New case against flight tracking

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).
 
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?
 
geezer said:
T.S. should simply keep secret just where and when her concerts are going to be, and announce in the morning where the ticketholders should appear. Then no crazies would know in time to endanger her.

Getting the time of arrival from flight tracking is too little advance notice to make a move in time, but any one who knows when the shows will be can get a suitable spot way ahead of time, and pose a real threat.

Phony issue, for such a person that floods the airwaves and internet with her every move.
Click to expand...
Yes, she's OK with her whereabouts being public and all-over social media if it's about her concerts or celebrity appearances but if that public info is about her jet - cease and desist! As for the guy mentioning the license plate issue, most people that own jets (speaking from experience lol) don't have the registration in their name - most of the time they're registered to a company.
 
StraightnLevel said:
It is if you are an exec in a publicly traded company. Where you travel can be considered insider information, and disclosing that information is a violation of federal law. Just ask Martha Stewart about how that works....
Click to expand...
Again, if you are an exec in a publicly traded company, and you cannot figure out how to shield your travel info with corporate structure such as an aircraft leaseback, then you probably should not be an exec in a publicly traded company.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Again, if you are an exec in a publicly traded company, and you cannot figure out how to shield your travel info with corporate structure such as an aircraft leaseback, then you probably should not be an exec in a publicly traded company.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you're arguing that government transparency requires that nationwide ADS-B data dissemination be facilitated, as is generally currently the case, or if you're arguing that its not a privacy concern because the methods to circumvent this dissemination are so easy and readily available, in which case the dissemination itself seems pointless.

I'm all for government transparency as a general rule, but my gut check on such things is how might I feel if the same rules were applied to automobiles. Yes, a car is government-mandated to carry an identifying license plate, analogous to N-numbers on aircraft. Yes, when I go anywhere, my identification can be readily observed. This is good is some cases, like to track down a hit-and-run driver.

However, most states put limitations on the general public's access to lookup the ownership of a given license plate. I'm not aware of any state that has this information instantly available on the internet for free and without any stated purpose, nor identification of the requestor.

Moreover, while I can observe any given car/license plate combo that passes by on the street, and even hypothetically follow it where it goes in public, the public is not provided with a means to track the same vehicle wherever it goes across the country. I suggest that with the prevalence of EZPass and cashless tolls, that it is not too far from being possible to do with cars.
 
DJTorrente said:
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?
Click to expand...
ADSB requires an operating mode C transponder, so if the ADSB is reporting one position and the radar/transponder is reporting something different...
 
Here is food for thought. We had Mode C transponders and later Mode S transponders without all of this public access to aircraft tracking. Why did adding GPS position to the data require a change in accessibility?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Here is food for thought. We had Mode C transponders and later Mode S transponders without all of this public access to aircraft tracking. Why did adding GPS position to the data require a change in accessibility?
Click to expand...
Because it was convenient for a couple of engineers when they wrote the specification. (said sarcastically, I have no idea if there was a reason, I just have not seen one, and it makes no sense to me from a cyber security view)

Tim
 
tspear said:
Because it was convenient for a couple of engineers when they wrote the specification. (said sarcastically, I have no idea if there was a reason, I just have not seen one, and it makes no sense to me from a cyber security view)

Tim
Click to expand...
The real answer probably isn't too far off from "Because we could." Digitization of the data and massively cheap computer storage makes it possible to save and search lots of "Big Data". I imagine this is a small and relatively insignificant example.
 
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...

So an abuse of justice is a reason for reducing aviation safety? The crazy ex girlfriend should have been arrested and fined.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Here is food for thought. We had Mode C transponders and later Mode S transponders without all of this public access to aircraft tracking. Why did adding GPS position to the data require a change in accessibility?
Click to expand...
Mode S can be tracked as well via a process called “multilateration”.

The reason all this is so commonplace now is “cheap, software defined radio”. A USB stick that could be used to receive digital TV, can be tuned to a different frequency (ADSB on 1090mhz) via software. These sticks cost about $20…
 
DJTorrente said:
The real answer probably isn't too far off from "Because we could." Digitization of the data and massively cheap computer storage makes it possible to save and search lots of "Big Data". I imagine this is a small and relatively insignificant example.
Click to expand...
Because we could, and inertia are the most likely answers. ADS-B actually dates back to the late 90s if memory serves. But at no point did the FAA every think about updating it to deal with cyber security, privacy or anything remotely related.

Tim
 
StraightnLevel said:
How does publishing real time flight tracking on the internet provide safety?
Click to expand...
The government does not publish ADS-B on the internet. FlightAware obtains that information from crowd-sourced ground based receivers, which it cross references with flight plans via ASDI.

BTW, since this bothers you so much, have you added your aircraft to the ASDI block list?
 
Ed Haywood said:
The government does not publish ADS-B on the internet. FlightAware obtains that information from crowd-sourced ground based receivers, which it cross references with flight plans via ASDI.

BTW, since this bothers you so much, have you added your aircraft to the ASDI block list?
Click to expand...
If you do add it to the ASDI block list, I would advise the “source blocking” option since the FAA will literally give the feed to anyone who asks.
 
ASDI feed is no more, but the same data is now available through FAA SWIM. To obtain a SWIM feed of the data, a company has to support the LADD privacy and block public tracking for LADD participants. There are two levels supported, within FAA data or if the LADD participant chooses, the data can be blocked for public tracking, but provided for private tracking.
 
Makes no difference to me, all they have to do is see my type on Flight Aware and they know it’s me. No N-number required. Luckily I don’t have any insane ex-girlfriends or tax collectors tracking me at the moment, but I’d sure like it if the FA data (and Foreflight) included Mode C data only to anybody except ATC specifically, not any other level or function of government, not police, not individuals.

Its completely beyond me that anybody would defend the current default-visible aircraft tracking situation, but OTOH there are people in e.g. Sweden (and probably here too) who think it’s perfectly correct that anybody should be able to look up anybody else’s income on a government website, as public data available to all. There are people who either profit from tracking individuals, or just don’t get where allowing it might take them (or us collectively). Go figure. The only defense against people like that in the US is a collective legal push to marginalize their opinions based on higher principle. Where do I sign up? I’ve got my Visa card ready to go.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...
We're probably only a couple years away from fully automated real time transcription of LiveATC feeds given the current state of machine learning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top