[ArchitectAnon]

ADS-B information is broadcast unencrypted in real time from every civilian aircraft all the time. Anyone can receive this information with easily available equipment and tell everyone about it on a website. I don’t think it’s technically possible to censor this information. If you’re worried about someone shooting you down or whatever then you’re going to have to find a different way to counter this. Maybe fit countermeasures or buy another two planes and keep people guessing which one you are on. But it seems overly paranoid TBH.

[wizeman]

> ADS-B information is broadcast unencrypted in real time from every civilian aircraft all the time.

ADS-B information is available publicly, but what's not always available publicly is which aircraft (or rather, which aircraft identifier) belongs to whom.

Specifically, if an aircraft is subscribed to this program, then it receives a new temporary identifier every month, unconnected to the owner:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy

And Elon's jet is subscribed to this program, as confirmed by Elon himself: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1603803508087537665

So I think the problem is not tracking some airplane, the problem is connecting an airplane identifier to its owner by other means and then publicly broadcasting that information (i.e. make it easily accessible), when its owner has requested the government for privacy protection under a government program which was specifically designed to provide that exact type of privacy protection.

[_djo_]

Musk is lying.

This is what an aircraft in the PIA programme looks like. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a0fe01

Note the 'PIA' flag and lack of additional information that would normally be pulled from the registry. In fact if you searched the registry for A0FE01 you would not find the actual aircraft but a placeholder.

Musk uses three jets, N628TS, N272BG, and N502SX. None are in the PIA programme, all are easily visible on ADSB Exchange and most importantly have their ICAO hex codes listed publicly on the FAA registry, along with ownership information.

So please, let's stop repeating this false claim.

N628TS:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...

N272BG:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a2ae0a

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...

N502SX:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a64304

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResul...

[leereeves]

As was pointed out in responses to your independent post about this[1], aircraft enrolled in PIA still have public permanent codes, which they must use when outside the US, as Musk is now (at the World Cup in Qatar).

Linking to the adsbexchange page for that permanent code doesn't prove that no anonymous temporary PIA codes exist.

You should be more careful before accusing someone of lying.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34037780

[_djo_]

You're right about international flights and I should have specified that, but you can view the aircraft's recent US-only flights and see that it also used its permanent ICAO code.

[leereeves]

There are also gaps in the history ("no data available") of the permanent code, like:

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a835af&lat=34.765&lon=-...

Couldn't they have used the PIA code on those days?

[philistine]

You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest. Keep this in mind as well; his plane's whereabouts are being derived from obscured data and published. Not his own personal whereabouts. We don't know what car he takes and where he goes once he lands. What is he scared of? A scud missile?

For example, we know his plane is in Quatar. With the news he is trying to sell shares of Twitter at his purchased price, we now can investigate whether he is talking to Quataris about selling shares. Being amongst the richest and owning a social network puts you in the public eye.

[wizeman]

> You're completely sidestepping the issue that the man is amongst the richest in the world, so the whereabouts of his private plane could be argued to be of public interest.

I'm guessing most participants in that privacy program are filthy rich and yet the program was still created.

You can argue that the whereabouts are in the public interest, but the real-time whereabouts are much harder to justify.

> Keep this in mind as well; his plane's whereabouts are being derived from obscured data and published. Not his own personal whereabouts. We don't know what car he takes and where he goes once he lands.

You'd do if you went to the airport before he lands.

> What is he scared of? A scud missile?

I'm guessing he's scared of someone hurting or kidnapping him or his family. You would be too if you were in his position, believe me.

No amount of hired security can completely mitigate the risk of your exact coordinates being broadcast in real-time, every single day.

It's amazing to me how much lack of empathy people have against other people, just because they're rich or famous. Or maybe it's just ignorance about the risks these people face every single day.

> For example, we know his plane is in Quatar. With the news he is trying to sell shares of Twitter at his purchased price, we now can investigate whether he is talking to Quataris about selling shares. Being amongst the richest and owning a social network puts you in the public eye.

You don't need his location in real-time for that.

[philistine]

Billionaires do not have riskier lives: https://www.forbes.com/2005/04/05/cx_vg_0405feat.html?sh=647...

They have the money to skew public opinion, and the money to protect themselves. Security through obscurity is no security at all.

[wizeman]

> Billionaires do not have riskier lives: https://www.forbes.com/2005/04/05/cx_vg_0405feat.html?sh=647...

That is the result of a myriad of security measures that they and their families take every day, including not publicly broadcasting where they are in real-time or exactly where they are going to be at a specific time, among many, many others.

And even when they have to do that occasionally (e.g. when the public knows that they are going to attend a public event), they have to take additional security precautions, to protect themselves against someone hurting them, kidnapping them or robbing them (or their families).

Even presidents/prime ministers of entire countries, who are not as rich or famous as Elon Musk, occasionally (or always) require extreme security precautions, like having bullet-proof vehicles, police escorts, streets being closed, dogs sniffing around for explosives wherever they go, and much, much more. And Elon Musk doesn't even have access to all these measures, because many of them are not available to private individuals in many countries.

