I have an easy answer: take public flights. From what I hear they have protocols for celebrities already (they don't want to cause a small craze in the middle of security screenings). If you're...
I have an easy answer: take public flights. From what I hear they have protocols for celebrities already (they don't want to cause a small craze in the middle of security screenings).
If you're not holding top secret+ clearance, I see no reason for a single person to need to fly to anywhere in the world on demand as if it's a car ride to the grocery store.
Even top security take public flights. I was in Hawaii quite a few years ago and taking a short hop flight from Honolulu. Our flight was delayed, and then three black SUVs pulled up, some guys in...
Even top security take public flights. I was in Hawaii quite a few years ago and taking a short hop flight from Honolulu. Our flight was delayed, and then three black SUVs pulled up, some guys in suits came aboard and checked out all the passengers visually and then asked everyone in the first 8 rows to move back. We did and after another long delay George Bush Sr. entered the plane along with a entourage of about a dozen people.
Was interesting because it turned out I was sitting beside Josh Green, Hawaii senator and he gave me his card and asked me to pass it to the Secret Service guy ahead which I did. That led to Senator Green shaking hands with President Bush after we landed and me getting some close up pics.
This will work for major cities, not so much outside of them. The city I grew up in has one flight to Detroit at 6am. There used to be more. But the US has lots of small airports. So for an...
This will work for major cities, not so much outside of them. The city I grew up in has one flight to Detroit at 6am. There used to be more.
But the US has lots of small airports. So for an manager that needs to frequently visit multiple locations in rural areas, where there are no direct flights between them, having a plane can make sense.
I could be severely underestimating some factors here, but Are celebrities usually with this manager on the way to a more rural area? I'm guessing these destinations aren't ones for arranging...
for an manager that needs to frequently visit multiple locations in rural areas, where there are no direct flights between them, having a plane can make sense.
I could be severely underestimating some factors here, but
Are celebrities usually with this manager on the way to a more rural area? I'm guessing these destinations aren't ones for arranging tours or other factors the star needs to be there in person for.
If the manager is in fact alone, would they alone cause a craze? I think of the Tony Hawk phenomenon where some people would simply fly under the radar unless they are very outspoken on broadcast. Superfans may know the name of, say, Taylor Swift's manager, but may not be able to pick them out of a crowd compared to Swift herself
There's sucky plan schedules, but that's no different from the public. If you can only get to Nebraska at 6am for a 6pm meeting, that's planning to get to an airport at midnight for a 2am flight. And then have a day of work or leisure before the meeting.
Yeah, it's not directly relevant. I just wanted to say that there are reasons why a business having a private plane can be useful. SpaceX might be a good example of this. Their launch site at Boca...
Yeah, it's not directly relevant. I just wanted to say that there are reasons why a business having a private plane can be useful.
SpaceX might be a good example of this. Their launch site at Boca Chica beach is a 4.5 hour drive from San Antonio. (Although, it looks like there are scheduled flights between Corpus Christi and Dallas and Houston.)
Musicians on tour typically travel by bus, but the wealthier ones do sometimes travel by private plane to small airports, which is why a fair number have died in plane crashes. The crew will still take a bus, though. I guess it's not strictly necessary?
There are reasons why anyone having a private plane can be useful. If I had a private plane I could bring my cats with me any time I wanted to visit family in the states. I wouldn't have to take...
There are reasons why anyone having a private plane can be useful. If I had a private plane I could bring my cats with me any time I wanted to visit family in the states. I wouldn't have to take flights with two stops and risk missing the next leg every time, invariably running across the airport with such desperation that I lose or destroy something that I'm wearing or holding (shoes, a suitcase, a nice pair of gloves loaned to me by a friend). I wouldn't have to ask my sister to come pick me up from the airport at 5 AM when she's exhausted from wrangling toddlers.
The question is whether or not that use is worth the environmental cost. And not just worth it to the individual with a private plane, worth it to all of us. Frankly, I'm not completely certain that my use of commercial planes is worth the environmental degradation, but I think it's certainly a lot more arguable than the use of private planes.
