New case against flight tracking

Lindberg said:
Still no. I've launched many rockets into controlled airspace without being "authorized." I notice you're no longer claiming I need a clearance. And we still haven't addressed drones.

The reality for most of us is that there's loads of stuff flying around in controlled airspace with no clearance.
Click to expand...
Including full sized aircraft.
 
Bob Noel said:
What's the compelling need to have everything public knowledge?
Click to expand...
I'd like to have it available to me while flying and afterwards. I don't want people to build a global network of ADSB receivers like they do with liveATC.

Next I suppose you'll be wanting to make ATC conversations private?
 
Interesting the tangents this thread has gone through so far. If you want privacy for the airplane registry, contact your congressional critters and advocate for it.
I have. You get enough public pressure sentiment, and maybe there might be some congressional action.
As for ADS-B; the unique identifiers which stay with the plane never made sense to me. To me, this was just a bad design by engineers who never considered any aspect of security, and a lack of security is pervasive throughout ADS-B, let alone the broader ATC system.

Tim
 
tspear said:
….As for ADS-B; the unique identifiers which stay with the plane never made sense to me. To me, this was just a bad design by engineers who never considered any aspect of security, and a lack of security is pervasive throughout ADS-B, let alone the broader ATC system….
Click to expand...
I detect notes of @denverpilot, ca 2014, in your post.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I'm not happy that anyone can look up my home value and various other stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not thrilled about that either. When did that become a thing, that the local government has a website with all of that information? Its one thing if it is publicly available at the courthouse, another to make it easy and free to use.

I was surprised when I first moved to Iowa, that my salary as a low-level public employee is published in the local newspaper annually. Apparently its state law here. I get that it is public information, but its different when it is freely placed for any and all to see. I doubt my nosy neighbor would have made the trip to City Hall to find out, but when its in their Sunday paper they can't help but look.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Yeah, I'm not thrilled about that either. When did that become a thing, that the local government has a website with all of that information? Its one thing if it is publicly available at the courthouse, another to make it easy and free to use.

I was surprised when I first moved to Iowa, that my salary as a low-level public employee is published in the local newspaper annually. Apparently its state law here. I get that it is public information, but its different when it is freely placed for any and all to see. I doubt my nosy neighbor would have made the trip to City Hall to find out, but when its in their Sunday paper they can't help but look.
Click to expand...
Probably since the 70s or maybe 80s. Title companies found it much easier to compile all the data and keep it updated than to send someone to county records every time they needed to run a search.
 
bflynn said:
I'd like to have it available to me while flying and afterwards. I don't want people to build a global network of ADSB receivers like they do with liveATC.

Next I suppose you'll be wanting to make ATC conversations private?
Click to expand...

How did you go from "What's the compelling need to have everything public knowledge?"
to "Next I suppose you'll be wanting to make ATC conversations private?"?
 
TCABM said:
I detect notes of @denverpilot, ca 2014, in your post.
Click to expand...

I do not have Nate's level of verbosity, but I did find we had similar viewpoints very often, especially around cybersecurity. I have not talked seen him online, or heard any updates in a few years. I hope he is doing better.

Tim
 
Country Flier said:
Actually, already being done for years...private companies (Motorola and FlockSafety) do all the plate reader/plate tracking in my home state. Then they sell it to who ever wants it, including both police and/or private entities.

Also in my state, ANYONE can get plate/vehicle/owner info from the state, for $6 per plate. It's public information, you just have to know how to get it.
Click to expand...
I'm replying to the prospect of real time tracking of every automobile, so your state doesn't appear to offer that service. I think you must agree with me that it's a regrettable policy, since you keep your identification and location private here on POA.
 
I didn’t realize at the time that by using an official PO BOX with the FAA, I’m somewhat protected from a lack of privacy. The stalkers will have to figure out another way to find where I really live.
 
