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
Nope, you can get an SDR dongle and track planes all you want all the time even in the EU. Plane doesn't equal person, and I doubt the EU courts would argue any other way otherwise we'd need to criminalize tracking of UPS trucks and the like.

>>ladyat+oL1
> Nope, you can get an SDR dongle and track planes all you want all the time even in the EU

For example in Finland you would likely be violating the radio secrecy laws by merely listening unless you're actively involved in aviation (e.g. flying a plane or sitting in a tower)

In all EU countries you would be violating the GDPR if you stored this data without a lawful basis. (If you're wondering what constitutes "lawful basis", here's a helpful tool https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gdpr-resources/lawful-b...)

> I doubt the EU courts would argue any other way otherwise we'd need to criminalize tracking of UPS trucks and the like

Why would the GDPR prevent UPS from tracking their own trucks? How is this even remotely related to what we're discussing here?

>>rosnd+RM1
GDPR does not apply to the movements of aircraft, not even private jets.

Somehow getting, storing, and sharing passenger manifests would constitute PII of the sort that falls under GDPR.

>>_djo_+aR1
>GDPR does not apply to the movements of aircraft, not even private jets.

It sure as hell does, just like it applies to movements of cars and movements of mobile phones.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

>>rosnd+bX1
Again, this is public data and nobody has been able to successfully make a case that aircraft movements are cases of indirect PII in terms of the GDPR.

>>_djo_+Yr2
> Again, this is public data

It isn't! These are ephemeral radio transmissions which contain PII. You might collect those transmissions and publish them somewhere, but that would be illegal.

> nobody has been able to successfully make a case that aircraft movements are cases of indirect PII in terms of the GDPR.

So you're just trolling. That's not how the GDPR works, you don't get to make any kind of case at all. The government will when they eventually get to it after clearing decades worth of backlogs.

And for what it's worth, there are already perfectly applicable precedents https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-851