4 ms·

Isn't ADS-B mandatory in the USA since January 1st 2020? Definitely for IFR... edit 1: Presumably should be visible here, if airborne... https://globe.adsbexc

Isn't ADS-B mandatory in the USA since January 1st 2020? Definitely for IFR... edit 1: Presumably should be visible here, if airborne... https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac70d2 https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ac70d2 edit 2: TIL about privacy ICAO, but not sure how effective. https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privacy-icao-address-pia/ https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privac... edit 3: Also seeing this jet listed. (N-628TS) https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af , Seem to be a couple of jets used by elon musk and/or spacex. YMMV. At least some of them are trackable at least.

bradhe 4y ago
Looks like the popular ADS-B aggregators have deleted the data "at the request of the operator" which makes it sleazy at best to call it "private data." - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n900sx https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n900sx - https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/N900SX https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/N900SX
- counttheforks 4y ago
  How does that make the data non-public? His plane is still broadcasting it into the air and anyone with an antenna can pick it up and share the already public information. Sure, a few of them have been bullied by Elon into not doing so. But that doesn't make the information non-public. It just makes Elon a sleazebag who can't be trusted to hold his word.
  - bradhe 4y ago
    I agree--it's public data that has been removed. It's disingenuous (at best) to call it private data. I clarified my position in my original comment.
MzHN 4y ago
Do I understand this correctly https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privacy-icao-address-pia/ https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privac... So PIA in a nutshell means that you can request a private identifier for your plane, that is not publicly linkable to you. And if the identifier is compromised, you can request a new one. Which would make the identifier itself, and its real-time location, public information, but the knowledge of who owns the identifier would remain as private information.
- richbell 4y ago
  > Which would make the identifier itself, and its real-time location, public information, but the knowledge of who owns the identifier would remain as private information. Yes and no. Tracking airplanes is something hobbyists have been doing for decades; there are people who hang out by airports and record every flight in and out. The PIA program can be useful for realtime masking but the information is far from secret — nor should it be, imo. > "Elon Musk, for example, has a Gulfstream and there's only so many people that fly that particular plane out of Brownsville, Texas and fly to the same airports," Sweeney told Insider. > ... > "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." 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...
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    Would this count as stalking though? I pulled up a definition on Google and > According to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the legal definition of "stalking" means "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others or suffer substantial emotional distress." http://www.oxfordlegal.com/legal-definition-stalking/ http://www.oxfordlegal.com/legal-definition-stalking/ Using an antenna to figure out somebody's approximate location and publicizing it, when that somebody already has stalkers going after his children [1], seems like it would cause reasonable fear [1]: https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/elon-musk-shares-video-of-crazy-stalker-who-climbed-vehicle-carrying-moguls-son/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/elon-musk-shares-video-of-craz...
aaaa4444 4y ago
I have seen some planes that were not broadcasting any signals... Maybe FBI.
- bradhe 4y ago
  Yes, some military and government aircraft are exempt from this requirement. It's otherwise illegal to disable ADS-B.
  - _moof 4y ago
    This is only sort of true. While not having ADS-B Out does limit where you can fly, it is not illegal to fly a civil aircraft without ADS-B Out equipment. The following rules are the most relevant: If your aircraft is equipped with operable ADS-B Out equipment, it is illegal not to turn it on. 14 CFR 91.225(f). If you wish to fly in Class A, B, or C airspace, within a Mode C veil, or in Class E airspace above 10,000', you must have ADS-B Out. 91.225(a) and (d). There is no rule implementing a blanket requirement for all civil aircraft to have ADS-B Out. You would be surprised how much airspace this leaves open to aircraft without ADS-B Out. You can in fact fly across the entire country, legally, without it. And in my experience ATC could not care less whether you have ADS-B Out. 91.225 is riddled with "unless authorized by ATC," and practically speaking, in thousands of hours of flying I have never seen an aircraft turned away because of a lack of ADS-B Out. I've asked some controllers about this directly and it makes no difference to them. EDIT: I should add that in Musk's case this ADS-B business is all a little bit of a red herring, because the second you get radar services, your data is public regardless of ADS-B status.

bradhe 4y ago

Looks like the popular ADS-B aggregators have deleted the data "at the request of the operator" which makes it sleazy at best to call it "private data." - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n900sx https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n900sx - https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/N900SX https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/N900SX

counttheforks 4y ago
How does that make the data non-public? His plane is still broadcasting it into the air and anyone with an antenna can pick it up and share the already public information. Sure, a few of them have been bullied by Elon into not doing so. But that doesn't make the information non-public. It just makes Elon a sleazebag who can't be trusted to hold his word.
- bradhe 4y ago
  I agree--it's public data that has been removed. It's disingenuous (at best) to call it private data. I clarified my position in my original comment.

MzHN 4y ago

Do I understand this correctly https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privacy-icao-address-pia/ https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/security/privacy/privac... So PIA in a nutshell means that you can request a private identifier for your plane, that is not publicly linkable to you. And if the identifier is compromised, you can request a new one. Which would make the identifier itself, and its real-time location, public information, but the knowledge of who owns the identifier would remain as private information.

richbell 4y ago
> Which would make the identifier itself, and its real-time location, public information, but the knowledge of who owns the identifier would remain as private information. Yes and no. Tracking airplanes is something hobbyists have been doing for decades; there are people who hang out by airports and record every flight in and out. The PIA program can be useful for realtime masking but the information is far from secret — nor should it be, imo. > "Elon Musk, for example, has a Gulfstream and there's only so many people that fly that particular plane out of Brownsville, Texas and fly to the same airports," Sweeney told Insider. > ... > "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." 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...
- woojoo666 4y ago
  Would this count as stalking though? I pulled up a definition on Google and > According to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the legal definition of "stalking" means "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others or suffer substantial emotional distress." http://www.oxfordlegal.com/legal-definition-stalking/ http://www.oxfordlegal.com/legal-definition-stalking/ Using an antenna to figure out somebody's approximate location and publicizing it, when that somebody already has stalkers going after his children [1], seems like it would cause reasonable fear [1]: https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/elon-musk-shares-video-of-crazy-stalker-who-climbed-vehicle-carrying-moguls-son/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/elon-musk-shares-video-of-craz...

aaaa4444 4y ago

I have seen some planes that were not broadcasting any signals... Maybe FBI.

bradhe 4y ago
Yes, some military and government aircraft are exempt from this requirement. It's otherwise illegal to disable ADS-B.
- _moof 4y ago
  This is only sort of true. While not having ADS-B Out does limit where you can fly, it is not illegal to fly a civil aircraft without ADS-B Out equipment. The following rules are the most relevant: If your aircraft is equipped with operable ADS-B Out equipment, it is illegal not to turn it on. 14 CFR 91.225(f). If you wish to fly in Class A, B, or C airspace, within a Mode C veil, or in Class E airspace above 10,000', you must have ADS-B Out. 91.225(a) and (d). There is no rule implementing a blanket requirement for all civil aircraft to have ADS-B Out. You would be surprised how much airspace this leaves open to aircraft without ADS-B Out. You can in fact fly across the entire country, legally, without it. And in my experience ATC could not care less whether you have ADS-B Out. 91.225 is riddled with "unless authorized by ATC," and practically speaking, in thousands of hours of flying I have never seen an aircraft turned away because of a lack of ADS-B Out. I've asked some controllers about this directly and it makes no difference to them. EDIT: I should add that in Musk's case this ADS-B business is all a little bit of a red herring, because the second you get radar services, your data is public regardless of ADS-B status.