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
If Musk actually regarded flight tracking as a security risk, he would have signed up for the LADD program and restricted this info to FAA Source or added his aircraft to the Subscriber Level blocklist. He also could have requested a Privacy ICAO Address.

Any of these things would have put an actual stop to @elonjet, and the PIA solution would have prevented harassers from simply picking up with FlightRadar or any other tracking service.

The fact that he didn't do anything to increase his own security except for banning one of his company's users tells me this is not about personal security, but about exerting control over his company. That's his prerogative, but it's bizarre that he chooses to put up a facade instead of just adding "don't be an asshole to Elon" to the terms of service, which appears to be the actual endgame here.

>>stonog+xP
> instead of just adding "don't be an asshole to Elon" to the terms of service, which appears to be the actual endgame here

This is amusing because the ElonJet guy was actually a fanboy (originally, probably not anymore as he's being sued by Elon).