New case against flight tracking

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.
 
The Fourth Amendment
RyanShort1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The right is to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. How does ADS-B amount to a search or seizure? The information is voluntarily broadcast over publicly-accessible airwaves; that is known to participating pilots, so even if it was by some great stretch ruled a seizure, the pilot involved tacitly waived his right by squawking ALT.
 
Salty said:
I don't agree, obviously. I don't believe you should wait until it gets to "horrific immorality" before you stop it.
Click to expand...
That's called balance. Protected rights require a compelling social need to limit, but they are subject to limits. If you think otherwise, try carrying an AR-15 into an NFL game while quoting the 2nd Amendment and let us know how that goes.

Other less explicit rights require less compelling needs to limit. This thread has identified numerous examples where privacy is balanced against the social benefit of transparency, such as the public availability of property records.
 
ateamer said:
The Fourth Amendment

The right is to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. How does ADS-B amount to a search or seizure? The information is voluntarily broadcast over publicly-accessible airwaves; that is known to participating pilots, so even if it was by some great stretch ruled a seizure, the pilot involved tacitly waived his right by squawking ALT.
Click to expand...
My argument apparently went completely over your head...
 
Ed Haywood said:
That's because your argument was a huge stretch.
Click to expand...
Not really. I was arguing from the lesser to the greater. If the government doesn't have the right to pry into anything you do without proving they have a just cause, why should they be allowed to broadcast details that would DEFINITELY affect your security to potential thieves or criminals, especially when you have done nothing wrong?
 
Ed Haywood said:
That is a completely different issue that has nothing to do with ADS-B. The N Number registry is public information because that is required by law. Your issue is with Congress, who published the CFR.
Click to expand...
Minor point, Congress passes laws, that are in the USC (US Code). The Executive Branch agencies use those as the basis for issuing Regulations that are part of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
 
Ed Haywood said:
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...

ADS-B was used and cited in multiple stalker cases. The reality is, ADS-B, along with the FAA does not understand cyber security, and many of the issues are fundamental to that lack of understanding.

Tim
 
ateamer said:
The Fourth Amendment

The right is to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. How does ADS-B amount to a search or seizure? The information is voluntarily broadcast over publicly-accessible airwaves; that is known to participating pilots, so even if it was by some great stretch ruled a seizure, the pilot involved tacitly waived his right by squawking ALT.
Click to expand...

ADS-B is effectively a mandate by the government to broadcast my information. There is zero technical reason in the USA why the 1090 version of ADS-B has a fixed UID, and the UAT-978 has a randomly generated UID. The ADS-B system could have gone with a random generated value in all cases.

Tim
 
Ed Haywood said:
Example?
Click to expand...

Witnessed one first hand at rough river a few years ago. We flew to lunch and when we got there a fan of radar contact was there waiting for him….said he tracked him on adsb and wanted to meet him. Maybe not quite stalking in the traditional sense but freaky nonetheless.
 
I always thought having a stalker wouldn't be so bad having someone that into you. Then I got the dog who learned how to open the house doors, can't make it 4 steps to the truck before she's out. So I get it now.
 
Bob Noel said:
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?"?
Click to expand...
ATC conversations also contain position information. Before long, AI will be capable of decoding liveATC conversations to record your clearance, position reports, any amendments, etc and report your aircraft’s position. The tech is there now, but nobody has put it together yet, at least not in an unclassified way.

If keeping your aircraft’s position secret is your concern, ATC conversations cannot be public either.

also, I previously answered why it should be public information.
 
bflynn said:
ATC conversations also contain position information. Before long, AI will be capable of decoding liveATC conversations to record your clearance, position reports, any amendments, etc and report your aircraft’s position. The tech is there now, but nobody has put it together yet, at least not in an unclassified way.

