5 ms·

> There are fortunately many websites that aggregate data from honorable volunteers with ADS-B receivers. I don't see how that's fortunate. I don't feel any pa

> There are fortunately many websites that aggregate data from honorable volunteers with ADS-B receivers. I don't see how that's fortunate. I don't feel any particular need to breach these individuals privacy, and the only use case I can think of for these things is to stalk and harass them. This data ought to be better protected, and the flipancy with which people broadcast it is shameful.

kstrauser 2y ago
I vehemently disagree. Zuckerberg's plane is transmitting its location to anyone who wants to listen. If he doesn't want to be tracked in public, he should try not going out in public. Yes, that's sarcastic. It's still the exact same thing he's been telling us all these years, so I have a hard time scraping up much sympathy for his plight. Being tracked everywhere sucks, doesn't it? Turns out it's not only the tech giants who can cobble that information together.
- bawolff 2y ago
  I'm no fan of facebook, but its not really the same thing. Facebook isn't tracking your car's location and publicly listing every location you go.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    "publicly", sure. I do find it a bit worse they do it unconsentually to profit off of. For others who may actually want to do stuff to you.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Worse, they're doing it privately for-profit and selling it repeatedly and indirectly via algorithmic ad auctions.
  - Kerb_ 2y ago
    Facebook used to post sites you visited. Not even interacted with by liking, it would show that you have read a certain article. They still collect that information, but they no longer publish it on your feed and rather keep the information to profit off of themselves. It's close enough that I'd say it's the same thing.
MadnessASAP 2y ago
You can't think of a reason because you don't work in a field that benefits from real time access to aircraft locations. Not because it isn't useful. I however find it very useful. The data is impossible to protect since the very underlying basis is that it can be received by anyone within range. That basis being very very very important to planes not hitting eachother and being found by ATC.
- imoverclocked 2y ago
  > and being found by ATC ATC usually uses transponder replies and not ADS-B. Totally correct otherwise.
- sparky_z 2y ago
  I don't know much about aircraft, but unless I'm missing something big, I don't see how the importance of planes not hitting each other makes it impossible for us to protect that personal data if we wanted to. Who says that a plane's transponder ID has to be the same for every flight? Just pick a random one from a pool (so you know it's not being used by any other plane during that time) and then release it back into the pool when you land. No need to make the correspondence between the planes's transponder code and the tail number (or plane owner).
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > I don't see how the importance of planes not hitting each other makes it impossible for us to protect that personal data if we wanted to. Accountability if something does happen. We can't just randomly assign ID's to do that without finding some way to trace who took what ID (ruining the point). These are private jets so they have no reason to keep record of flights like public airlines.
    - sparky_z 2y ago
      Oh, come on. I'm not saying that nobody should know which random ID corresponds to which plane. That would be ridiculous. Just keep that index on an FAA (or whoever) computer system networked to the control towers at various airports, or wherever it needs to go. All I'm saying is that there's no technical reason why that info has to be broadcast over the air, unencrypted, for anyone with a radio to hear. If we wanted to fix that, we could. This just seems like an obviously correct statement to me. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't want to. Maybe we shouldn't. But we could. It is within our power. I guess people just seem to find the "privacy for me but not for thee" angle too delicious to give up and feel the need to justify it to themselves? That's the only reason I can think that someone would say something like "the data is impossible to protect" with a straight face. Politics brainworms in action.
kibwen 2y ago
You don't get rights unless you respect the rights of others. Reciprocity is the only way to make a society work. Zuckerberg built his fortune on the destruction of our personal privacy, let him lie in the bed he made.
imoverclocked 2y ago
You are being downvoted but I think it’s because people disagree with your stance. I agree in principle because I think everyone should have privacy. I disagree in this case because of the massive loss in privacy that these individuals have effected… which means I’m probably just vindictive.

kstrauser 2y ago

I vehemently disagree. Zuckerberg's plane is transmitting its location to anyone who wants to listen. If he doesn't want to be tracked in public, he should try not going out in public. Yes, that's sarcastic. It's still the exact same thing he's been telling us all these years, so I have a hard time scraping up much sympathy for his plight. Being tracked everywhere sucks, doesn't it? Turns out it's not only the tech giants who can cobble that information together.

bawolff 2y ago
I'm no fan of facebook, but its not really the same thing. Facebook isn't tracking your car's location and publicly listing every location you go.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  "publicly", sure. I do find it a bit worse they do it unconsentually to profit off of. For others who may actually want to do stuff to you.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Worse, they're doing it privately for-profit and selling it repeatedly and indirectly via algorithmic ad auctions.
- Kerb_ 2y ago
  Facebook used to post sites you visited. Not even interacted with by liking, it would show that you have read a certain article. They still collect that information, but they no longer publish it on your feed and rather keep the information to profit off of themselves. It's close enough that I'd say it's the same thing.

MadnessASAP 2y ago

You can't think of a reason because you don't work in a field that benefits from real time access to aircraft locations. Not because it isn't useful. I however find it very useful. The data is impossible to protect since the very underlying basis is that it can be received by anyone within range. That basis being very very very important to planes not hitting eachother and being found by ATC.

imoverclocked 2y ago
> and being found by ATC ATC usually uses transponder replies and not ADS-B. Totally correct otherwise.
sparky_z 2y ago
I don't know much about aircraft, but unless I'm missing something big, I don't see how the importance of planes not hitting each other makes it impossible for us to protect that personal data if we wanted to. Who says that a plane's transponder ID has to be the same for every flight? Just pick a random one from a pool (so you know it's not being used by any other plane during that time) and then release it back into the pool when you land. No need to make the correspondence between the planes's transponder code and the tail number (or plane owner).
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > I don't see how the importance of planes not hitting each other makes it impossible for us to protect that personal data if we wanted to. Accountability if something does happen. We can't just randomly assign ID's to do that without finding some way to trace who took what ID (ruining the point). These are private jets so they have no reason to keep record of flights like public airlines.
  - sparky_z 2y ago
    Oh, come on. I'm not saying that nobody should know which random ID corresponds to which plane. That would be ridiculous. Just keep that index on an FAA (or whoever) computer system networked to the control towers at various airports, or wherever it needs to go. All I'm saying is that there's no technical reason why that info has to be broadcast over the air, unencrypted, for anyone with a radio to hear. If we wanted to fix that, we could. This just seems like an obviously correct statement to me. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't want to. Maybe we shouldn't. But we could. It is within our power. I guess people just seem to find the "privacy for me but not for thee" angle too delicious to give up and feel the need to justify it to themselves? That's the only reason I can think that someone would say something like "the data is impossible to protect" with a straight face. Politics brainworms in action.

kibwen 2y ago

You don't get rights unless you respect the rights of others. Reciprocity is the only way to make a society work. Zuckerberg built his fortune on the destruction of our personal privacy, let him lie in the bed he made.

imoverclocked 2y ago

You are being downvoted but I think it’s because people disagree with your stance. I agree in principle because I think everyone should have privacy. I disagree in this case because of the massive loss in privacy that these individuals have effected… which means I’m probably just vindictive.