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

Salty said:
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”
Click to expand...

Huh? Quote what I said and explain. I ain't flowing you at all.
 
Unit74 said:
Huh? Quote what I said and explain. I ain't flowing you at all.
Click to expand...
We’ve been using the word illegal, but you’ve been thinking in terms of right and wrong. Two totally different things.
 
Salty said:
We’ve been using the word illegal, but you’ve been thinking in terms of right and wrong. Two totally different things.
Click to expand...


Incorrect..... Right and wrong are not apart of what I have been saying. Perhaps you inferred that, but we are talk legal problems, not moral problems.

The SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that nullification is not within States Rights and runs afoul of article 6 clause 2. Yet, this has occurred by default with cannabis and in direct violation of a benchmark case, Cooper v aaron. Yet, the States gave Uncle Sugar the finger and did it anyway, and under the last two administrations, it has been allowed to not only continue, but grow (pun intended). It has also been allowed to become a publicly traded security on a regulated exchange. Memos from the top down have ordered non-enforcement of mary jane violations. The Treasury and FinCen have stopped taking enforcement action on the banking industry allowing for a cash industry to begin using federally regulated banks to hold money and provide services. This is called money laundering in general terms; "Illegal" as you say.

The entire system of enforcement with regards to cannabis has in essence, collapsed on its self. It has been allowed to happen in fact. Back to the point of this whole debacle.... The weed-flyer only should have an FAA problem, not a DEA problem as The U.S. has allowed the cannabis trade to grow, and grow big over the past 10 years and soon, what he did will not be against the law at all. Application for a dismissal and/or an overturning of any conviction since this pattern of federal misconduct(legal blindness) was established is not only the right thing to do, but the legal thing to do.
 
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...
This brings up one of the problems with changes being made through a non-enforcement policy instead of by changing the laws. When different politicians come into power, those non-enforcement policies can be abandoned with little or no warning. Many people have found this out the hard way.
 
Palmpilot said:
This brings up one of the problems with changes being made through a non-enforcement policy instead of by changing the laws. When different politicians come into power, those non-enforcement policies can be abandoned with little or no warning. Many people have found this out the hard way.
Click to expand...

Please don't make this an immigration thread. Trying to keep it off the political line and focused on the pilot/FAA.......
 
Unit74 said:
Please don't make this an immigration thread. Trying to keep it off the political line and focused on the pilot/FAA.......
Click to expand...
It's risky to rely on non-enforcement policies no matter what the subject is.
 
Unit74 said:
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"?

View attachment 76400
Click to expand...
So in other words, yes, it’s against federal law. Thanks.
 
mryan75 said:
So in other words, yes, it’s against federal law. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Unit74 said:
That’s never been argued against a n this thread. Welcome to the Party
Click to expand...

In the second post below, you said it was "debatable," and you then posted what appeared to be an argument that it's not really illegal.

Salty said:
It’s still against federal law.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Palmpilot said:
In the second post below, you said it was "debatable," and you then posted what appeared to be an argument that it's not really illegal.
Click to expand...


Right....


If it’s statutorily unlawful, but the authority with jurisdiction over the conduct has condoned it in contrast with the codified conduct, and in this case actually enabled it, by default you cannot be held accountable because it is entrapment.

The argument is that while codified as unlawful, the conduct of the government has made the unlawful elements of the statute null and void way way of failing to enforce it when confronted with it or more accurately, enabling it.

Thus, while still “illegal” there no possible way for the courts, read SCOTUS, not to side with the defendant in that the US Attorney et al. In cooperation with the executive branch has rendered it unprosecutable. Again, this is a interstate commerce problem with the private pilot transporting commercial goods, and he would need a commercial certificate to do so, which is now the FAAs problem as he is holding out.
 
Unit74 said:
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"?

View attachment 76400
Click to expand...

If I know the FAA and how they are on all things medical, once pot is legal on a federal level we should maybe expect to be allowed a joint on an 8 hour puff to throttle basis sometime in about 35-40 years after full legalization.
 
[QUOTEI "AnthonyS1, post: 2766726, member: 35115"]If I know the FAA and how they are on all things medical, once pot is legal on a federal level we should maybe expect to be allowed a joint on an 8 hour puff to throttle basis sometime in about 35-40 years after full legalization.[/QUOTE]

What I consider bad, if you flew to a country where it is legal, you could still lose license because it is in system, although you broke no federal laws while in another country. It reminds me of what happened 40 years ago, band classmates got to go to another country to play, well alcohol was legal there, and students were allowed to drink there, when word got back to school, band director was fired on spot, parents sued, but what happened was totally legal there, and that was last time band ever traveled out of local area
 
Unit74 said:
If it’s statutorily unlawful, but the authority with jurisdiction over the conduct has condoned it in contrast with the codified conduct, and in this case actually enabled it, by default you cannot be held accountable because it is entrapment.
Click to expand...

