[_Algernon_]

>hack

This is not "hacking". This is information derived from publicly available information, presumably a quite trivial inference. If it is public information that x=2 and y=3, then x+y=5 isn't suddenly private information, just because it requires a trivial inference.

[nerdawson]

Photos taken on phones often contain GPS data. If someone publicly shares a photo they’ve taken and the data isn’t scrubbed, it’s trivial to find out where the photo was taken.

Just because it’s easy to uncover doesn’t mean it’s fine to go off and broadcast it. That’s doxxing.

[dismantlethesun]

I’m not sure it’s broadcasting. My OS just displays location EXIF by default next to the thumbnail.

It’s only the web browser that hides that stuff.

If a later change to Chrome makes EXIF data easily viewable is then a privacy concern?

[hk__2]

> presumably a quite trivial inference

It’s not a trivial inference.

[_Algernon_]

You're actually right. No inference at all is necessary, because none of Musk's planes are part of the PIA program in the first place:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34037524

[hk__2]

Some have been for a couple months. In any case, figuring out which plane uses which PIA code might seem easy if the patterns are always the same, but that’s still not trivial enough not to be considered as a privacy breach. Everything here sounds a bit like the "yes the house was private but the door was open" robber excuse.