[falcolas]

Public figures have always had fewer privacy rights than regular citizens. See paparazzi. You can also often find out where politicians and journalists by calling their offices. It's not private data.

So, yes. I would be OK with it. So long as, like with the flight tracker bots, it's not included with an incitement to violence.

[pessimizer]

> On March 14, 2006, Gawker launched Gawker Stalker Maps, a mashup of the site's Gawker Stalker feature and Google Maps. After this, Gawker Stalker—originally a weekly roundup of celebrity sightings in New York City submitted by Gawker readers—was frequently updated, and the sightings are displayed on a map. The feature sparked criticism from celebrities and publicists for encouraging stalking. Actor and director George Clooney's representative Stan Rosenfeld described Gawker Stalker as "a dangerous thing". Jessica Coen said that the map is harmless, that Gawker readers are "for the most part, a very educated, well-meaning bunch", and that "if there is someone really intending to do a celebrity harm, there are much better ways to go about doing that than looking at the Gawker Stalker".

> On April 6, 2007, Emily Gould appeared on an edition of Larry King Live hosted by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel during a panel discussion titled "Paparazzi: Do They Go Too Far?" and was asked about the Gawker Stalker. Kimmel accused the site of potentially assisting real stalkers, adding that Gould and her website could ultimately be responsible for someone's death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Gawker_Stalker

[falcolas]

What point are you trying to make, out of curiosity? This piece provides opinions for, opinions against, and a very IANAL take on the legality of public data for public figures existing.

[erlich]

It's a strange hypocrisy of society. They enjoy celeb sightings and tracking people, just so long as it doesn't happen to them.