I think I now know why some of you are concerned about flight privacy

ircphoenix said:
Bet he didn't have a flight plan neither!
Click to expand...
At least it wasn't a Cessna!

BTW - surely they got tipped off by another source or had another reason to start investigating. I highly doubt the ubiquitous "they" have some big algorithm that looks for repeat non commercial flight patterns for investigation.. but maybe?! If that were the case though every student flying the same 55nm cross country leg a hundred times building time for their instrument would also eventually be met by the Feds for a plane search
 
Tantalum said:
If that were the case though every student flying the same 55nm cross country leg a hundred times building time for their instrument would also eventually be met by the Feds for a plane search
Click to expand...

Ah that perfect 51NM route, I have done it 10’s of times. Think the FAA is on to me? I mean why else would a reasonable person visit KFMM?
 
In actuality though, machine learning algorithms make it very possible to look at every flight in the us and train it to look for behavior patterns. Probably could be done for a few hundred grand a year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Most of us arent drug smugglers. Still dont care if you can see me on flightaware. No one is stalking me or my airplane.
 
The plane is reliable, so when does it go up for auction? Not sure if the owner was a smoker or not.
 
bflynn said:
In about 10 years, when it's been sitting for a long time.
Click to expand...


There is a PA32 up on the USMS auctions right now..... just fell out of annual. Seems pretty quick. It has a G500 in it.
 
AnthonyS1 said:
Most of us arent drug smugglers. Still dont care if you can see me on flightaware. No one is stalking me or my airplane.
Click to expand...

The other danger is that eventually, some new administration decides to use such surveillance capabilities to start looking for people whose politics they don’t like. Remember, the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper, lied under oath to congress about the surveillance of US citizens they were performing. These are not unheard of scenarios in other countries.

And seriously, the FAA is worried about people smuggling marijuana which is now legal for recreational use under state law in how many states? Some bureaucrat is scrambling to justify their salary.

Edit: Appears it was driven by the DEA. We need to be rid of them.
Edit: Clapper was director of national intelligence, not the CIA. Clarified recreational marijuana is legal under state law in some jurisdictions. Thanks to @Sundancer for pointing out both.
 
Last edited:
Peter, that danger exists far outside of government. But this has nothing to do with aviation, right?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
The other danger is that eventually, some new administration decides to use such surveillance capabilities to start looking for people whose politics they don’t like. Remember, the head of the CIA, Clapper, lied under oath to congress about the surveillance of US citizens they were performing. These are not unheard of scenarios in other countries.

And seriously, the FAA is worried about people smuggling marijuana which is now legal for recreational use in how many states? Some bureaucrat is scrambling to justify their salary.

Edit: Appears it was driven by the DEA. We need to be rid of them.
Click to expand...
Clapper was never head of the CIA, and CIA charter keeps them pretty much out of the business of surveilling US persons. Maybe you're thinking of NSA tracking phone number pairs?

Marijuana is not yet legal anywhere in the US, as it's still a schedule 1 drug. I'd keep DEA around based on interdiction efforts on some other drugs - we could dump Dept of Ed, or Energy, or DHS, though, save a few bucks.
 
bflynn said:
But this has nothing to do with aviation, right?
Click to expand...

Only insofar as the FAA was involved in the investigation because airplanes were involved. And that FAA mandated flight tracking would enable such tracking to become more widespread. I think that was actually the concern of the OP.
 
Now for tracking people, a few years ago feds decided a guy was trafficking guns, they raided homes and business, guess what, nothing, no guns, nothing illegal but he was determined guilty until they couldn't find anything and had to release him, and then it was hushed over, but his nickname is machine gun preacher, google him to see how he helps kids in Africa, he has even talked at the Biker church I go to. There is a movie you can watch about his life
 
Salty said:
It’s still against federal law.
Click to expand...


Debatable......


The SEC has approved cannabis company trading in the United States. Given the amount of investors across straight stock buys, ETFs and mutual holdings, it would appear than a legal case could be made that the cannabis trade has been authorized by the fed. Once this was established, how can you say it’s illegal here, but not there so to speak? If the fed is allowing all these states to operate legal (illegal) weed shops, they have by default accepted decriminalized cannabis sales. Buyers of these securities are now owners of huge weed operations.... are they Pablo Escobars now?

I think this would be a benchmark case and would be a roe v. wade type establishment if successful.
 
Unit74 said:
Debatable......