If keeping your aircraft’s position secret is your concern, ATC conversations cannot be public either.

also, I previously answered why it should be public information.
Click to expand...
You don't have to talk to ATC, unless you fly IFR or into class D or higher airports. But if ADSB is installed in your aircraft, you're required to keep it turned on.
 
bflynn said:
ATC conversations also contain position information. Before long, AI will be capable of decoding liveATC conversations to record your clearance, position reports, any amendments, etc and report your aircraft’s position. The tech is there now, but nobody has put it together yet, at least not in an unclassified way.

If keeping your aircraft’s position secret is your concern, ATC conversations cannot be public either.

also, I previously answered why it should be public information.
Click to expand...
I can’t type in your number and see where you are flying from Liveatc. I also can’t get an alert that you are flying From Liveatc.

just a minor way I know someone was injured by this information. A guys ex girlfriend had a restraining order on him. Every time he flew she’d get the alert and call the police and claim he was circling above her, stalking her. He eventually gave up and sold the plane.
 
Salty said:
just a minor way I know someone was injured by this information. A guys ex girlfriend had a restraining order on him. Every time he flew she’d get the alert and call the police and claim he was circling above her, stalking her. He eventually gave up and sold the plane.
Click to expand...
Granted, people have gotten restraining orders by lying. But it wouldn't take Perry Mason to show the police he was not circling above her. You know, because of flight tracking. And then she's in trouble to filing multiple false reports to the police. But instead he sold his plane?

I think you have to consider the possibility that maybe he was stalking her. Your friend doesn't happen to live in upstate NY or VT does he? ;)

www.pilotsofamerica.com

Pilot accused of spying on woman with plane busted for stalking again

Well, THAT's different. He, apparently, violated an order of protection. He must've been low enough for her to get his tail number. Full Story
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com
 
I guess you've never had to deal with someone harassing you. I'm glad. But I'm certain you'd find it annoying having to defend yourself repeatedly to the police if it happened to you. At the end, the police even told him they knew what was going on, but they have to follow up on every complaint.
 
bflynn said:
ATC conversations also contain position information. Before long, AI will be capable of decoding liveATC conversations to record your clearance, position reports, any amendments, etc and report your aircraft’s position. The tech is there now, but nobody has put it together yet, at least not in an unclassified way.

If keeping your aircraft’s position secret is your concern, ATC conversations cannot be public either.

also, I previously answered why it should be public information.
Click to expand...

that doesn't explain the ginormous leap you made from my statement to yours
 
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...
In US v. Jones, the FBI installed a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle. They obtained a warrant that specified the device was to be installed within 10 days -- it was placed on the 11th day, so effectively, the action was warrantless. The question was -- was the GPS tracking a "search" requiring a warrant in the first place, or was no warrant required because the suspect had no expectation of privacy against tracking the vehicle's movements while in public?

The argument was made that multiple data points or observations of the vehicle's movement in puiblic, none of which individually constituted a "search" under the 4th amendment, was nonetheless a search considered as an amalgamation of the data.

The majority opinion didn't decide that specific issue. Instead, it decided that because attaching the GPS tracking device to the suspect's vehicle was a trespass on his private property, this was a search and required a warrant.

A concurrence of four Justices would have held that long-term monitoring of movements via GPS constituted a search in its own right. The difference is relevant because since the case was decided in 2012, 2/3 of humans on the planet, and a greater proportion of those in first-world countries, voluntarily carry GPS tracking devices (i.e. smartphones, or GPS-enabled car electronics). They share this data with third-party service providers, so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in it.
 
DJTorrente said:
In US v. Jones, the FBI installed a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle. They obtained a warrant that specified the device was to be installed within 10 days -- it was placed on the 11th day, so effectively, the action was warrantless. The question was -- was the GPS tracking a "search" requiring a warrant in the first place, or was no warrant required because the suspect had no expectation of privacy against tracking the vehicle's movements while in public?

The argument was made that multiple data points or observations of the vehicle's movement in puiblic, none of which individually constituted a "search" under the 4th amendment, was nonetheless a search considered as an amalgamation of the data.

