The U.S. Finally Passes An Internet Privacy Law… For Rich Jet Owners
from the crystal-clear-priorities dept
The U.S. yet yet to pass even a basic internet-era privacy law — or regulate data brokers. And while there’s a lot of misdirection and pretense to the contrary, the primary reason is (1) because the U.S. government is too corrupt; and (2) because the U.S. government really enjoys being able to purchase massive amounts of sensitive citizen data from data brokers without having to get a pesky warrant.
The end result has been just a parade of dangerous scandals in which dodgy companies hoover up oceans of sensitive user data, then sell access to any nitwit with two nickels to rub together. Given foreign intelligence can easily buy this data, our corruption poses a severe national security threat; but instead of fixing it, Congress likes to distract folks with endless hysteria about a single app: TikTok.
But it’s amusing to see the government work quickly when they think it’s something that might impact the affluent personally. Case in point: Congress is too corrupt to protect consumer privacy, but they did manage to pass a new privacy law specifically designed to protect the privacy of affluent jet owners:
“The latest Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill contains a pointed amendment within it—the government is making it much more difficult to monitor and track private aircraft travel. The new law passed last week will almost exclusively benefit the nation’s wealthiest flyers and obscure public attempts to hold them accountable for their disproportionate carbon emissions.”
The new law lets private jet owners censor most meaningful travel details (call signs, flight numbers, travel patterns) through a new application process in which they claim the data must remain confidential due to ambiguous “safety or security” needs. Folks over at Bluesky dug into the specific language of the reauthorization bill and found it was inserted by Republican Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas.
Jack Sweeney, the jet tracking student who made Elon Musk cry like a baby, says the law won’t completely block the tracking of jets, given they can still glean a lot of detail from general contextual clues. But it’s still amusing how quickly and easily Congress is able to shore up lax U.S. privacy safeguards when it’s to the specific benefit of the rich.
The thing is, letting dodgy, unregulated data brokers monetize everybody’s sensitive movement and behavior data harms poor people, rich people, and everybody in between. Right now most members of Congress view these privacy issues as somebody else’s problem, but at some point there’s going to be an unprecedented privacy scandal tied to data brokers that shatters that delusion in very painful ways.
The government has repeatedly made the choice to prioritize making money over consumer and market health, public safety, and national security. And eventually, an event is going to come along that makes the kind of scandals we’ve seen so far (from stalkers abusing cellular location data to right wing activists abusing abortion clinic visitor data to send targeted misinformation) look like a grade school picnic.
Filed Under: airplanes, bruce westerman, congress, elon musk, elonjet, jet, jet tracking, privacy, security


Comments on “The U.S. Finally Passes An Internet Privacy Law… For Rich Jet Owners”
I can believe the government has started crafting law and policy primarily for benefit of rich people. I never thought it would come to that.
Re:
I can’t believe the government has started crafting law and policy primarily for benefit of rich people. I never thought it would come to that.
Re: Re:
why did you repeat yourself twice?
Re: Re: Re:
Because he realized his mistake – “can” should’ve been “can’t”, as he posted in his corrective response.
Re: Re: Re:2
i see
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, AC repeated themself only once. First they commented, then they repeated that comment just once.
Re:
“the government has started”
.. in 1776
Makes it much easier for the CIA to hide it extraordinary rendition flights as well.
The american caste system?
Re:
Just now noticing?
Too bad for Jeff Epstein, this law came much too late.
Re:
Now we’re gonna find out Bruce Westerman is a baby fucker too.
'Look, spy on the peasants all you want, but no tracking the nobility!'
Imagine that, US lawmakers do care about privacy concerns and can be bothered to pass laws to make it harder to gather and share information regarding people!
… for a very, very select few people.
Maybe privacy will trickle down from the rich folks to the rest of us.
Re:
It’s more likely that people will avoid getting brained by falling blue-ice.
Re:
That’s urine, not economic prosperity or privacy.
Re: Re:
TBF, Rocky seems to have the same problem with brain engagement that you often display.
At this point, it’s like Congress is baiting citizens into shooting them.
Re:
I think they literally just cannot imagine facing consequences for their actions.
Um… it doesn’t? As far as I can tell, anyway, this is not censorship any more than requiring the Department of State to not publish everyone’s passport applications.
The law just requires the government itself (the FAA) to not publish people’s personal data. Okay, it does say “a process by which … the [FAA] Administrator blocks the registration number and other similar identifiable data or information … from any public dissemination or display”, but I think it’s clear from context that nobody’s directing the FAA to stop the general public from disseminating the data. If you learn Elon Musk’s daily ADS-B code and publish it on a live map, there’s no process by which Musk can force its removal.