I'm fine with most of what these people do simply not happening, or happening on a much slower timescale. I understand that most people may not feel that way, despite being subject to the same environmental factors, but for them to be able to make an informed decision on whether or not the environmental cost is worth it, they have to know how much of it is happening, which they won't be able to if these changes are implemented.
How do I sign myself up for that celebrity treatment? I mean I'm a nobody but airport security doesn't know that. I could be a supes-popular TikTok influencer or something. Better let me bypass...
How do I sign myself up for that celebrity treatment? I mean I'm a nobody but airport security doesn't know that. I could be a supes-popular TikTok influencer or something. Better let me bypass the cattle corral just in case.
It depends on the airline and airport. My understanding is that some airports have services that are open to anyone, but expensive, while others are restrictive but cheaper. Heathrow VIP services...
It depends on the airline and airport. My understanding is that some airports have services that are open to anyone, but expensive, while others are restrictive but cheaper. Heathrow VIP services is open to anyone, at around £3k (for 1-3 people). Private Suite has similar services at LAX and ATL at similar prices, but additionally has cheaper shared services and an arrivals service that seems to be simply a car that picks you up at the plane and drives directly away from the airport.
I expect that, despite many of these services advertising luxury and convenience, the actual benefit most people are paying for is that you never are in a public space at all, except on the plane: there's a private security screening, private lounge, and car that usually goes to stairs attached to a jet bridge. In some circumstances, that might be something worth paying so much; I'm reminded of videos of Scientology critics in airport terminals back when the cult was much more powerful and combative.
Edit: actually, a number of airports seem to more openly list these services now, and quite a few are cheaper, in the €400-€600 range. The privacy aspects vary, however.
Still, making the release of this data legal is much better in principle than the current trend of hiding data: It signifies a "legal will" that the public will know. Moreover, it throws a wrench...
Still, making the release of this data legal is much better in principle than the current trend of hiding data: It signifies a "legal will" that the public will know.
Moreover, it throws a wrench at any further attempts to hide it more efficiently
I really don't see a big deal with this. Yeah, everyone is angry that rich people fly private jets. But would it be okay if passenger manifests for commercial aircraft where made public? Would...
I really don't see a big deal with this. Yeah, everyone is angry that rich people fly private jets. But would it be okay if passenger manifests for commercial aircraft where made public? Would everyone be open to the idea of the public being able to see a map of everywhere you go throughout the day just by looking up your name? I'm fine with this from a privacy perspective.
If you want to discourage private jet travel, tax the hell out of it.
IMO this isn't a fair 1:1. They're not tracking individuals travel, they're tracking a plane which is known to be owned by Person X (Elon, Taylor etc). Person X may or may not be on every flight...
IMO this isn't a fair 1:1. They're not tracking individuals travel, they're tracking a plane which is known to be owned by Person X (Elon, Taylor etc). Person X may or may not be on every flight that their plane(s) take(s) - Private plane owners can and do rent/lend their planes or use them for "utility" purposes
Under the current system, flights with a valid security risk could already be exempt from publication. My perception is that people are being shamed for their private jet usage and they couldn't find a valid reason to be exempt so they're using their influence to expand the exemption. Whether this is right or wrong remains up to personal preference
So a more fitting analogy is that your car transmits its license plate number and current location for all to see? I'd consider that an absolute privacy nightmare. I'm fine with the change.
They're not tracking individuals travel, they're tracking a plane which is known to be owned by Person X (Elon, Taylor etc).
So a more fitting analogy is that your car transmits its license plate number and current location for all to see? I'd consider that an absolute privacy nightmare. I'm fine with the change.
The likelihood of most random individuals loaning their car to someone else is pretty low, while the chances of someone else having chartered that plane are fairly high. If someone else is...
The likelihood of most random individuals loaning their car to someone else is pretty low, while the chances of someone else having chartered that plane are fairly high. If someone else is regularly using your car, to the point where tracking the car is not a useful means of tracking you, the analogy falls apart.
Also, I'm able to transmit the location and license plate number of any Uber that I get in to whoever I like, and the owner of the car is almost certainly in it at that time. My safety outweighs their right to privacy in that circumstance, and they've voluntarily agreed to put themselves in that position. Someone taking a private jet is a threat to the security of the entire planet.
