[zimpenfish]

> Why would a plane be treated differently than a car in a GDPR context?

A car is generally registered to an individual. A plane isn't.

You could also -maybe- argue that because there's multiple people on the plane (assuming Ol' Muskie isn't flying it himself) and that those people are potentially different every time, without a passenger and crew manifest, it's not identifying individuals (but I suspect you'd not get far with this.)

[jdong]

Planes are very often registered to individuals, and that doesn't even matter! The plane being company owned doesn't magically change anything, what matters is who's being transported and whether or not they will be easily linked to the aircraft.

From a GDPR perspective it also makes no difference whether it's 5% or 90% of planes that are owned by individuals as opposed to by companies.

[zimpenfish]

Do you have some links that support this theory? I'd be interested to read up on it.

edit: Specifically mentioning planes and their locations, I mean, not "extrapolating from cars to planes".

[jdong]

>edit: Specifically mentioning planes and their locations, I mean, not "extrapolating from cars to planes".

You have to be trolling. What leads you to believe that the GDPR which never mentions either aircraft or cars would treat these two kinds of vehicles differently?

Can you find anything in the GDPR texts to suggest that cars and planes would be treated differently?

[zimpenfish]

> the GDPR which never mentions either aircraft or cars

ICO's guide to the UK GDPR does have a specific example of cars being identifiable[1] - "A vehicle’s registration number can be linked to other information held about the registration (eg by the DVLA) to indirectly identify the owner of that vehicle." Nothing about planes though.

[2] covers car registrations and explicitly discounts company owned vehicles from being PII - "The registration plates of commercial vehicles are not personal data of an individual as the vehicle is owned by an organisation."

All of Ol' Muskie's jets are owned by Falcon Landing LLC, a shell company.

[1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

[2] https://sapphireconsulting.co.uk/is-a-car-registration-plate...

[rosnd]

>ICO's guide to the UK GDPR does have a specific example of cars being identifiable[1] - "A vehicle’s registration number can be linked to other information held about the registration (eg by the DVLA) to indirectly identify the owner of that vehicle." Nothing about planes though.

Car registration numbers is a very common kind of data for businesses to handle, of course it makes it on the list of examples.

Same is not true of planes, of course they don't make it on the list of examples.

>[2] covers car registrations and explicitly discounts company owned vehicles from being PII - "The registration plates of commercial vehicles are not personal data of an individual as the vehicle is owned by an organisation."

>All of Ol' Muskie's jets are owned by Falcon Landing LLC, a shell company.

This doesn't work, you can't wash off PII by tying one aspect of it to an organisation. My phone line might belong to a business, but that doesn't give the carrier a free pass to do whatever they want with associated location data.