The SEC has approved cannabis company trading in the United States. Given the amount of investors across straight stock buys, ETFs and mutual holdings, it would appear than a legal case could be made that the cannabis trade has been authorized by the fed. Once this was established, how can you say it’s illegal here, but not there so to speak? If the fed is allowing all these states to operate legal (illegal) weed shops, they have by default accepted decriminalized cannabis sales. Buyers of these securities are now owners of huge weed operations.... are they Pablo Escobars now?

I think this would be a benchmark case and would be a roe v. wade type establishment if successful.
Click to expand...
A law is a law even if it’s not always enforced. Is your argument that it’s not illegal to speed because thousands of people do it daily without it being enforced?
 
Salty said:
A law is a law even if it’s not always enforced. Is your argument that it’s not illegal to speed because thousands of people do it daily without it being enforced?
Click to expand...


When they guys with the radar guns take down the speed signs, yes. The SEC is a federal agency. The cannabis trade has been accepted as legal in all 50 states. There is no argument.
 
Unit74 said:
When they guys with the radar guns take down the speed signs, yes. The SEC is a federal agency. The cannabis trade has been accepted as legal in all 50 states. There is no argument.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There’s no arguing that it’s illegal at the federal level.
 
If repeated flights to the same location are worthy of investigation, then KSEP must be the drug mule capital of North Texas.

Of course, the drug of choice there is Hard8 BBQ. :)
 
AnthonyS1 said:
...l dont care if you can see me on flightaware. No one is stalking me or my airplane.
Click to expand...

I don't care if someone posts a live webcam of my daily activities on the internet, therefore everyone should be forced to have their daily activities posted, right? THAT's the issue. If you don't mind, that's fine. It's forcing those that DO mind to give up their right to privacy that is wrong.
 
Unit74 said:
Debatable......


The SEC has approved cannabis company trading in the United States. Given the amount of investors across straight stock buys, ETFs and mutual holdings, it would appear than a legal case could be made that the cannabis trade has been authorized by the fed. Once this was established, how can you say it’s illegal here, but not there so to speak? If the fed is allowing all these states to operate legal (illegal) weed shops, they have by default accepted decriminalized cannabis sales. Buyers of these securities are now owners of huge weed operations.... are they Pablo Escobars now?

I think this would be a benchmark case and would be a roe v. wade type establishment if successful.
Click to expand...
"Marihuana" is listed as item (c)(10) on the Schedule I controlled substances list by statute. (See 21 USC 812.) The SEC does not have the authority to remove a substance from the schedule. Per 21 USC 811(a), that authority belongs to the Attorney General.

There is a proposal in Congress to change this.
 
MuseChaser said:
I don't care if someone posts a live webcam of my daily activities on the internet, therefore everyone should be forced to have their daily activities posted, right? THAT's the issue. If you don't mind, that's fine. It's forcing those that DO mind to give up their right to privacy that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly! If i want to attend a function I don't necessarily want the thought of being watched, great example, I get invited to a major Biker "club" event, while I won't be doing anything wrong, unless there are issues of me packing a gun, plenty of guys may have God knows what on them. But I don't necessesarily went people to know where I go, or who I socialize with, and especially if party is invite only,
 
Palmpilot said:
"Marihuana" is listed as item (c)(10) on the Schedule I controlled substances list by statute. (See 21 USC 812.) The SEC does not have the authority to remove a substance from the schedule. Per 21 USC 811(a), that authority belongs to the Attorney General.

There is a proposal in Congress to change this.
Click to expand...

So who gets locked up? Everyone at the SEC or the buyers of securities who are now "drug dealers"? Point is that you have two federal organizations, three, no four....Hell... How many basically three letter agencies ignoring the very law you posted? That's the point here....... Selective prosecution is ripe for a precedent setting SCOTUS case. Could this guy be running weed from California to Colorado and be A-OK? Can he run it up and down the coast of Cali and Be OK with the feds?

Not saying I agree with everyone smokin da ganja, but C'mon....... Fed law applies to everyone, not just some tiny little fish in a big, deep ocean. The feds could walk into any of these shops today, right now, no warrant and lock em all up and take everything from the windows to walls. Have they done that yet? I drove through Central Cal a few weeks ago and right by a yuuuuge grow house, I estimated maybe 500 acres or better of weed and nary a blue coat in sight? Some guy with a plane moves a handful of kilos and he gets hammered? Seems like it wasn't even a low hanging fruit.... It was on the ground with a few rat chewings on it already.