I agree with this perception when it comes to the reason why this exemption is being expanded. But I still don't think that public location tracking of a personal asset should have ever been made...
My perception is that people are being shamed for their private jet usage and they couldn't find a valid reason to be exempt so they're using their influence to expand the exemption.
I agree with this perception when it comes to the reason why this exemption is being expanded. But I still don't think that public location tracking of a personal asset should have ever been made available. @vektor fixed my analogy before I got a chance to, and it's absolutely correct. I'd be completely against the location history of my vehicle being made public even with a delay. That's a complete invasion of privacy.
I'm going to go a little against the grain here and say that I think this is a good idea. I work with people that are publicly well known, and security is a much bigger, thornier problem than you...
I'm going to go a little against the grain here and say that I think this is a good idea. I work with people that are publicly well known, and security is a much bigger, thornier problem than you would think, and it's gotten worse over the past decade. The .01% of dangerous, obsessed individuals have never been so empowered, and when you multiply that by millions of people, it's a big number. As long as aircraft safety isn't compromised, keeping the stalkers away from the airport is an everybody-wins scenario, including the general public.
Not saying its right or wrong but I suspect a "Our security costs increased" argument is largely going to fall on deaf ears when you're talking about a luxury form of travel that is limited to a...
Not saying its right or wrong but I suspect a "Our security costs increased" argument is largely going to fall on deaf ears when you're talking about a luxury form of travel that is limited to a select number of humans
I fully get the internet crazies perspective, but these flight trackers don't track individual movements. They only publicize that a plane owned by a particular individual is going from point A to point B. Consider this sportsball scenario from ~ Dec 2023:
Shohei Ohtani is a top tier professional baseball player who was a free agent (aka he can sign with any team he likes)
At the height of the media feenzy, someone noticed a private flight booked from Anaheim (Ohtanis home) to Toronto (A team with the resources to sign a player of his value)
Online and traditional media hype built around this flight. The flight manifest (aka who was on the flight) remained a guarded secret
The flight took off and landed without incident. Once it landed, it was publicly known that Ohtani was not on the flight and that it was chartered by a Canadian businessman. The actual passenger spun the incident into additional publicity
The simpler truth appears to be that influential individuals have been publicly embarrassed by their plane usage. Rather than capitalize on the data like the example above or simply changing their behavior, they want to close the public information stream. That doesnt sit right with everyone
With the caveat that I'm only speaking for the folks I actually know, they really aren't. Their jobs are high-profile, and private chartered flights are what allow most of what they do to happen....
The simpler truth appears to be that influential individuals have been publicly embarrassed by their plane usage.
With the caveat that I'm only speaking for the folks I actually know, they really aren't. Their jobs are high-profile, and private chartered flights are what allow most of what they do to happen. They sometimes need to be aware of the optics, as in the example you gave, but it's more that it's yet another thing to deal with than anything else.
I make no statement either way to whether this is good, bad, or neither, just stating what I know of their opinions.
I will say that Internet Crazies will happily show up if they think there's a chance $personofinterest is on a flight, and it can be genuinely dangerous. There's a lot of stuff that never makes it on the news that, if someone went through it personally, I promise you'd find scary as hell. I know I'm just some Rando on the internet myself, no one has to believe me. :) I'm simply offering my opinion based on my experiences.
Everyone who is saying that this represents some kind of privacy concern, I really feel like is taking for granted the idea that private jet travel somehow does not impose significant external...
Everyone who is saying that this represents some kind of privacy concern, I really feel like is taking for granted the idea that private jet travel somehow does not impose significant external costs upon the broader public.
The truth is, private jet travel imposes orders of magnitude more significant external cost than an individual on a commercial flight or an individual driving a car, or honestly literally any other example of a “normal person“ activity.
in my opinion, for anyone carrying out an activity in service of Their own personal utility (and that could literally include anything from a luxury vacation to just like a business trip that will make them more money), I strongly believe every single person that activity is impacting has a right to know who is responsible for it because it’s literally the only way you can hold those people accountable for their actions.
in my opinion when you’re asking for the right to have your association to an activity hidden from all of the people who it impacts you’re not asking for a right to privacy. you’re asking for a right to secrecy
I think this is (IMO) completely addressed by Make them pay. Once they pay enough that from the tax revenue their actions generate, we can clean up behind them, I don't give a shit who you are or...