There is nothing I like more than a good Holiday Inn legal argument. :rolleyes:
 
It's a transition period, and hence the ambiguity and inconsistency in Fed and local gov't involvement. Yeah, it's illegal, everywhere in the US, State laws not withstanding. And enforcement is light, sporadic, and low priority, except for "big" players. For the most part.

I don't like decriminalizing it, though it is clear a significant minority would prefer it to be so. If they keep it indoors and out of the public eye, then I guess we can live with it. A lot of money is to be made here by loal gov't.

Some states, like mine, Maryland, have jumped into the gambling, alcohol, and now, the drug business. None of 'em are exactly what I have in mind as a gov't functions, and none of them are net positives for the body politic, that's for sure. But. They. Make. Money. Social costs not included. . .

I guess sanctioned prostitution, a'la Nevada will be the next frontier - I mean, consenting adults, gonna do it anyway, it's her (his?) body, so who are "we" to deny them mercantile use of it?
 
Tantalum said:
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
Click to expand...

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/im-on-the-homeland-security-watch-list.34431/
 
Ted DuPuis said:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/im-on-the-homeland-security-watch-list.34431/
Click to expand...
you did the right thing in being cooperative. I think if you had made a fuss about asking for warrants then best case scenario you would have been stuck on the ground much longer, or worst case scenario they would have impounded the plane etc. Of course they were sheepish when they found out there was nothing there as they probably had to report back to their supervisors that this plane they'd been tracking for months turned up to be a false alarm

What I do find crazy that this is the kind of nonsense or government chooses to spend its precious tax dollars on..

Always torn on the privacy thing. On the one hand, if you're not doing anything wrong or illegal then you ought to have nothing to worry about. But on the other, surveillance is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. People have unfortunately accepted it as a part of life, but it is in no way legal what the government is doing. But I digress
 
Landing Fees said:
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?
Click to expand...

KOLM to KKLS. 51 nm. The standard XC that my CFI used. It was also a perfect IFR (I Follow Roads) route. If a student pilot could get lost on this XC he/she really needed to find something else to do with his/her excess money. I-5 goes between the two airports.

ircphoenix said:
What I consider bad, if you flew to a country where it is legal, you could still lose license because it is in system, although you broke no federal laws while in another country. It reminds me of what happened 40 years ago, band classmates got to go to another country to play, well alcohol was legal there, and students were allowed to drink there, when word got back to school, band director was fired on spot, parents sued, but what happened was totally legal there, and that was last time band ever traveled out of local area
Click to expand...
But no one was arrested or prosecuted in your example... Because administrative procedure and statutory law are two different things. It was legal, but twernt bright.[/QUOTE]

Well, the incident I have in mind happened 48 years ago, and the band director passed away years ago. Our high school band was in Europe and we were playing a concert in a small town in Belgium. I doubt that 1/2 of the band was feeling too much pain that evening, and that included the band director. Got to love those lower drinking ages in Europe. :p
 
Tantalum said:
you did the right thing in being cooperative. I think if you had made a fuss about asking for warrants then best case scenario you would have been stuck on the ground much longer, or worst case scenario they would have impounded the plane etc. Of course they were sheepish when they found out there was nothing there as they probably had to report back to their supervisors that this plane they'd been tracking for months turned up to be a false alarm

What I do find crazy that this is the kind of nonsense or government chooses to spend its precious tax dollars on..

Always torn on the privacy thing. On the one hand, if you're not doing anything wrong or illegal then you ought to have nothing to worry about. But on the other, surveillance is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. People have unfortunately accepted it as a part of life, but it is in no way legal what the government is doing. But I digress
Click to expand...

My point was that you doubted “they had some algorithm to randomly track planes, and were tipped off.

It was very much an algorithm that decided I was “suspicious.” In fact it was even said to me that planes that diverted on an IFR flight plan were filed as suspicious, and I’d done that several times in previous months.
 
Salty said:
Until they do.

And screw someone else that might get stalked as long as it’s not you?
Click to expand...

How does one know he being stalked? Does a foil hat help with detection and victim status?
 
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...
Are there any publically traded US weed companies?
 
Unit74 said:
Incorrect..... Right and wrong are not apart of what I have been saying. Perhaps you inferred that, but we are talk legal problems, not moral problems.

The SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that nullification is not within States Rights and runs afoul of article 6 clause 2. Yet, this has occurred by default with cannabis and in direct violation of a benchmark case, Cooper v aaron. Yet, the States gave Uncle Sugar the finger and did it anyway, and under the last two administrations, it has been allowed to not only continue, but grow (pun intended). It has also been allowed to become a publicly traded security on a regulated exchange. Memos from the top down have ordered non-enforcement of mary jane violations. The Treasury and FinCen have stopped taking enforcement action on the banking industry allowing for a cash industry to begin using federally regulated banks to hold money and provide services. This is called money laundering in general terms; "Illegal" as you say.

The entire system of enforcement with regards to cannabis has in essence, collapsed on its self. It has been allowed to happen in fact. Back to the point of this whole debacle.... The weed-flyer only should have an FAA problem, not a DEA problem as The U.S. has allowed the cannabis trade to grow, and grow big over the past 10 years and soon, what he did will not be against the law at all. Application for a dismissal and/or an overturning of any conviction since this pattern of federal misconduct(legal blindness) was established is not only the right thing to do, but the legal thing to do.
Click to expand...
I think you are exaggerating the degree to which the feds are going along. They still prosecute under federal law even in "legal" states where local laws are disobeyed. And doing "legal" business isn't so easy.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/m...continued-challenges-for-federal-reforms.html
 
Palmpilot said:
This brings up one of the problems with changes being made through a non-enforcement policy instead of by changing the laws. When different politicians come into power, those non-enforcement policies can be abandoned with little or no warning. Many people have found this out the hard way.
Click to expand...
YES! And then if a new politician decides to start enforcing existing laws that were previously ignored people definitely learn that one the hard

Ted DuPuis said:
My point was that you doubted “they had some algorithm to randomly track planes, and were tipped off.

It was very much an algorithm that decided I was “suspicious.” In fact it was even said to me that planes that diverted on an IFR flight plan were filed as suspicious, and I’d done that several times in previous months.
Click to expand...
Crazy man.. and I don't understand how it's not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.. having someone actively track my flight seems to go directly in the face of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" .. how am I secure in my persons if someone is spying on me?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My point was that you doubted “they had some algorithm to randomly track planes, and were tipped off.

It was very much an algorithm that decided I was “suspicious.” In fact it was even said to me that planes that diverted on an IFR flight plan were filed as suspicious, and I’d done that several times in previous months.
Click to expand...

Ref to the big brother inspection : I think its creepy as hell, on top of that, you should have the right to search them before they get even remotely close to your property, and you also should have the right observe the search, with a video rolling, especially if they refuse you searching them.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/im-on-the-homeland-security-watch-list.34431/
Click to expand...
I found the whole thread amusing...
The government asked, and you said yes. End of story to me. Yet then 70 guys all write how that was a violation of your rights, and what "would have happened, if you had said 'no' ", (search warrant, plane impound, drug dogs, planted evidence, repeated harassment, and more) yet none of them have any direct experience with what would have happened. Um, ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
ANd Ted, I would add, that the only part that I found wrong was the "watch list". Now that IS BS!
 
Tantalum said:
Crazy man.. and I don't understand how it's not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.. having someone actively track my flight seems to go directly in the face of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" .. how am I secure in my persons if someone is spying on me?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it's a violation of the 4th amendment. Flight plans are publicly available info and I filed IFR for all of the legs on that trip. That was also the 2nd XC (as in, east coast to west coast) trip I did in my Aztec that year, with the previous one being one month prior. SW USA back east was a common drug smuggling route, and KLBL apparently has had (at least at that time) a lot of drug busts. Yeah, it's basically "stop and frisk" but for airplanes.

It's worth noting that they did ask if they could search the plane, and I agreed because I figured they'd just keep hassling me wherever I went if I didn't. One can argue whether or not that was a good decision, but over 9 years later and a number of international flights, I've had zero problems since, so I think it cleared me from their watch list once they realized that I'm just a weird hippie flying a clapped out old airplane (which clapped out old airplane has just evolved over the years).

bnt83 said:
Ref to the big brother inspection : I think its creepy as hell, on top of that, you should have the right to search them before they get even remotely close to your property, and you also should have the right observe the search, with a video rolling, especially if they refuse you searching them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what would give me a right to search a LEO. As I said, I did consent to a search. What would've happened if I'd said no? Don't know, can't say.

There is an algorithm, it's out there. ADS-B will make it easier to track you.

