5 ms·

The first thing that pops into your head when reading "private vehicle's location need not be streamed to government" is: why would it? What did I miss? These a

by lucb1e 4y ago

The first thing that pops into your head when reading "private vehicle's location need not be streamed to government" is: why would it? What did I miss? These are the relevant sentences from the article: > It seems preposterous, but the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) this privacy-infringing protocol in 2020. [Yes, the verb is missing here, but okay it's some law.... but why?] > What benefits does the Government point to in response? Next to nothing. [great, lots of detail there] > The regulation—issued pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976—was proposed by NOAA. [okay we got a headline of a potential reason behind it now, but are rental boats really the culprit in overfishing? Wouldn't it be fishing companies? Why only in 2023? Sounds fishy] And that's all we get. After 518 words on the topic, the page "goes on" to report on decriminalizing pscyhedelic [sic] plants in some cities. So.... asking as someone out of the loop... what's this all about in the first place?

solarpunk 4y ago
Here's what NOAA has to say about things: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaas-office-law-enforcement-offers-rewards-information-unpermitted-fishing-charters https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaas-office-la...
doodlebugging 4y ago
Since this involves agencies regulating fisheries I suspect that they are trying to get accurate data about aquatic life taken during fishing activities so that they can make accurate estimates of a species ability to thrive in an area and perhaps to drive legislation that would protect areas from over-fishing. I don't think they give a shit about knowing which boat was where unless that boat is engaged in illegal activities. Smuggling in the states that are mentioned is still a thing since that is on a direct path from the Caribbean and northern parts of South America where illegal drugs originate. Knowing which boat was where allows them to determine who might be meeting the smugglers. Once you shut down the airspace to traffickers it is a natural extension to try to limit their ability to shift to maritime assets to ship their products into the country through small ports or marinas in backwater locations. I don't see this monitoring as an invasion of anyone's privacy. I see it more as an extension of border enforcement mechanisms to domains which have historically been difficult to control.
- F00Fbug 4y ago
  Your first point is really the issue. NOAA extrapolates catch information into overall health of the species and uses that to issue permits, set quotas, and adjust fishing seasons. Not only did I help build some of the ship-board systems, I built a ton of data analysis tools on the back-end for NOAA. Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is a good example. NOAA will tell you we're devastating the species (boat captains would not agree!) and they adjust quotas and season start/stop dates based on catch info to help balance the business of fishing and the health of the species. It's a tough job because the captains are often at odds with the scientists. It could be possible to sanitize the data and remove the position information, but they kind of need some general location to do some of the science.
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    Thanks for your work on this. This is important as fisheries globally are over-fished. The scale of the problem is not even known right now. Chinese fishing boats roam the globe taking fish for consumption in China and depleting stocks everywhere they sail including by fishing in marine sanctuaries. Fish as healthy food has become a big deal in the last few decades and demand grows so the fish have to come from somewhere. If you don't protect your fisheries then collapse of global fish stocks will only be one more domino in the collapse of entire ecosystems.
  - kokanee 4y ago
    I agree with this, but I really think the rationale for surveillance legislation like this is "all of the above." Some stakeholders are only interested in protecting marine resources, but others are in fact focused on identifying anglers who are poaching. See https://globalfishingwatch.org https://globalfishingwatch.org. I have been on salmon charters in Alaska and Canada, and it is surprisingly easy for even a well-intentioned skipper to drift out of a legal fishing zone while tending to everything else happening on the boat. I'm not excusing those mistakes, but I can definitely understand their reluctance to carry surveillance units onboard. It's a tough problem; all parties have strong arguments, but the interests aren't aligned. I do think there are some actionable areas most folks would agree on, like investing in measures to deincentivize rogue international fishing operations and bottom trawlers/dredgers.
melony 4y ago
>The first thing that pops into your head when reading "private vehicle's location need not be streamed to government" is: why would it? Wait till you hear about "airplanes".
- cjensen 4y ago
  AIS[1] is basically an airplane transponder, but for vessels and I think it broadcasts position along with identification. For safety alone, seems to me that any commercial vessel carrying paid passengers should have one. But the Reason article is so vague I literally can't tell if they are talking about AIS, or some other bespoke system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_syste...
  - soneil 4y ago
    They really don't explain the difference well. AIS is a local broadcast. It's like having a number plate that's visible from 10 miles away. VMS is 'phone home' system. It's like having a gps tracker with cellular connectivity on your car, reporting into a federal agency (not hyperbole, that's the design goal.)
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Well with airplanes, there is a real justification for it: safety. They're moving fast and have to make sure they don't collide.
  - Johnny555 4y ago
    But you don't have to broadcast your tail number to prevent a collision. It makes tracking by ATC easier since the tail number can be traced back to a flight plan, but if the sole reason is to prevent in-air collision, a radio beacon without tail number could achieve that.
    - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
      A tail number also makes it easier for ATC to know who to give runway landing clearance to, doesn't it? They can't just say "you airplane over there, yes you, you're clear to land".

