zlacker

[parent] [thread] 40 comments
1. guitar+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:36:28
Love the GDPR, but how is ADS-B data personal data?
replies(2): >>jdong+b1 >>emoden+n1
2. jdong+b1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:43:46
>>guitar+(OP)
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.
replies(3): >>kennyw+O3 >>mcv+Cg >>monkpi+L61
3. emoden+n1[view] [source] 2022-12-16 06:45:12
>>guitar+(OP)
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.
replies(2): >>jdong+V1 >>happym+R7
◧◩
4. jdong+V1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 06:47:47
>>emoden+n1
GDPR has nothing to do with whether or not you live in Europe. The plane we're discussing here does frequently visit Europe.
replies(2): >>fragme+S2 >>emoden+T2
◧◩◪
5. fragme+S2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 06:54:08
>>jdong+V1
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.

replies(1): >>jdong+E3
◧◩◪
6. emoden+T2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 06:54:09
>>jdong+V1
Maybe when Europe takes control of the global financial system they'll be able to go after US citizens for doing things that aren't illegal in the US but in the meantime I don't see what difference the jet visiting Europe makes either.
replies(1): >>rbanff+MY2
◧◩◪◨
7. jdong+E3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:00:12
>>fragme+S2
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.
replies(1): >>fragme+1h
◧◩
8. kennyw+O3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:01:44
>>jdong+b1
A plane is not a person, a phone, a car, or a home. Elon Musk is often the passenger on his jet, but I am quite sure he is often not on board while it moves around.
replies(1): >>jdong+34
◧◩◪
9. jdong+34[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:03:15
>>kennyw+O3
Why would a plane be treated differently than a car in a GDPR context?
replies(1): >>zimpen+du1
◧◩
10. happym+R7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 07:30:39
>>emoden+n1
Beyond that, you see a lot of mocking of GDPR rules from American industry and we still have a lot of websites that block on the basis that they want to divulge your personal details to any and everyone.
replies(1): >>rbanff+AY2
◧◩
11. mcv+Cg[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 08:50:04
>>jdong+b1
I think there's something perverse about the very concept of having a personal plane. Perhaps that's the real issue here.
replies(1): >>jdong+hw
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. fragme+1h[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 08:54:14
>>jdong+E3
TIL, thanks!

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

replies(1): >>emoden+NR
◧◩◪
13. jdong+hw[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 11:21:55
>>mcv+Cg
> Perhaps that's the real issue here.

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

replies(2): >>mcv+uT >>emoden+oY
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. emoden+NR[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:13:32
>>fragme+1h
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?
replies(1): >>rosnd+tZ
◧◩◪◨
15. mcv+uT[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:22:40
>>jdong+hw
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.
replies(1): >>jdong+a01
◧◩◪◨
16. emoden+oY[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:46:27
>>jdong+hw
A big reason these jet accounts were popular is people enjoyed calling attention to how wasteful many of the flights were, which I can’t imagine Elon was unaware of.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
17. rosnd+tZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:51:47
>>emoden+NR
Relatively easily? Even if your business has zero presence in the EU, other businesses handling money for you likely do.

US company using Paypal to accept money from US persons? Paypal has presence in the EU and will hand your money over.

replies(1): >>emoden+P41
◧◩◪◨⬒
18. jdong+a01[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 14:54:24
>>mcv+uT
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.
replies(1): >>_djo_+b71
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
19. emoden+P41[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:15:54
>>rosnd+tZ
I've never heard of this happening and, besides this, ElonJet was being operated by a private individual and not for profit. You think they're going to get his bank account shut down over it? I can't imagine the bank entertaining that.
replies(1): >>rosnd+kc1
◧◩
20. monkpi+L61[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:23:34
>>jdong+b1
There are services you can pay for (in the US) to track a car’s (almost) real-time location without gps. It’s based upon license plates and widespread webcams and it’s not illegal (yet).
replies(1): >>jdong+Dc1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
21. _djo_+b71[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:25:11
>>jdong+a01
Please provide some evidence of your repeated claim that they're illegal in the US and Europe.
replies(1): >>jdong+4d1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
22. rosnd+kc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:50:47
>>emoden+P41
The elonjet twitter has nothing to do with anything, it's just a bot reposting adsbexchange.
replies(1): >>emoden+Ep1
◧◩◪
23. jdong+Dc1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:52:29
>>monkpi+L61
Yes, but in the EU this would be illegal.

https://www.privacy-ticker.com/decision-to-fine-the-norwegia...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
24. jdong+4d1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 15:53:54
>>_djo_+b71
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.

replies(1): >>_djo_+9g4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
25. emoden+Ep1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 16:46:08
>>rosnd+kc1
The whole reason for this tangent is a claim somewhere upthread that it’s violating the GDPR.
replies(1): >>rosnd+gF1
◧◩◪◨
26. zimpen+du1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:03:40
>>jdong+34
> Why would a plane be treated differently than a car in a GDPR context?

A car is generally registered to an individual. A plane isn't.