Really what this boils down to, to me, is that he was haulin stank weed in a plane for money, and it is an FAA issue. Because if the fed has already turned a blind eye, what foundation or precedent have they set by allowing not just people but states to ignore said federal law quoted? Sanction him on the certificate side, but the fed has lost their mind, er, control of the whole thing with zero chance of recovery at this point. Too much money involved for the states.
 
I've debated whether or not to weigh in on this, but in the aftermath of the Operation Safe Pilot investigation I was subjected to some pretty vile online criticism - much of it based on false information in press articles - especially after I filed my privacy act civil complaint against the government and my case wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court. I and thirty-nine other NorCal pilots were identified by name and city of residence in the U.S. Attorney's press release (attached pdf), and I have always been listed in my local telephone directory. The press release was clearly designed to poison the jury pool in case any of us decided to go to trial.

After my experience, I take personal privacy very seriously.
 

Attachments

  • 1 Operation Safe Pilot NorCal US Atty Press.pdf
    66.1 KB · Views: 18
Palmpilot said:
"Marihuana" is listed as item (c)(10) on the Schedule I controlled substances list by statute. (See 21 USC 812.) The SEC does not have the authority to remove a substance from the schedule. Per 21 USC 811(a), that authority belongs to the Attorney General.

There is a proposal in Congress to change this.
Click to expand...
This - the SEC is not a legislative body; they can make rules, not laws, and their rules are subject to review by federal courts. As the man said long ago "The law is what the Supreme Court says it is".

I imagine it'll eventually be removed from the schedule 1 list; today, marijuana is not a legal substance anywhere in the US. States may chose to decriminalize it, as some have. Just not relevant (yet) in terms of federal law. I imagine there will be some back-lash the other way - local jurisdictions legislating on public - similar to arrest for public drunkenness, smoking in public places, etc. At least I hope so. . .
 
Stan Cooper said:
I've debated whether or not to weigh in on this, but in the aftermath of the Operation Safe Pilot investigation I was subjected to some pretty vile online criticism - much of it based on false information in press articles - especially after I filed my privacy act civil complaint against the government and my case wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court. I and thirty-nine other NorCal pilots were identified by name and city of residence in the U.S. Attorney's press release (attached pdf), and I have always been listed in my local telephone directory. The press release was clearly designed to poison the jury pool in case any of us decided to go to trial.

After my experience, I take personal privacy very seriously.
Click to expand...
I ain't young, and over the decades I have had first-hand, eye-witness, and sometimes participation, in events that were reported on at the national level. The press (including broadcast) have been incredibly, perfectly, consistent in always having the facts wrong.

And I don't mean trivial or ancillary facts - I mean the core, substantive actions, results, participants, timing, all the essentials.
 
Sundancer said:
The press (including broadcast) have been incredibly, perfectly, consistent in always having the facts wrong.
Click to expand...

The press’s inability to accurately report at times amazes me. How can they be so sloppy and get so many things wrong? Very much in a hurry to have “the scoop” and not very knowledgeable about the subject, I guess.
 
mryan75 said:
In what way? It is against federal law. Period.
Click to expand...

How many governors, legislators, state cops, local cops, local business operators, doctors, users, growers, sellers, buyers, movers, touch-ers, onlookers have you seen locked up yet? Supremacy Clause right? Fed law rules the lands?

The bigger question is when it does get wiped from the books, can the FAA still prohibit the use or will it be "8 hours from High to Fly"?

upload_2019-7-28_14-37-25.png
 
Last edited:
Illegal

98737117-41C5-4D45-86AA-29BBEF6C7616.png

If you want to use some other definition than the actual one, then sure. It has nothing to do with who’s been arrested or not.
 
Salty said:
Illegal


If you want to use some other definition than the actual one, then sure. It has nothing to do with who’s been arrested or not.
Click to expand...

If those who posses the authority to enforce do not, and allow the conduct to continue WITH their consent, is it still wrong? Martha Lunken turned her back on local shenanigans when she was an FAA Inspector. By not doing anything in a roll of authority over the conduct, she therefor allowed it to continue unabated. Same-same
 
Last edited:
Unit74 said:
If those who posses the authority to enforce do not, and allow the conduct to continue WITH their consent, is it still wrong? Martha Lunken turned her back on local shenanigans when she was an FAA Inspector. By not doing anything in a roll of authority over the conduct, she therefor allowed it to continue unabated. Same-same
Click to expand...
You didn’t say “it isn’t wrong”. You said it wasn’t illegal. The word Illegal has a meaning and that meaning is not “wrong”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top