to record and publish ADS-B transmissions.

> data that cannot easily linked to an individual (number plates are not protected by themselves)

This is incorrect, number plates of cars belonging to individuals are going to be protected in almost any context you'd be storing them in.

> This jet isn’t owned by musk, it’s owned by a company

Doesn't matter, Musk isn't the only person with a plane. I own my own plane, it gets tracked by these sites.

> Journalists (including citizen journalists) also have broad protections in European law and those must be weighed against the GDPR protections

Websites like flightradar24.com are not journalists, but data brokers. That's simply ridiculous.

>There’s so much nuance to this that it’s possible this might fall under GDPR, but it very far from obvious.

No there isn't, this is crystal clear.