zlacker

>>prawn+(OP)
Echoing David Sacks, he's now tweeting that the journalists in question were tweeting 'assassination coordinates.'

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603587970832793600

Starting to think there might be some national security issues with one guy being the nominal linchpin of the US space program, satellite internet, and global public messaging infrastructure.

>>anigbr+Ri
But aren't the coordinates of his plane public anyways? And wouldn't shutting down ElonJet account be enough, why all these journalists' accounts as well?

>>lambic+Dl
Yeah, it was public ADS-B data. A lot of the suspended journalists never even posted his location, they just posted about the situation or the supposed stalker incident.

>>keving+bz
From what I've read, this is untrue. He has requested a privacy ICAO (https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privac...), and as such the ownership was not public.

The data published was not just ADS-B data, but ADS-B data + content intended to violate the specific privacy ICAO.

I'm not defending Musks actions, simply providing additional context.

>>TheHap+Je1
Well ADS-B Exchange just got suspended (https://twitter.com/ADSBexchange) so it seems that publishing public radio data is now against their TOS.

>>pera+ej1
"publishing public radio data" could mean just about anything. Your phone constantly broadcasts it's serial number and location to everyone near you, would you therefore consider your location to be public information whenever you move around with your phone?

Some people still use unencrypted wifi networks, is their traffic "public"?

What about baby monitors? Do you think that unencrypted baby monitor traffic is "public" in any reasonable sense of the term?

>>rosnd+vj5
If your baby monitor signals go into my home and I am able to demodulate them into a clear signal then why shouldn't I be able to?

With wifi, an unencrypted network is an open invitation to connect to it, as this is the way to connect through portals which transfer to encrypted tunnels. Intercepting other traffic on the network is not OK since you would be violating hacking laws since it isn't your network.

Same thing with cell networks. Your phone broadcasts its data, which is perfectly legal to pick up, but if you have to use any network resources which aren't yours then it's a no-go.

Overall, if it is being broadcast into my house I can capture it, but I can't send things back to the source and try and get it to do things.

Your argument falls flat, sorry.

>>Eisens+oA5
>If your baby monitor signals go into my home and I am able to demodulate them into a clear signal then why shouldn't I be able to?

Do you genuinely believe that you being allowed to spy on to your neighbours unencrypted baby monitor is a good thing that's helpful for society at large?

For example, in Finland this is legislated as follows:

Section 37 – Confidentiality of radiocommunications

(1) Radiocommunication is confidential and may be received only by those for whom it is intended. (46/2005)

(2) Whoever receives or otherwise has information on a confidential radio transmission not intended for him/her must not wrongfully disclose it or make use of the knowledge of the contents or existence of the transmission.

(3) The following are not considered to be confidential radiocommunications:

...1) initial transmissions of television and radio programmes;

...2) emergency calls;

...3) radiocommunications conducted using a public calling channel;

...4) the amateur service;

...5) shortwave radiocommunications in the 27 MHz frequency band; or any other radiocommunication intended for general reception. (46/2005)

The penalty for violating this law is a court-determined fine.

Do you think that this law is overall a net-positive or a net-negative for society? What good things come from you being able to listen to arbitrary transmissions intended for someone else?

>>rosnd+wN5
> Do you genuinely believe that you being allowed to spy on to your neighbours unencrypted baby monitor is a good thing that's helpful for society at large?

What does that have to do with anything?

>>Eisens+7u7
It has everything to do with assessing what the desirable state of things would be.

It makes perfect sense to examine the positives and negatives, in this case I'd suggest that the negatives of allowing anyone to observe unencrypted radio transmissions far exceed the positives. Do you not think so? If yes, why?

This isn't really a hypothetical question, there are actually places which do allow this and places which do not.

>>rosnd+Ju7
> What about baby monitors? Do you think that unencrypted baby monitor traffic is "public" in any reasonable sense of the term?

Pushing unencrypted radio waves into a public space makes them public. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. If I plug an FM modulator onto my phone output and you tune to an FM station and hear my audio diary, that is my fault, not yours. Same as if I dropped a page of writing on the sidewalk. At that point, it is public.

>>Eisens+gG7
Do you believe that it is a net-positive for society to see things this way?

If so, can you put in the least bit of effort to explain as to why?

You seem to be expressing an ideological belief that you have some god-given right to listen to any and all radio waves that you might be able to receive, but that doesn't in any way explain why you think the society at large should see things your way.