I think this is (IMO) completely addressed by
If you want to discourage private jet travel, tax the hell out of it.
Make them pay. Once they pay enough that from the tax revenue their actions generate, we can clean up behind them, I don't give a shit who you are or where you fly to. Have them pay for their emissions and for any other externalities like the infrastructure we subsidized that they're now using. You think that if their tax revenue pays for cleanup and nothing more, then they're not actually paying their fair share? Cool, I actually agree with you. You don't want ADS-B data though, you want a billionaire tax.
Violating their privacy doesn't get me my money back. Doesn't fix the planet. Doesn't fix income inequality. Them paying a stupid amount of money, if used properly, does though.
Nothing I wrote had anything to do with me expressing some kind of desire or interest to discourage the use of private jets. While it is true that I feel that way, it’s absolutely not what I...
Nothing I wrote had anything to do with me expressing some kind of desire or interest to discourage the use of private jets. While it is true that I feel that way, it’s absolutely not what I wanted to talk about when I wrote my comment. so I can’t agree with the idea that what you have quoted comes anywhere close to addressing anything I’ve written
Im guessing they also dont want us to see them flying to Really Super Important Climate Crisis Conference where the irony should make them all bow their heads in shame. Admittance should only be...
Im guessing they also dont want us to see them flying to Really Super Important Climate Crisis Conference where the irony should make them all bow their heads in shame. Admittance should only be for those who can prove they at least bicycled the last 50 miles.
I'm so glad to see that the government takes personal security and privacy so seriously. They obviously need to start by addressing celebrity travel, not something to stop the stalking of ordinary...
the law is a sign that the government is finally responding to the security concerns celebrities like Musk have been dealing with over the past few years.
I'm so glad to see that the government takes personal security and privacy so seriously. They obviously need to start by addressing celebrity travel, not something to stop the stalking of ordinary people.
I have an easy answer: take public flights. From what I hear they have protocols for celebrities already (they don't want to cause a small craze in the middle of security screenings).
If you're not holding top secret+ clearance, I see no reason for a single person to need to fly to anywhere in the world on demand as if it's a car ride to the grocery store.
Even top security take public flights. I was in Hawaii quite a few years ago and taking a short hop flight from Honolulu. Our flight was delayed, and then three black SUVs pulled up, some guys in suits came aboard and checked out all the passengers visually and then asked everyone in the first 8 rows to move back. We did and after another long delay George Bush Sr. entered the plane along with a entourage of about a dozen people.
Was interesting because it turned out I was sitting beside Josh Green, Hawaii senator and he gave me his card and asked me to pass it to the Secret Service guy ahead which I did. That led to Senator Green shaking hands with President Bush after we landed and me getting some close up pics.
This will work for major cities, not so much outside of them. The city I grew up in has one flight to Detroit at 6am. There used to be more.
But the US has lots of small airports. So for an manager that needs to frequently visit multiple locations in rural areas, where there are no direct flights between them, having a plane can make sense.
I could be severely underestimating some factors here, but
Are celebrities usually with this manager on the way to a more rural area? I'm guessing these destinations aren't ones for arranging tours or other factors the star needs to be there in person for.
If the manager is in fact alone, would they alone cause a craze? I think of the Tony Hawk phenomenon where some people would simply fly under the radar unless they are very outspoken on broadcast. Superfans may know the name of, say, Taylor Swift's manager, but may not be able to pick them out of a crowd compared to Swift herself
There's sucky plan schedules, but that's no different from the public. If you can only get to Nebraska at 6am for a 6pm meeting, that's planning to get to an airport at midnight for a 2am flight. And then have a day of work or leisure before the meeting.
Yeah, it's not directly relevant. I just wanted to say that there are reasons why a business having a private plane can be useful.
SpaceX might be a good example of this. Their launch site at Boca Chica beach is a 4.5 hour drive from San Antonio. (Although, it looks like there are scheduled flights between Corpus Christi and Dallas and Houston.)
Musicians on tour typically travel by bus, but the wealthier ones do sometimes travel by private plane to small airports, which is why a fair number have died in plane crashes. The crew will still take a bus, though. I guess it's not strictly necessary?
