6 ms·

I'm not sure I buy the comparison to Internet privacy. The comparison to cell phone tracking elsewhere in the comments is better. It's bad enough that the gove

I'm not sure I buy the comparison to Internet privacy. The comparison to cell phone tracking elsewhere in the comments is better. It's bad enough that the government has relatively trivial access to cellphone tracking data, but if it was publicly available, that would be pretty disastrous on a lot of fronts. Yes, this is a law that only protects rich people, but it's also a problem that only affects rich people, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that it is a problem. As long as not too much money or effort is being diverted to this (and therefore away from the hundreds of more important problems), I just really can't get that worked up over it.

ceejayoz 2y ago
> I'm pretty comfortable saying that it is a problem. On what evidence?
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  The fact that I think it's wrong for the public to be able to trivially track anyone? I think the capacity is a bad thing. I also think it would be bad as I stated if the public could trivially track poor people. I thought I made that pretty clear in my comment. I don't understand what it is you're asking evidence for. It's clearly a thing that can be done, this the existence is this bill. And I'm making an argument that morally that is wrong. You're free to disagree with my moral judgment, and I'm sure many people do, but it's not really a thing that requires evidence.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    What do you think are the negative consequences of private flight data being publicly available?
  - cess11 2y ago
    "The fact that I think it's wrong for the public to be able to trivially track anyone?" It's not "anyone", it's people with a lot of social and economic power, that through their means of transportation does a lot more damage to society and our habitat than most people that get sentenced for a crime in the courts. If it gets public that you smoked some weed or did some oxy without a physician signing off on it then it should obviously be public that you are rich, and that you refuse to mingle with the plebs and instead fart out tons and tons of carbon dioxide.
  - salawat 2y ago
    >The fact that I think it's wrong for the public to be able to trivially track anyone? Does that extend to preventing private individuals, well heeled individuals being able to sic private investigators on whoever they like, or the government trivially tracking someone? Because if it doesn't, I find your POV repulsive. There can be no reciprocal equality if you specifically orchestrate the blinding of the public to the comings and goings of those in power.
- haswell 2y ago
  As a non-rich person, I would find it highly problematic if everyone could track my whereabouts, and I think it’s fair to say that it’s a privacy problem more broadly. This is more about principles of privacy and reasonable expectations than some form of specific evidence.
  - hnbad 2y ago
    Being rich doesn't compel you to use private jets for travel. There are plenty other modes of transportation available. In fact, I'd argue being rich affords you a greater choice.
    - haswell 2y ago
      The necessity of private jets is beside the point. At issue is whether or not tracking private travel should be accessible to everyone with an internet connection. Most people would not be ok with tracking private vehicles, and it’s unclear why this should change when the mode of transportation is a plane instead of a car.
      - hnbad 2y ago
        Well, rich and poor people are equally subject to tracking when they travel in their private jets. That seems fair. They can use untracked modes of travel like public transit or cars. We're okay with tracking planes. It's unclear why this should change when it's privately owned by an individual instead of by an airline. There are actually plenty of reasons we might want to treat air traffic different, regardless of who's on board or who owns the plane. Whether it's because planes are significantly less private by nature of being very noisy and visible (i.e. there's less of an expectation of privacy because you're being very public), or because they're a greater risk to everyone because they're in the air and full of fuel (i.e. you have a legitimate interest to know whether one might fly near you).
        93po 2y ago
        planes pose significantly more public safety risk, and therefore higher levels of accountability in their operation are appropriate. I can't accidentally blow up a building with my toyota camry, but a pilot with poor training or decision making can do it with a large enough private jet. if a pilot is piloting inappropriately, we need the tools to quickly figure out which aircraft it is and report it.
- darig 2y ago
  [dead]
anothername12 2y ago
I’d like to learn more about what the problem is exactly
bcrosby95 2y ago
Fly commercial. Problem solved.
- haswell 2y ago
  Hypothetically, let’s say all private car locations were tracked and visible to everyone. “Take public transit: problem solved” does not alleviate the privacy concern.
falcolas 2y ago
It's fairly common in the US that people of public interest have fewer privacy protections than your average citizen (the public figure doctrine). I - and many others - believe that these public figures should be held accountable for their actions due to their outsized influence on society. Holding someone accountable for their actions requires transparency, something this law removes.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  The courts have actually ruled that billionaires are inherently “public figures”, for exactly this reason, their “outsized impact and influence on public affairs”.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> I'm pretty comfortable saying that it is a problem. On what evidence?

