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

I don't think it seems like a good rule. Not only is the information public but I think it is not hard to dream up reasons why it would legitimately be in the public interest to report on the comings and goings of someone's private jet.

>>emoden+Ly
Public or not, it is a security concern, especially for a celebrity/politicized figure/widely hated person.

I wouldn't want my live location posted on the internet either, and there's a lot fewer people who want to hurt me than Musk (AFAIK, no one wants to hurt me).

>>nearbu+5D
I don't find it credible that someone is committed enough to doing you harm that they're willing to rot in prison for the rest of their lives but not quite committed enough to look up the public data themselves instead of finding it conveniently collated for them.

>>emoden+MD
ADS-B transmissions are not "public data" you can look up, what you're referring to as "public data" are datasets of dubious legality from the likes of flightradar24 who operate ADS-B logging devices around the world.

For example, in Europe what they're doing is strictly in violation of the GDPR.

>>rosnd+JJ
Love the GDPR, but how is ADS-B data personal data?

>>guitar+4L
In the GDPR sense any information that can be tied directly to a person is "personal data" but since nobody in this story lives in Europe I think it's neither here nor there that this is the case.

>>emoden+rM
GDPR has nothing to do with whether or not you live in Europe. The plane we're discussing here does frequently visit Europe.

>>jdong+ZM
Does it? I'd look it up but, well, @ElonJet i.u suspended. it seems it mostly goes between SF, LA, and Austin though. It's a G700 which has a range of 8,053 mi though.

Also, given that the GDPR only applies to people of the EU, I'd say it, at the very least, has something to do with living in Europe, since, umm, y'know, that's where most people with citizenship in an EU county live.

>>fragme+WN
GDPR does not only apply to people of the EU, GDPR applies within the jurisdiction of the states which have implemented it. GDPR protects Musk when he flies to Europe, you'd have to treat that data differently than flights within the US.

>>jdong+IO
TIL, thanks!

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0dc9663d-ac3b...

>>fragme+521
This is all well and good but even if the EU claims jurisdiction over people who aren’t in the EU publishing information about the EU (not clear from this article that this is the case; it just says that it applies to you if you are in the EU even if you’re not an EU citizen), how would they enforce that?