There are reasons why anyone having a private plane can be useful. If I had a private plane I could bring my cats with me any time I wanted to visit family in the states. I wouldn't have to take flights with two stops and risk missing the next leg every time, invariably running across the airport with such desperation that I lose or destroy something that I'm wearing or holding (shoes, a suitcase, a nice pair of gloves loaned to me by a friend). I wouldn't have to ask my sister to come pick me up from the airport at 5 AM when she's exhausted from wrangling toddlers.
The question is whether or not that use is worth the environmental cost. And not just worth it to the individual with a private plane, worth it to all of us. Frankly, I'm not completely certain that my use of commercial planes is worth the environmental degradation, but I think it's certainly a lot more arguable than the use of private planes.
I'm fine with most of what these people do simply not happening, or happening on a much slower timescale. I understand that most people may not feel that way, despite being subject to the same environmental factors, but for them to be able to make an informed decision on whether or not the environmental cost is worth it, they have to know how much of it is happening, which they won't be able to if these changes are implemented.
How do I sign myself up for that celebrity treatment? I mean I'm a nobody but airport security doesn't know that. I could be a supes-popular TikTok influencer or something. Better let me bypass the cattle corral just in case.
You can do it after you pay off your very own senator.
It depends on the airline and airport. My understanding is that some airports have services that are open to anyone, but expensive, while others are restrictive but cheaper. Heathrow VIP services is open to anyone, at around £3k (for 1-3 people). Private Suite has similar services at LAX and ATL at similar prices, but additionally has cheaper shared services and an arrivals service that seems to be simply a car that picks you up at the plane and drives directly away from the airport.
I expect that, despite many of these services advertising luxury and convenience, the actual benefit most people are paying for is that you never are in a public space at all, except on the plane: there's a private security screening, private lounge, and car that usually goes to stairs attached to a jet bridge. In some circumstances, that might be something worth paying so much; I'm reminded of videos of Scientology critics in airport terminals back when the cult was much more powerful and combative.
Edit: actually, a number of airports seem to more openly list these services now, and quite a few are cheaper, in the €400-€600 range. The privacy aspects vary, however.
Hide that data in realtime, but make it available a week after:
By a week later, additional data will probably make depseudonymizing the IDs simple enough. The guy who tracked Musk seems confident enough.
Still, making the release of this data legal is much better in principle than the current trend of hiding data: It signifies a "legal will" that the public will know.
Moreover, it throws a wrench at any further attempts to hide it more efficiently
I really don't see a big deal with this. Yeah, everyone is angry that rich people fly private jets. But would it be okay if passenger manifests for commercial aircraft where made public? Would everyone be open to the idea of the public being able to see a map of everywhere you go throughout the day just by looking up your name? I'm fine with this from a privacy perspective.
If you want to discourage private jet travel, tax the hell out of it.
IMO this isn't a fair 1:1. They're not tracking individuals travel, they're tracking a plane which is known to be owned by Person X (Elon, Taylor etc). Person X may or may not be on every flight that their plane(s) take(s) - Private plane owners can and do rent/lend their planes or use them for "utility" purposes
Under the current system, flights with a valid security risk could already be exempt from publication. My perception is that people are being shamed for their private jet usage and they couldn't find a valid reason to be exempt so they're using their influence to expand the exemption. Whether this is right or wrong remains up to personal preference
So a more fitting analogy is that your car transmits its license plate number and current location for all to see? I'd consider that an absolute privacy nightmare. I'm fine with the change.
The likelihood of most random individuals loaning their car to someone else is pretty low, while the chances of someone else having chartered that plane are fairly high. If someone else is regularly using your car, to the point where tracking the car is not a useful means of tracking you, the analogy falls apart.
Also, I'm able to transmit the location and license plate number of any Uber that I get in to whoever I like, and the owner of the car is almost certainly in it at that time. My safety outweighs their right to privacy in that circumstance, and they've voluntarily agreed to put themselves in that position. Someone taking a private jet is a threat to the security of the entire planet.
More like tracking busses. It only becomes a privacy concern when only one person routinely uses the bus.