Frankly I find it far more concerning/alarming to have red light cameras or speeding cameras. Or like NYS does - their cops have cameras that will read your license plate as you drive by and flag the cop if your registration, inspection, or insurance is expired. Or the ability to track you location by your cell phone. That is all far, far more concerning to me than looking at flight plans.

Weekend Warrior said:
ANd Ted, I would add, that the only part that I found wrong was the "watch list". Now that IS BS!
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. As I said it seems like I've been cleared from that given that 9 years and over 2,000 hours later I've not been hassled much at all since. I did contact my congressman about it after that happened. No idea if he did anything or not.

Well, now thinking about it, there was that one international flight in the 310 a year or so later when I got fed some obvious BS questions. But that was over 8 years ago and nothing since at all. So there you go - I'd say at this point it's probably been closed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's worth noting that they did ask if they could search the plane, and I agreed because I figured they'd just keep hassling me wherever I went if I didn't. One can argue whether or not that was a good decision, but over 9 years later and a number of international flights, I've had zero problems since, so I think it cleared me from their watch list once they realized that I'm just a weird hippie flying a clapped out old airplane (which clapped out old airplane has just evolved over the years).
Click to expand...
That was certainly the right call. Refusing it, or asking for docs and warrants would have just made you look more guilty in their eyes, and may have changed what sounds like an ultimately civil interaction into something more confrontational

Ted DuPuis said:
Flight plans are publicly available info
Click to expand...
Sure, and so is my house, and house address, among many other things. That data is used to send me adds of Sling planes and flying stuff as opposed to random crap. But does that mass of available data also give a government entity the right to make assumptions about my actions and perceived crimes? To me the Fourth Amendment "protect your person" seems to absolve you from that... kind of a whole minority-report thing. An algorithm tracking your flights and sending you an ad that says "hey, next time you are at XX airport try our new FBO" vs "this person must be committing a crime, let's go harass him for an hour" with the goal of ultimate imprisonment and curtailment of rights are completely different.
 
Tantalum said:
Sure, and so is my house, and house address, among many other things. That data is used to send me adds of Sling planes and flying stuff as opposed to random crap. But does that mass of available data also give a government entity the right to make assumptions about my actions and perceived crimes? To me the Fourth Amendment "protect your person" seems to absolve you from that... kind of a whole minority-report thing. An algorithm tracking your flights and sending you an ad that says "hey, next time you are at XX airport try our new FBO" vs "this person must be committing a crime, let's go harass him for an hour" with the goal of ultimate imprisonment and curtailment of rights are completely different.
Click to expand...

This starts to get into various lawerly and politically things so I'm going to stop before it potentially goes Spin Zone. I'll just leave it as the gubmint tracked me using an algorithm of some sort and that it could happen to you. It's happened to others, including John and Martha King, and there was some businessman with a Cirrus who also got attention some years ago. I think we all agree it's dumb.
 
Hey there. Privacy and Data Security attorney here. I'm not going to go into the very interesting legal arguments in this thread, but I have a favor to ask.

Another pilot/attorney and I are working on an article covering GDPR and other privacy regulations' effects in GA. If you've got any interesting stories about your personal data showing up unexpectedly in connection with your flying that you're willing to share, I'd love to hear about them (thanks for the Sling ads and possible jury tampering examples already). You can post them here or send me a message. Thanks in advance.
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
Hey there. Privacy and Data Security attorney here. I'm not going to go into the very interesting legal arguments in this thread, but I have a favor to ask.

Another pilot/attorney and I are working on an article covering GDPR and other privacy regulations' effects in GA. If you've got any interesting stories about your personal data showing up unexpectedly in connection with your flying that you're willing to share, I'd love to hear about them (thanks for the Sling ads and possible jury tampering examples already). You can post them here or send me a message. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

So are you referring to stories like mine from 2010?
 
I don't like contact with LEO, none of them I have can understand this simple statement "I am nearly deaf" and every encounter is creepy as **** as the communication barrier never improves.

The point of searching them would be an attempt to prevent one of them from planting evidence. Paranoid? Maybe. The government has unlimited resources to screw people, only fair to allow the public reasonable protection from it.

Wasting 40 minutes of a pilot's time seem excessive without any solid probable cause, basically nationwide stop & frisk based on computer tracking system. What if this was happening with cars based on liscense plates? Say we parked near a pot shop in Colorado and passing Colorado troops plate reader logged it and Nebraska state patrol pulls us over on the way back home, F that
 
Last edited:
Can’t find the story now, but a few years back someone consented to a search and was handed back a plane wirh multiple inspection panels removed.

Keeping my plane airworthy from knuckleheads that don’t understand airplanes is an excellent reason to not consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top