They'll look at the ADSB track and see which property you keep circling before returning to the airport. :biggrin:
 
dtuuri said:
I'm replying to the prospect of real time tracking of every automobile, so your state doesn't appear to offer that service. I think you must agree with me that it's a regrettable policy, since you keep your identification and location private here on POA.
Click to expand...
lol…if my id and location are private, it wasn’t intentional! I’m not interesting enough for anyone to track, car, plane or otherwise.
 
Bob Noel said:
Somehow, reading the US Constitution, I'm not seeing the right to know everything about anyone else...
Click to expand...
Communications Act of 1934 gives US citizens the right to receive any transmission over the RF spectrum.

There are limits on what you can do with the information.
 
ateamer said:
That protects against the government searching and seizing without probable cause. The Constitution provides no protection against a private entity.
Click to expand...
It also offers no protection when you have no expectation of privacy, like when doing observable stuff in public.
 
Lindberg said:
It also offers no protection when you have no expectation of privacy, like when doing observable stuff in public.
Click to expand...
But to what extent does "observable" cover? "So-and-so aircraft left the airfield at 8am" vs "So-and-so left this airfield at 8am and is currently 2 states away at 8K' AGL and will be arriving in ATL at Noon". What expectation of privacy can be had when you are only able to "observe" someone due to gov't mandated/provided tracking info?
 
SoonerAviator said:
But to what extent does "observable" cover? "So-and-so aircraft left the airfield at 8am" vs "So-and-so left this airfield at 8am and is currently 2 states away at 8K' AGL and will be arriving in ATL at Noon". What expectation of privacy can be had when you are only able to "observe" someone due to gov't mandated/provided tracking info?
Click to expand...
This is a Con Law II question.
 
SoonerAviator said:
But to what extent does "observable" cover? "So-and-so aircraft left the airfield at 8am" vs "So-and-so left this airfield at 8am and is currently 2 states away at 8K' AGL and will be arriving in ATL at Noon". What expectation of privacy can be had when you are only able to "observe" someone due to gov't mandated/provided tracking info?
Click to expand...
“Arriving in ATL at Noon” isn’t part of the ADSB transmission, FYI.
 
Hang 4 said:
It is on flightaware though. Assuming you file IFR.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But shouldn't my right to privacy (i.e. the government not making it easy to follow an n-number to my doorstep) supersede the public's right to know who's little airplane is over their house at the moment? I just don't understand why anyone feels it is appropriate for the government to publish my address (either for my personal flying credentials or for any aircraft I own) on the web. That sounds like the perfect starting point for some jackwad to show up at my doorstep arguing high wing vs low wing or worse...
 
kyleb said:
Fair enough. But shouldn't my right to privacy (i.e. the government not making it easy to follow an n-number to my doorstep) supersede the public's right to know who's little airplane is over their house at the moment? I just don't understand why anyone feels it is appropriate for the government to publish my address (either for my personal flying credentials or for any aircraft I own) on the web. That sounds like the perfect starting point for some jackwad to show up at my doorstep arguing high wing vs low wing or worse...
Click to expand...
Hey, aren't you the guy who had his nav lenses reversed and got called by some mechanic you flew over? No wonder you feel this way.
 
dtuuri said:
Hey, aren't you the guy who had his nav lenses reversed and got called by some mechanic you flew over? No wonder you feel this way.
Click to expand...
That’s literally a textbook example of a personal attack fallacy.

Even if he did make that mistake, it has no bearing on the morality of the government tracking AND broadcasting a citizen’s movements.
 
kyleb said:
Fair enough. But shouldn't my right to privacy (i.e. the government not making it easy to follow an n-number to my doorstep) supersede the public's right to know who's little airplane is over their house at the moment? I just don't understand why anyone feels it is appropriate for the government to publish my address (either for my personal flying credentials or for any aircraft I own) on the web. That sounds like the perfect starting point for some jackwad to show up at my doorstep arguing high wing vs low wing or worse...
Click to expand...
I totally agree with the point, I was only pointing out that the combination of ADSB data and flight planning provides even more detail about your movements than just ADSB position at the current time. Imagine if you had to file a driving plan that was public every time you went somewhere in your car.
 