MostlyStable 2y ago
The fact that I think it's wrong for the public to be able to trivially track anyone? I think the capacity is a bad thing. I also think it would be bad as I stated if the public could trivially track poor people. I thought I made that pretty clear in my comment. I don't understand what it is you're asking evidence for. It's clearly a thing that can be done, this the existence is this bill. And I'm making an argument that morally that is wrong. You're free to disagree with my moral judgment, and I'm sure many people do, but it's not really a thing that requires evidence.
- n4r9 2y ago
  What do you think are the negative consequences of private flight data being publicly available?
- cess11 2y ago
  "The fact that I think it's wrong for the public to be able to trivially track anyone?" It's not "anyone", it's people with a lot of social and economic power, that through their means of transportation does a lot more damage to society and our habitat than most people that get sentenced for a crime in the courts. If it gets public that you smoked some weed or did some oxy without a physician signing off on it then it should obviously be public that you are rich, and that you refuse to mingle with the plebs and instead fart out tons and tons of carbon dioxide.
- salawat 2y ago
  >The fact that I think it's wrong for the public to be able to trivially track anyone? Does that extend to preventing private individuals, well heeled individuals being able to sic private investigators on whoever they like, or the government trivially tracking someone? Because if it doesn't, I find your POV repulsive. There can be no reciprocal equality if you specifically orchestrate the blinding of the public to the comings and goings of those in power.
haswell 2y ago
As a non-rich person, I would find it highly problematic if everyone could track my whereabouts, and I think it’s fair to say that it’s a privacy problem more broadly. This is more about principles of privacy and reasonable expectations than some form of specific evidence.
- hnbad 2y ago
  Being rich doesn't compel you to use private jets for travel. There are plenty other modes of transportation available. In fact, I'd argue being rich affords you a greater choice.
  - haswell 2y ago
    The necessity of private jets is beside the point. At issue is whether or not tracking private travel should be accessible to everyone with an internet connection. Most people would not be ok with tracking private vehicles, and it’s unclear why this should change when the mode of transportation is a plane instead of a car.
    - hnbad 2y ago
      Well, rich and poor people are equally subject to tracking when they travel in their private jets. That seems fair. They can use untracked modes of travel like public transit or cars. We're okay with tracking planes. It's unclear why this should change when it's privately owned by an individual instead of by an airline. There are actually plenty of reasons we might want to treat air traffic different, regardless of who's on board or who owns the plane. Whether it's because planes are significantly less private by nature of being very noisy and visible (i.e. there's less of an expectation of privacy because you're being very public), or because they're a greater risk to everyone because they're in the air and full of fuel (i.e. you have a legitimate interest to know whether one might fly near you).
      - 93po 2y ago
        planes pose significantly more public safety risk, and therefore higher levels of accountability in their operation are appropriate. I can't accidentally blow up a building with my toyota camry, but a pilot with poor training or decision making can do it with a large enough private jet. if a pilot is piloting inappropriately, we need the tools to quickly figure out which aircraft it is and report it.
darig 2y ago
[dead]

anothername12 2y ago

I’d like to learn more about what the problem is exactly

bcrosby95 2y ago

Fly commercial. Problem solved.

haswell 2y ago
Hypothetically, let’s say all private car locations were tracked and visible to everyone. “Take public transit: problem solved” does not alleviate the privacy concern.

falcolas 2y ago

It's fairly common in the US that people of public interest have fewer privacy protections than your average citizen (the public figure doctrine). I - and many others - believe that these public figures should be held accountable for their actions due to their outsized influence on society. Holding someone accountable for their actions requires transparency, something this law removes.

FireBeyond 2y ago
The courts have actually ruled that billionaires are inherently “public figures”, for exactly this reason, their “outsized impact and influence on public affairs”.