Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

R/ElonJetTracker

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#81

Post by wutwutwutwut »

wizeman wrote: post #77
wutwutwutwut wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't know. The person I replied to claimed that it was "private information of individuals". If it's public info by law then referring to it as private seems very misleading, wouldn't you say?

> If it's public info by law then referring to it as private seems very misleading, wouldn't you say? But it's not public information by law. It's private information: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy The aircraft tracking data itself is public, but what's not public is the information which links the temporary aircraft identifier to its owner when the owner is using that privacy program,…

Do you have a source which isn't Elon Musk? Using Musk as a source for claims in this seems a bit silly to me.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#82

Post by charcircuit »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #52
charcircuit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most doxxing is publically available information.

In most other cases that has been released illegitimately in the first place though. That's not the case here. The information is publicly available because it is mandated to be as a condition of flying. Leaked private information is obviously different. This is just a case of a billionaire with a god complex wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

>In most other cases that has been released illegitimately in the first place though

There is plenty of information in public records like people's addresses that are released legitimately. An address is enough information to SWAT someone.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#83

Post by _kbh_ »

wizeman wrote: post #75
_kbh_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I’ve since learned however is that tracking his jet requires a combination of public and private information. He’s part of a privacy scheme which routinely changes the plane’s identifier: https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/160385752457453 ... My understanding is that he _stopped_ using this service and now his plane broadcasts the same tail number all the time.

> My understanding is that he _stopped_ using this service and now his plane broadcasts the same tail number all the time. Where is your understanding coming from? Elon Musk himself confirmed 2 days ago that he is using that privacy scheme: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603803508087537665

I got it from here.

> https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1603802439232241665

It looks like he might be enrolled but not actively using it, or using it wrong according to the above tweet.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#84

Post by sbarre »

wizeman wrote: post #74
_Algernon_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most other cases that has been released illegitimately in the first place though. That's not the case here. The information is publicly available because it is mandated to be as a condition of flying. Leaked private information is obviously different. This is just a case of a billionaire with a god complex wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

> The information is publicly available because it is mandated to be as a condition of flying. No, it's not. Elon's jet receives a private temporary aircraft identifier unconnected to its owner every month, because it is subscribed to this program: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy This government program was specifically designed to hide the link between an aircraft identifier and the owne…

Is it possible that this program is ineffectual, because of publicly-available information from other sources that can be cross-referenced?

If I were to put together a badly implemented privacy program that people can trivially circumvent without breaking the law, who should be blamed when people do exactly that?

Me, or the people doing the trivial yet legal circumvention?

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#85

Post by hk__2 »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #47
hk__2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly: https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/160385752457453... What’s public is how each plane moves. What’s not is which one of these planes is Musk’s.

>hack This is not "hacking". This is information derived from publicly available information, presumably a quite trivial inference. If it is public information that x=2 and y=3, then x+y=5 isn't suddenly private information, just because it requires a trivial inference.

> presumably a quite trivial inference

It’s not a trivial inference.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#86

Post by _Algernon_ »

hk__2 wrote: post #85
_Algernon_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>hack This is not "hacking". This is information derived from publicly available information, presumably a quite trivial inference. If it is public information that x=2 and y=3, then x+y=5 isn't suddenly private information, just because it requires a trivial inference.

> presumably a quite trivial inference It’s not a trivial inference.

You're actually right. No inference at all is necessary, because none of Musk's planes are part of the PIA program in the first place:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34037524

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#87

Post by wizeman »

philistine wrote: post #79
wizeman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ADS-B information is broadcast unencrypted in real time from every civilian aircraft all the time. ADS-B information is available publicly, but what's not always available publicly is which aircraft (or rather, which aircraft identifier) belongs to whom. Specifically, if an aircraft is subscribed to this program, then it receives a new temporary identifier every month, unconnected to the owner: https://www.faa.gov/…

You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest. Keep this in mind as well; his plane's whereabouts are being derived from obscured data and published. Not his own personal whereabouts. We don't know what car he takes and where he goes once he lands. What is he scared of? A scud missile? For exa…

> You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest.

I'm guessing most participants in that privacy program are filthy rich and yet the program was still created.

You can argue that the whereabouts are in the public interest, but the real-time whereabouts are much harder to justify.

