zlacker

[return to "Twitter applies 7-day suspension to half a dozen journalists"]
1. barbar+Ae[view] [source] 2022-12-16 03:00:08
>>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

◧◩
2. emoden+Ly[view] [source] 2022-12-16 05:02:38
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. nearbu+5D[view] [source] 2022-12-16 05:30:54
>>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).

◧◩◪◨
4. emoden+MD[view] [source] 2022-12-16 05:36:43
>>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.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. rosnd+JJ[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:27:46
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. guitar+4L[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:36:28
>>rosnd+JJ
Love the GDPR, but how is ADS-B data personal data?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. jdong+fM[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:43:46
>>guitar+4L
How could it not be? Your plane's location data is just as personal as your car's, or your cellphone's. There's no special aircraft exemption in the GDPR.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. mcv+G11[view] [source] 2022-12-16 08:50:04
>>jdong+fM
I think there's something perverse about the very concept of having a personal plane. Perhaps that's the real issue here.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. jdong+lh1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 11:21:55
>>mcv+G11
> Perhaps that's the real issue here.

I don't see how it could be, that seems like an entirely separate issue.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. mcv+yE1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 14:22:40
>>jdong+lh1
It's not. If it wasn't his personal plane but a chartered plane or one out of a pool of company planes, this wouldn't be an issue.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. jdong+eL1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 14:54:24
>>mcv+yE1
Who gives a shit about Elon? What the ADS-B data brokers are doing will continue to be illegal even if Elon never steps on a flight again.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. _djo_+fS1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 15:25:11
>>jdong+eL1
Please provide some evidence of your repeated claim that they're illegal in the US and Europe.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
13. jdong+8Y1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 15:53:54
>>_djo_+fS1
As far as I can see, nobody here has made any claims regarding anything being illegal in the US.

> Please provide some evidence of your repeated claim that they're illegal in Europe

https://gdpr-info.eu/

What kind of evidence do you want exactly? This is crystal clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of the GDPR.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳
14. _djo_+d15[view] [source] 2022-12-17 13:45:10
>>jdong+8Y1
That’s not evidence. That’s just your opinion, based on your assumption that private aircraft are like private cars under the law.

Except that they have never been treated equivalently in any legal venue or government regulation.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿
15. rosnd+F35[view] [source] 2022-12-17 14:05:33
>>_djo_+d15
Do you have any evidence to share which might suggest that GDPR treats private aircraft differently than ... literally everything else?

If not, why would we just not accept that GDPR treats aircraft exactly how it treats everything else? The law, as written, clearly offers no specific coverage or exemption for any types of vehicles.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋
16. _djo_+Kq5[view] [source] 2022-12-17 16:33:15
>>rosnd+F35
As the one making the assertion of illegality in terms of the GDPR, the onus is on you to provide a substantive justification for it. Not me.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲◳⚿⛋⬕
17. rosnd+fu5[view] [source] 2022-12-17 16:48:40
>>_djo_+Kq5
I've already done that.

You're the one arguing that there's some special exemption for aircraft, but have done nothing to substantiate that claim.

Besides, with the GDPR it works the opposite way. You have to justify why your data processing is legal, not the other way around.

And for fucks sake, neither of Flightradar24 or ADSBExchange even offer a GDPR-compliant privacy policy. ADSBexchange does not offer one at all.

[go to top]