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: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The U.S. Finally Passes An Internet Privacy Law… For Rich Jet Owners”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
34 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

The new law lets private jet owners censor most meaningful travel details

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The data contained within passport applications far exceeds that of a flight plan, in many ways.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

ECA (profile) says:

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?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...