But even if you could, you wouldn't want to take these increased security precautions all the time, it's just not realistic or desirable to have a police escort and/or the secret service following every rich person and closing streets everywhere they go.

> Security through obscurity is no security at all.

You say that like if that analogy holds for physical security...

Or do you think that physical security only truly exists if everyone knows exactly where you are all the time and they still can't hurt you? With regards to physical security, that's not a thing.

There are only a certain number of obstacles, and the more obstacles, the better protected you are. But there is no silver bullet, especially if you want to have a life and not live in some bunker somewhere.

Not all computer analogies hold in the real world. Cryptography doesn't give you physical protection.

[skinnymuch]

> It's amazing to me how much lack of empathy people have against other people, just because they're rich or famous. Or maybe it's just ignorance about the risks these people face every single day.

I wouldn’t do any of this power hungry behavior while being a reason why society is so unfair. You’re defending a billionaire with empathy arguments while we have homeless people in the country and abroad.

I guarantee you if Elon gives me $1B I will never use security.

[wizeman]

> You’re defending a billionaire with empathy arguments while we have homeless people in the country and abroad.

The argument you just used is called "whataboutism" and it's a logical fallacy in and of itself [1].

It's also a logical fallacy to imply that you can only have empathy for homeless people or for rich people, but not both.

So yes, I have empathy for homeless people. I also have empathy for rich people.

But apparently, not many people have empathy for the latter.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I'm perfect or extremely virtuous -- I have my own demons as well. But I don't have a grudge against rich people just because they're rich, in fact I admire these people because the wealth with which society has rewarded them implies that they have been doing a great service to their fellow humans (otherwise why would people give them money?).

I only have a grudge against people whose wealth was obtained by immoral/forced means (rich or otherwise).

I also think Elon Musk has made many mistakes with his Twitter acquisition and subsequent management, but since Twitter is his company, I also think he had the legitimate right to make those mistakes and to disagree with our opinion.

> I guarantee you if Elon gives me $1B I will never use security.

I guarantee you, if a billion people in the world knew you had $1B, you would need to be extremely careful with your physical security, in many ways that you wouldn't like. Unless, of course, you lived as a complete hermit in some undisclosed off-the-grid location.

It's easy to make grandiose claims in an Internet forum while sitting in your chair and not fearing for your life, but if you followed through with your claims while being very famous, it's very likely that reality would sooner or later punch you right in your face, as many have eventually discovered, unfortunately [2].

These things even happen because of your own family members (including spouses) and friends, not to mention the billion other complete strangers who would know you are very wealthy.

Mind you, I'm not saying that there aren't people with a billion dollars who are able to live normal lives without too many security precautions, but usually these people either are very strict about not advertising that they are very wealthy, or else, it is likely that they eventually learn the hard way the real security risks that they are under [2].

Regarding the list of kidnappings in [2], which also includes many murders of celebrities and/or their family members, keep in mind the following points:

1. It includes celebrities/famous people who already had reasonable security. Yet, they weren't able to prevent the kidnapping.

2. It doesn't include many publicly known cases of wealthy people that were kidnapped and tortured or murdered just because they were wealthy (I know of a few cases like these just in recent years, which are not included in the list).

3. Even worse, doesn't even include the vast majority of kidnappings, because for security reasons they are usually kept private, whenever possible/feasible.

4. Not to mention, it also doesn't include the many failed attempts, as these are not part of the list by definition.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings

[skinnymuch]

My response never went through. I can send my [good faith] response if you are still seeing this. I'm guessing not. Otherwise thanks for your in-depth response.

[salawat]

>It's amazing to me how much lack of empathy people have against other people, just because they're rich or famous. Or maybe it's just ignorance about the risks these people face every single day.

No one else gets to opt out of the same thing. FYI.

Just because you make more money than me doesn't mean you're entitled to an exception from the same risks everyone else takes.

And for that matter, considering that everyone else is also getting spied on real time coordinates-wise based on mobile phone, but no one seems to muster the will to care it weakens his case substantially with the additional ATC interest.

[wizeman]

> Just because you make more money than me doesn't mean you're entitled to an exception from the same risks everyone else takes.

But the risk that famous, very wealthy people have is not the same as other people have.

As an average Joe, you can publish your real-time coordinates on the Internet and usually, nobody will care.

Extremely famous and wealthy people simply cannot do that (unless they take many other security precautions which would greatly interfere with their lives).

They are under a much higher risk of being kidnapped, tortured and murdered than other people. And this risk is also applicable to their family members.

And yes, you can hire security, but you'd still be at a much greater risk, completely unnecessarily.

> And for that matter, considering that everyone else is also getting spied on real time coordinates-wise based on mobile phone, but no one seems to muster the will to care it weakens his case substantially with the additional ATC interest.

I agree that everyone else should not be getting spied on. But even when they are, this information is not getting publicly broadcasted.

And even if those mobile phone coordinates were publicly broadcasted in real-time, not only would it be illegal and there'd be a lot of outrage (in certain countries, at least), the physical security risk for ordinary people simply would not be the same as for famous high-net worth individuals and their families.