zlacker

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.

>>jdong+(OP)
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.

>>kennyw+D2
Why would a plane be treated differently than a car in a GDPR context?

>>jdong+(OP)
I think there's something perverse about the very concept of having a personal plane. Perhaps that's the real issue here.

>>mcv+rf
> Perhaps that's the real issue here.

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

>>jdong+6v
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.

>>jdong+6v
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.

>>mcv+jS
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.

>>jdong+(OP)
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).

>>jdong+ZY
Please provide some evidence of your repeated claim that they're illegal in the US and Europe.

>>monkpi+A51
Yes, but in the EU this would be illegal.

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

>>_djo_+061
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.

>>jdong+S2
> 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.)

>>zimpen+2t1
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.

>>jdong+FE1
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".

>>zimpen+OJ1
>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?

>>jdong+LL1
> 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...

>>zimpen+z52
>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.

>>jdong+Tb1
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.

>>_djo_+Ye4
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.

>>rosnd+qh4
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.

>>_djo_+vE4
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.