3 ms·

https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288 https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288 > Elon uses the FAA PIA privacy program for a p

by kjksf 4y ago

https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288 https://twitter.com/scottwww/status/1490553502640140288 > Elon uses the FAA PIA privacy program for a private plane ID. When using a PIA address, the owner is anon and private, not public. Sweeney’s workaround is (likely) to spot a (rare) ICAO plane resembling Musk’s & noting the private code. You can no longer claim it's public. It was de-anonymized in some way. It's no longer a case of reposting public information but someone going considerable lengths to post this information. The @ElonJet guy even bragged about it: > Elon got PIA but I've already identified it!

TehCorwiz 4y ago
If you already know the plane's ID it doesn't matter if they redact the name and address after the fact.
cactusplant7374 4y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-appears-use-faa-tool-block-jet-tracking-twitter-2022-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-appears-use-faa-to... > "These privacy mitigation programs are effective for real-time operations but do not guarantee absolute privacy," an FAA spokesperson said. "A flight can still be tracked in other ways such as a Freedom of Information Act request, www.LiveATC.com, ADSB Exchange, or a frequently departed airport."
akiselev 4y ago
That plane: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul... Registered owner: FALCON LANDING LLC at 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA. Google Maps known businesses at 1 Rocket Rd: SpaceX and Onsite Dental (huh?) That’s not how you do anonymous.
- ar_lan 4y ago
  On-site Dental is pretty common for a lot of tech companies - dentist comes to you. It’s nice enough.
runjake 4y ago
Stop spamming this thread repeatedly with the same information again and again. His plane registration is not anonymized and is well-known[1]. 1. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 4y ago
Why are you reposting this multiple times? It's not the end run you think it is: long after that point Musk declared grandly that he would not ban the account because of his stance on free speech.
- lhnz 4y ago
  Elon Musk was already on the record as seeing the safety of children as a limit to free speech. Jack Sweeney's efforts to deanonymize the plane could be seen as inciting the following of Musk's two year-old child and the ambush of their vehicle. If the deanonymisation that Jack Sweeney is said to be doing can be argued to be a protected form of free speech, it must also be open to inquiries over whether it is incitement towards violence now that it has resulted in a plausible threat to a life. Frequently people use combinations of difficult-to-find publicly available information and educated guesswork to locate people and then repackage this information as a "dox" for their followers. Not all of their followers have good intentions and even if they don't literally tell people to intimidate/scare/attack their target, they must eventually be seen as somewhat liable for the actions of their followers once they're aware of them. (Isn't this similar to the argument made about Trump's tweets before he was banned?) Hopefully, as a private company, Twitter can establish sensible public policy about what speech is allowed or banned and where these lines are.
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    "Elon Musk was already on the record as seeing the safety of children as a limit to free speech." Can I find this in the Twitter TOS?
    - lhnz 4y ago
      Not yet, but his opinions on children and free speech were widely reported (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/21/elon-musk-rules-out-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-return-to-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/21/elon-musk...). Also, this application of the rules is completely in line with original policy about inciting harm, and as a private company, Twitter is well within their right to deplatform users that don't follow their rules. What seems capricious to many right now might actually be even-handed enforcement of pre-existing rules towards people that had gotten used to special treatment. And if it's not even-handed I don't see how anything has changed from before, where some people were given a free pass from the rules while others weren't -- the only difference is who is blessed and who is cursed.

by kjksf 4y ago

TehCorwiz 4y ago

If you already know the plane's ID it doesn't matter if they redact the name and address after the fact.

cactusplant7374 4y ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-appears-use-faa-tool-block-jet-tracking-twitter-2022-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-appears-use-faa-to... > "These privacy mitigation programs are effective for real-time operations but do not guarantee absolute privacy," an FAA spokesperson said. "A flight can still be tracked in other ways such as a Freedom of Information Act request, www.LiveATC.com, ADSB Exchange, or a frequently departed airport."

akiselev 4y ago

That plane: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul... Registered owner: FALCON LANDING LLC at 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA. Google Maps known businesses at 1 Rocket Rd: SpaceX and Onsite Dental (huh?) That’s not how you do anonymous.

ar_lan 4y ago
On-site Dental is pretty common for a lot of tech companies - dentist comes to you. It’s nice enough.

runjake 4y ago

Stop spamming this thread repeatedly with the same information again and again. His plane registration is not anonymized and is well-known[1]. 1. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=628TS https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 4y ago

Why are you reposting this multiple times? It's not the end run you think it is: long after that point Musk declared grandly that he would not ban the account because of his stance on free speech.

lhnz 4y ago
Elon Musk was already on the record as seeing the safety of children as a limit to free speech. Jack Sweeney's efforts to deanonymize the plane could be seen as inciting the following of Musk's two year-old child and the ambush of their vehicle. If the deanonymisation that Jack Sweeney is said to be doing can be argued to be a protected form of free speech, it must also be open to inquiries over whether it is incitement towards violence now that it has resulted in a plausible threat to a life. Frequently people use combinations of difficult-to-find publicly available information and educated guesswork to locate people and then repackage this information as a "dox" for their followers. Not all of their followers have good intentions and even if they don't literally tell people to intimidate/scare/attack their target, they must eventually be seen as somewhat liable for the actions of their followers once they're aware of them. (Isn't this similar to the argument made about Trump's tweets before he was banned?) Hopefully, as a private company, Twitter can establish sensible public policy about what speech is allowed or banned and where these lines are.
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  "Elon Musk was already on the record as seeing the safety of children as a limit to free speech." Can I find this in the Twitter TOS?
  - lhnz 4y ago
    Not yet, but his opinions on children and free speech were widely reported (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/21/elon-musk-rules-out-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-return-to-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/21/elon-musk...). Also, this application of the rules is completely in line with original policy about inciting harm, and as a private company, Twitter is well within their right to deplatform users that don't follow their rules. What seems capricious to many right now might actually be even-handed enforcement of pre-existing rules towards people that had gotten used to special treatment. And if it's not even-handed I don't see how anything has changed from before, where some people were given a free pass from the rules while others weren't -- the only difference is who is blessed and who is cursed.