4 ms·

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

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.

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.