> Keep this in mind as well; his plane's whereabouts are being derived from obscured data and published. Not his own personal whereabouts. We don't know what car he takes and where he goes once he lands.

You'd do if you went to the airport before he lands.

> What is he scared of? A scud missile?

I'm guessing he's scared of someone hurting or kidnapping him or his family. You would be too if you were in his position, believe me.

No amount of hired security can completely mitigate the risk of your exact coordinates being broadcast in real-time, every single day.

It's amazing to me how much lack of empathy people have against other people, just because they're rich or famous. Or maybe it's just ignorance about the risks these people face every single day.

> For example, we know his plane is in Quatar. With the news he is trying to sell shares of Twitter at his purchased price, we now can investigate whether he is talking to Quataris about selling shares. Being amongst the richest and owning a social network puts you in the public eye.

You don't need his location in real-time for that.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#88

Post by philistine »

wizeman wrote: post #87
philistine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest. Keep this in mind as well; his plane's whereabouts are being derived from obscured data and published. Not his own personal whereabouts. We don't know what car he takes and where he goes once he lands. What is he scared of? A scud missile? For exa…

> You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest. I'm guessing most participants in that privacy program are filthy rich and yet the program was still created. You can argue that the whereabouts are in the public interest, but the real-time whereabouts are much harder to justify. > Keep this in…

Billionaires do not have riskier lives: https://www.forbes.com/2005/04/05/cx_vg_0405feat.html?sh=647...

They have the money to skew public opinion, and the money to protect themselves. Security through obscurity is no security at all.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#89

Post by blackfawn »

wutwutwutwut wrote: post #81
wizeman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's public info by law then referring to it as private seems very misleading, wouldn't you say? But it's not public information by law. It's private information: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy The aircraft tracking data itself is public, but what's not public is the information which links the temporary aircraft identifier to its owner when the owner is using that privacy program,…

Do you have a source which isn't Elon Musk? Using Musk as a source for claims in this seems a bit silly to me.

That source is a reply by Musk confirming a statement by another person (https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1603748611896283137?s=20&...) commenting about Musk being enrolled in the PIA program. That statement also has a link back to the creator of the tracker themselves also admitting Musk's plane(s) are/were in PIA but they figured out how to track it/them anyway.

Re: R/ElonJetTracker

#90

Post by wizeman »

philistine wrote: post #88
wizeman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest. I'm guessing most participants in that privacy program are filthy rich and yet the program was still created. You can argue that the whereabouts are in the public interest, but the real-time whereabouts are much harder to justify. > Keep this in…

Billionaires do not have riskier lives: https://www.forbes.com/2005/04/05/cx_vg_0405feat.html?sh=647... They have the money to skew public opinion, and the money to protect themselves. Security through obscurity is no security at all.

> Billionaires do not have riskier lives: https://www.forbes.com/2005/04/05/cx_vg_0405feat.html?sh=647...

That is the result of a myriad of security measures that they and their families take every day, including not publicly broadcasting where they are in real-time or exactly where they are going to be at a specific time, among many, many others.

And even when they have to do that occasionally (e.g. when the public knows that they are going to attend a public event), they have to take additional security precautions, to protect themselves against someone hurting them, kidnapping them or robbing them (or their families).

Even presidents/prime ministers of entire countries, who are not as rich or famous as Elon Musk, occasionally (or always) require extreme security precautions, like having bullet-proof vehicles, police escorts, streets being closed, dogs sniffing around for explosives wherever they go, and much, much more. And Elon Musk doesn't even have access to all these measures, because many of them are not available to private individuals in many countries.

But even if you could, you wouldn't want to take these increased security precautions all the time, it's just not realistic or desirable to have a police escort and/or the secret service following every rich person and closing streets everywhere they go.

> Security through obscurity is no security at all.

You say that like if that analogy holds for physical security...

Or do you think that physical security only truly exists if everyone knows exactly where you are all the time and they still can't hurt you? With regards to physical security, that's not a thing.

There are only a certain number of obstacles, and the more obstacles, the better protected you are. But there is no silver bullet, especially if you want to have a life and not live in some bunker somewhere.

Not all computer analogies hold in the real world. Cryptography doesn't give you physical protection.

Post reply on HN