The majority opinion didn't decide that specific issue. Instead, it decided that because attaching the GPS tracking device to the suspect's vehicle was a trespass on his private property, this was a search and required a warrant.

A concurrence of four Justices would have held that long-term monitoring of movements via GPS constituted a search in its own right. The difference is relevant because since the case was decided in 2012, 2/3 of humans on the planet, and a greater proportion of those in first-world countries, voluntarily carry GPS tracking devices (i.e. smartphones, or GPS-enabled car electronics). They share this data with third-party service providers, so they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in it.
Click to expand...
Despite a majority of the population voluntarily carrying around GPS-enabled devices, you still have the question of it being publicly searchable/observable. With the ADS-B/flight trackers, it is visible to everyone. However, I can't Google "where's Ricky's phone" and monitor their movements. Is the GPS data "out there"? Sure. Is it available to anyone other than Google/etc? Not really. Phone users also have the ability to turn of GPS-location services. Aircraft operating in controlled airspace do not (at least not without drawing retribution from FAA/ATC).
 
SoonerAviator said:
Despite a majority of the population voluntarily carrying around GPS-enabled devices, you still have the question of it being publicly searchable/observable. With the ADS-B/flight trackers, it is visible to everyone. However, I can't Google "where's Ricky's phone" and monitor their movements. Is the GPS data "out there"? Sure. Is it available to anyone other than Google/etc? Not really. Phone users also have the ability to turn of GPS-location services. Aircraft operating in controlled airspace do not (at least not without drawing retribution from FAA/ATC).
Click to expand...
Correct.

Think about this for a moment and replace "ADS-B flight information" with "personal financial information" and ask yourself how you might feel about it.

I would pose an analogy to federal tax data. Having the government collect our financial info for a legitimate purpose is one thing. Having the government turn around and publish all of our tax and transaction info via a publicly available distribution method would not be OK.

In all seriousness, I do not understand why anyone believes that this is acceptable.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I would pose an analogy to federal tax data. Having the government collect our financial info for a legitimate purpose is one thing. Having the government turn around and publish all of our tax and transaction info via a publicly available distribution method would not be OK.
Click to expand...
Experience hath shewn that it depends upon the party affiliation of the target of said outing.
StraightnLevel said:
In all seriousness, I do not understand why anyone believes that this is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Once again.
 
Interestingly, this is the way the ADSB standard was designed from the beginning. And it’s an international system.

Which country has the biggest beef with the lack of privacy? Just look at Saudi Arabia’s lobbying for a fix at the last ICAO meeting.

I’m SURE it’s because of the stalkers going after them, right? Surely it can’t be to cloak their flights of “human chop shop” parts or anything!

;)
 
StraightnLevel said:
Think about this for a moment and replace "ADS-B flight information" with "personal financial information" and ask yourself how you might feel about it.
Click to expand...

But ADS-B flight data is NOT personal financial info. That is as logical as saying "replace metal detector wand with cattle prod and ask yourself how you feel about TSA checkpoints".
 
dans2992 said:
Interestingly, this is the way the ADSB standard was designed from the beginning. And it’s an international system.

Which country has the biggest beef with the lack of privacy? Just look at Saudi Arabia’s lobbying for a fix at the last ICAO meeting.

I’m SURE it’s because of the stalkers going after them, right? Surely it can’t be to cloak their flights of “human chop shop” parts or anything!

;)
Click to expand...
[Thread Creep] When I first heard about the ADS-B standard, I was very suspect. It is premised on the good faith of the user(s). We're relying on the aircraft to self-announce its GPS position? How tough could it be to design software that "modifies" the outgoing position data so that your ADS-B never tattles on you that you crossed into restricted airspace, or busted an altitude? With what consequences to traffic separation? To those places NOT affiliated with Walt Disney where security actually requires an airspace restriction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top