RyanShort1 said:
That’s literally a textbook example of a personal attack fallacy.

Even if he did make that mistake, it has no bearing on the morality of the government tracking AND broadcasting a citizen’s movements.
Click to expand...
First, the government doesn't broadcast the movements, each airplane broadcasts its own movements.

Second, it's actually a really good example of a positive impact from flight-tracking data being publicly available.
 
Lindberg said:
First, the government doesn't broadcast the movements, each airplane broadcasts its own movements.

Second, it's actually a really good example of a positive impact from flight-tracking data being publicly available.
Click to expand...
There are also examples of medical research done by nazis in death camps that had a positive impact. Not sure it’s such a great example.
 
Lindberg said:
First, the government doesn't broadcast the movements, each airplane broadcasts its own movements.

Second, it's actually a really good example of a positive impact from flight-tracking data being publicly available.
Click to expand...
Nah. The only reason those specific transmitters are there is because they are mandated. I’m sure a high percentage of us would voluntarily transmit general information in the interest of collision avoidance, including with a portable device in my Luscombe, if they would loosen the rules, but being forced to transmit potentially or directly identifiable information is obviously potentially harmful.

If you want to break it down, let’s reverse technology a bit and imagine if some highway robber, back in the days of traveling by foot, was glibly offered by a local duke the knowledge of when one of the duke’s subjects was going to be away from his cottage, and where he was headed… surely no mischief could come from that, right?

Anonymously voluntarily identifying, as opposed to the government forcing it, is akin to that traveling peasant deliberately choosing to wear bright colors and a shiny sword to deter that robber, but at a minimum, the robber shouldn’t be able to know from afar, courtesy of the duke, that the man was away from his house.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, I would argue that it’s an oblique violation of the Fourth Amendment.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If I have that right to be secure from my own government, my government should not make my person, house, and property subject to ambush or invasion by anyone they are willing to show the data to and thus it violates the principle of the thing.
 
Salty said:
There are also examples of medical research done by nazis in death camps that had a positive impact. Not sure it’s such a great example.
Click to expand...
You just compared ADSB receivers capturing public radio waves to Joseph Mengele dissecting Jewish twins. You might want to reevaluate your life choices.

Goodbye.
 
I almost called out the Godwin myself.

But my comparison is apt. You made a claim that it's ok for the government to violate your rights because good comes from it. My example shows that to be wrong, albeit hyperbolic.
 
Salty said:
You made a claim that it's ok for the government to violate your rights because good comes from it. My example shows that to be wrong, albeit hyperbolic.
Click to expand...
Not wrong at all. No right is absolute. The exercise of every right is balanced against the common good, even those rights protected by the Constitution. The classic example is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Or restricting gun carry at the Super Bowl.

What your example showed is that balance is required. Any medical benefit gained by the Nazi experiments was far outweighed by the horrific immorality of their actions.

I don't think the same conclusion applies to this topic, where the harm is mostly theoretical. Unless someone can provide an IRL example of negative consequences from flight tracking, the argument against it so far boils down to "I just don't like it."
 
Ed Haywood said:
Not wrong at all. No right is absolute. The exercise of every right is balanced against the common good, even those rights protected by the Constitution. The classic example is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

What your example showed is that balance is required. Any medical benefits gained by the Nazi experiments was far outweighed by the horrific immorality of their actions.

I don't think the same conclusion applies to this topic, where the harm is mostly theoretical. Unless someone can provide an IRL example of negative consequences from flight tracking, the argument against it so far boils down to "I just don't like it."
Click to expand...
I don't agree, obviously. I don't believe you should wait until it gets to "horrific immorality" before you stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top