I agree with this perception when it comes to the reason why this exemption is being expanded. But I still don't think that public location tracking of a personal asset should have ever been made available. @vektor fixed my analogy before I got a chance to, and it's absolutely correct. I'd be completely against the location history of my vehicle being made public even with a delay. That's a complete invasion of privacy.
I'm going to go a little against the grain here and say that I think this is a good idea. I work with people that are publicly well known, and security is a much bigger, thornier problem than you would think, and it's gotten worse over the past decade. The .01% of dangerous, obsessed individuals have never been so empowered, and when you multiply that by millions of people, it's a big number. As long as aircraft safety isn't compromised, keeping the stalkers away from the airport is an everybody-wins scenario, including the general public.
Not saying its right or wrong but I suspect a "Our security costs increased" argument is largely going to fall on deaf ears when you're talking about a luxury form of travel that is limited to a select number of humans
I fully get the internet crazies perspective, but these flight trackers don't track individual movements. They only publicize that a plane owned by a particular individual is going from point A to point B. Consider this sportsball scenario from ~ Dec 2023:
The simpler truth appears to be that influential individuals have been publicly embarrassed by their plane usage. Rather than capitalize on the data like the example above or simply changing their behavior, they want to close the public information stream. That doesnt sit right with everyone
With the caveat that I'm only speaking for the folks I actually know, they really aren't. Their jobs are high-profile, and private chartered flights are what allow most of what they do to happen. They sometimes need to be aware of the optics, as in the example you gave, but it's more that it's yet another thing to deal with than anything else.
I make no statement either way to whether this is good, bad, or neither, just stating what I know of their opinions.
I will say that Internet Crazies will happily show up if they think there's a chance $personofinterest is on a flight, and it can be genuinely dangerous. There's a lot of stuff that never makes it on the news that, if someone went through it personally, I promise you'd find scary as hell. I know I'm just some Rando on the internet myself, no one has to believe me. :) I'm simply offering my opinion based on my experiences.
Everyone who is saying that this represents some kind of privacy concern, I really feel like is taking for granted the idea that private jet travel somehow does not impose significant external costs upon the broader public.
The truth is, private jet travel imposes orders of magnitude more significant external cost than an individual on a commercial flight or an individual driving a car, or honestly literally any other example of a “normal person“ activity.
in my opinion, for anyone carrying out an activity in service of Their own personal utility (and that could literally include anything from a luxury vacation to just like a business trip that will make them more money), I strongly believe every single person that activity is impacting has a right to know who is responsible for it because it’s literally the only way you can hold those people accountable for their actions.
in my opinion when you’re asking for the right to have your association to an activity hidden from all of the people who it impacts you’re not asking for a right to privacy. you’re asking for a right to secrecy
I think this is (IMO) completely addressed by
Make them pay. Once they pay enough that from the tax revenue their actions generate, we can clean up behind them, I don't give a shit who you are or where you fly to. Have them pay for their emissions and for any other externalities like the infrastructure we subsidized that they're now using. You think that if their tax revenue pays for cleanup and nothing more, then they're not actually paying their fair share? Cool, I actually agree with you. You don't want ADS-B data though, you want a billionaire tax.
Violating their privacy doesn't get me my money back. Doesn't fix the planet. Doesn't fix income inequality. Them paying a stupid amount of money, if used properly, does though.
Nothing I wrote had anything to do with me expressing some kind of desire or interest to discourage the use of private jets. While it is true that I feel that way, it’s absolutely not what I wanted to talk about when I wrote my comment. so I can’t agree with the idea that what you have quoted comes anywhere close to addressing anything I’ve written
I'd love to find out which legislator added this to the FAA re-authorization.
This was actually a long known demand by people who can buy the legislators. I'm not from US but even I have heard about it. It's same everywhere.
So the rich get more special treatment? Just what we really needed.
Im guessing they also dont want us to see them flying to Really Super Important Climate Crisis Conference where the irony should make them all bow their heads in shame. Admittance should only be for those who can prove they at least bicycled the last 50 miles.
I'm so glad to see that the government takes personal security and privacy so seriously. They obviously need to start by addressing celebrity travel, not something to stop the stalking of ordinary people.
The what of who?