You could also -maybe- argue that because there's multiple people on the plane (assuming Ol' Muskie isn't flying it himself) and that those people are potentially different every time, without a passenger and crew manifest, it's not identifying individuals (but I suspect you'd not get far with this.)

replies(1): >>jdong+QF1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
27. rosnd+gF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:51:12
>>emoden+Ep1
That tangent was regarding the data sources used by the twitter account.
◧◩◪◨⬒
28. jdong+QF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 17:54:00
>>zimpen+du1
Planes are very often registered to individuals, and that doesn't even matter! The plane being company owned doesn't magically change anything, what matters is who's being transported and whether or not they will be easily linked to the aircraft.

From a GDPR perspective it also makes no difference whether it's 5% or 90% of planes that are owned by individuals as opposed to by companies.

replies(1): >>zimpen+ZK1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
29. zimpen+ZK1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 18:17:34
>>jdong+QF1
Do you have some links that support this theory? I'd be interested to read up on it.

edit: Specifically mentioning planes and their locations, I mean, not "extrapolating from cars to planes".

replies(1): >>jdong+WM1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
30. jdong+WM1[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 18:27:23
>>zimpen+ZK1
>edit: Specifically mentioning planes and their locations, I mean, not "extrapolating from cars to planes".

You have to be trolling. What leads you to believe that the GDPR which never mentions either aircraft or cars would treat these two kinds of vehicles differently?

Can you find anything in the GDPR texts to suggest that cars and planes would be treated differently?

replies(1): >>zimpen+K62
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
31. zimpen+K62[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 19:55:51
>>jdong+WM1
> the GDPR which never mentions either aircraft or cars

ICO's guide to the UK GDPR does have a specific example of cars being identifiable[1] - "A vehicle’s registration number can be linked to other information held about the registration (eg by the DVLA) to indirectly identify the owner of that vehicle." Nothing about planes though.

[2] covers car registrations and explicitly discounts company owned vehicles from being PII - "The registration plates of commercial vehicles are not personal data of an individual as the vehicle is owned by an organisation."

All of Ol' Muskie's jets are owned by Falcon Landing LLC, a shell company.

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

[2] https://sapphireconsulting.co.uk/is-a-car-registration-plate...

replies(1): >>rosnd+a92
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
32. rosnd+a92[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-16 20:06:11
>>zimpen+K62
>ICO's guide to the UK GDPR does have a specific example of cars being identifiable[1] - "A vehicle’s registration number can be linked to other information held about the registration (eg by the DVLA) to indirectly identify the owner of that vehicle." Nothing about planes though.

Car registration numbers is a very common kind of data for businesses to handle, of course it makes it on the list of examples.

Same is not true of planes, of course they don't make it on the list of examples.

>[2] covers car registrations and explicitly discounts company owned vehicles from being PII - "The registration plates of commercial vehicles are not personal data of an individual as the vehicle is owned by an organisation."

>All of Ol' Muskie's jets are owned by Falcon Landing LLC, a shell company.

This doesn't work, you can't wash off PII by tying one aspect of it to an organisation. My phone line might belong to a business, but that doesn't give the carrier a free pass to do whatever they want with associated location data.

◧◩◪
33. rbanff+AY2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 00:38:18
>>happym+R7
And, worse, they abuse the HTTP 451 status for that.

No, I don't live in a country that censors the website - it's the company who owns the website that wants to do things with my data that my country (and myself) considers illegal.

replies(1): >>rosnd+n24
◧◩◪◨
34. rbanff+MY2[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 00:39:41
>>emoden+T2
Elon is not protected by the GDPR as he is neither a citizen nor a resident of an EU member country.
replies(1): >>jdong+aZ3
◧◩◪◨⬒
35. jdong+aZ3[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 10:36:53
>>rbanff+MY2
GDPR has nothing to do with citizenship, why would you even bring that up?

Really, it even has nothing to do with residency. It's all to do with jurisdiction, when Elon happens to be within EU jurisdiction he is protected by the GDPR.

When Elon takes his jet to visit Greece, he is indeed protected by the GDPR (even if just interacting with US based companies while he's on holiday, GDPR still applies)

◧◩◪◨
36. rosnd+n24[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 11:15:50
>>rbanff+AY2
How is that supposed to be abuse? The website is unavailable because the way they operate isn't legal in your jurisdiction. 451 seems perfectly appropriate
replies(1): >>rbanff+Dr8
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
37. _djo_+9g4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 13:45:10
>>jdong+4d1
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.

replies(1): >>rosnd+Bi4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
38. rosnd+Bi4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 14:05:33
>>_djo_+9g4
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.

replies(1): >>_djo_+GF4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
39. _djo_+GF4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 16:33:15
>>rosnd+Bi4
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.
replies(1): >>rosnd+bJ4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
40. rosnd+bJ4[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-17 16:48:40
>>_djo_+GF4
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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
41. rbanff+Dr8[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-12-18 21:36:01
>>rosnd+n24
It's not the content that's illegal. It's the business practices of whoever hosts the content that are.

There is no government censorship imposed on the content - it's a company that's unwilling to comply with the law.

[go to top]