Re:
“this is not censorship any more than requiring the Department of State to not publish everyone’s passport applications.”
These two things are not the same.
The data contained within passport applications far exceeds that of a flight plan, in many ways.
Re: Re:
Sure, but it’s the same idea: the government can choose not to share private data it’s collected. The public has no general right to know flight plans, and that doesn’t seem like an important right to fight for. The government redacts personal data regularly when responding to FOIA requests.
Re: Re: Re:
The article is making the point that our government does nothing to protect our privacy, but can do it to protect the information of the very rich. Nothing you have written disputes that, it’s just apologia for the corrupt politician who slipped the amendment in and the mass of them that haven’t protected everyone else’s privacy.
Re: Re: Re:
“Sure, but it’s the same idea”
I see.
I guess in your example, the super rich could stop the “sharing” of their passport information whilst the rest of humanity is exposed to whomever coughs up enough green to purchase said info.
Sounds like a plan.
Re: Re: Re:2
The point is not that this law’s great, or that it’s more important than more widely applicable privacy laws; just that it’s not censorship.
For what it’s worth, anyone registering a plane can benefit. Maybe that’s mostly “the rich”, but the same could be said about a hypothetical law protecting land ownership data (such data is often used for postal spam, I’ve heard, and houses are generally more expensive than planes).
And everyone’s passport data is equally protected; I have no idea how you managed to mis-infer otherwise. Similarly, everyone benefits from the Video Privacy Protection Act, which was passed to protect the data of politicians. Sometimes the privacy really does “trickle down” as someone else suggested.
Re: Re: Re:3
“it’s not censorship”
.. I did not made that claim and am not defending it.
“And everyone’s passport data is equally protected”
.. nothing is protected
“I have no idea”
.. exactly
Re: Re: Re:
The public has no general right to know flight plans
I am entirely unconvinced of this assumption.
Flight plan allocations appear to me to be subsantially equivalent to bandwidth allocations in both practical form (usage of them are generally either set aside for continued historical uses, or specific govenment operations, or else sold to the highest bidder) and intended function (they are created to allow practical operation of a limited public resource). Both should be fully open to the public, as that is the only way for the public to ensure that public resources are being properly managed.
Other than both being related to the general idea of travel, issuing passports has little relation in either form or function to flight path allocation and I see no reason to equate the two.
The logic?
I would say
Dear Congress, its fun that you are having problems stopping corps from Using our and your data.
Sites like medical facilities, hospitals, Clinics, Corporate restaurants, Hotel/motels. and All the other business’s in the USA, from being Hacked and their data stolen. This includes the 3 Major data brokers that do our credit ratings.
But I have a strange feeling
I think that most of the hacking is Internal, and the biggest hacker Must be our gov. and the corps themselves. they need a Fault to excuse. You would think this would be fixed quickly, as even THEIR data and internal DATA (rep and demo committees) Can be affected.
What logic is there to be hacking Clinics and hospitals? Unless you are an insurance agency or that they would PAY for the info. You would think that certain Corps and groups would be targets, but wouldnt they be Yelling if something happened?
what reason to NOT do something to help the people?
When you have your base convinced you care about them, even as they ignore the evidence of their own lying eyes that they don’t care, you can then use the power & influence of your position to help out those you actually care about.
Instead voters are laser focused on stupid issues…
You can’t make me take a vaccine that is interfering in my medical decisions but I have every right to deny your needed medical care because it offends my morality (that is really flexible when I need it to be).
And then those who cut checks get the special treatment they paid for.
Still waiting for the investigation that shows any of them are working for us.
Re:
At least we know that no matter how hard they fuck up our back yards, they’ll have a hard time dragging us as far down as their own back yards.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/27/us/abortion-women-tfmr.html
“Oh no. My guts are rotting. I only wanted this for other people.”
Re: Re:
The non-paywalled version.
If ANY of these rich jet owners run companies that Hoover up my private data, they should have 0 rights to protect their own data!
Re: IF'
We could prove it, Show its happening, we could Stop and debate it in COURT.
But every Thing you buy, has a EULA/TOS that tells you THEY have the rights.
“…their disproportionate carbon emissions.”
Can’t look like a hypocrite while passing laws due to “climate change.”
Just more proof the governments don’t believe in climate change, just more methods to extract more money