by lucb1e 4y ago

solarpunk 4y ago

Here's what NOAA has to say about things: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaas-office-law-enforcement-offers-rewards-information-unpermitted-fishing-charters https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaas-office-la...

doodlebugging 4y ago

Since this involves agencies regulating fisheries I suspect that they are trying to get accurate data about aquatic life taken during fishing activities so that they can make accurate estimates of a species ability to thrive in an area and perhaps to drive legislation that would protect areas from over-fishing. I don't think they give a shit about knowing which boat was where unless that boat is engaged in illegal activities. Smuggling in the states that are mentioned is still a thing since that is on a direct path from the Caribbean and northern parts of South America where illegal drugs originate. Knowing which boat was where allows them to determine who might be meeting the smugglers. Once you shut down the airspace to traffickers it is a natural extension to try to limit their ability to shift to maritime assets to ship their products into the country through small ports or marinas in backwater locations. I don't see this monitoring as an invasion of anyone's privacy. I see it more as an extension of border enforcement mechanisms to domains which have historically been difficult to control.

F00Fbug 4y ago
Your first point is really the issue. NOAA extrapolates catch information into overall health of the species and uses that to issue permits, set quotas, and adjust fishing seasons. Not only did I help build some of the ship-board systems, I built a ton of data analysis tools on the back-end for NOAA. Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is a good example. NOAA will tell you we're devastating the species (boat captains would not agree!) and they adjust quotas and season start/stop dates based on catch info to help balance the business of fishing and the health of the species. It's a tough job because the captains are often at odds with the scientists. It could be possible to sanitize the data and remove the position information, but they kind of need some general location to do some of the science.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  Thanks for your work on this. This is important as fisheries globally are over-fished. The scale of the problem is not even known right now. Chinese fishing boats roam the globe taking fish for consumption in China and depleting stocks everywhere they sail including by fishing in marine sanctuaries. Fish as healthy food has become a big deal in the last few decades and demand grows so the fish have to come from somewhere. If you don't protect your fisheries then collapse of global fish stocks will only be one more domino in the collapse of entire ecosystems.
- kokanee 4y ago
  I agree with this, but I really think the rationale for surveillance legislation like this is "all of the above." Some stakeholders are only interested in protecting marine resources, but others are in fact focused on identifying anglers who are poaching. See https://globalfishingwatch.org https://globalfishingwatch.org. I have been on salmon charters in Alaska and Canada, and it is surprisingly easy for even a well-intentioned skipper to drift out of a legal fishing zone while tending to everything else happening on the boat. I'm not excusing those mistakes, but I can definitely understand their reluctance to carry surveillance units onboard. It's a tough problem; all parties have strong arguments, but the interests aren't aligned. I do think there are some actionable areas most folks would agree on, like investing in measures to deincentivize rogue international fishing operations and bottom trawlers/dredgers.

melony 4y ago

>The first thing that pops into your head when reading "private vehicle's location need not be streamed to government" is: why would it? Wait till you hear about "airplanes".

cjensen 4y ago
AIS[1] is basically an airplane transponder, but for vessels and I think it broadcasts position along with identification. For safety alone, seems to me that any commercial vessel carrying paid passengers should have one. But the Reason article is so vague I literally can't tell if they are talking about AIS, or some other bespoke system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_syste...
- soneil 4y ago
  They really don't explain the difference well. AIS is a local broadcast. It's like having a number plate that's visible from 10 miles away. VMS is 'phone home' system. It's like having a gps tracker with cellular connectivity on your car, reporting into a federal agency (not hyperbole, that's the design goal.)
jaywalk 4y ago
Well with airplanes, there is a real justification for it: safety. They're moving fast and have to make sure they don't collide.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  But you don't have to broadcast your tail number to prevent a collision. It makes tracking by ATC easier since the tail number can be traced back to a flight plan, but if the sole reason is to prevent in-air collision, a radio beacon without tail number could achieve that.
  - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
    A tail number also makes it easier for ATC to know who to give runway landing clearance to, doesn't it? They can't just say "you airplane over there, yes you, you're clear to land".