Elon Musk is a nice chap

[james_s]

Again, publishing his location in real time is not the same as publishing information about his life after the fact. Also I've seen a good argument that private jets often use small aerodromes without security, so it becomes a very serious security risk.

Then that's something the individual needs to take into consideration when arranging their security detail. Anybody wealthy enough to have a private jet can afford private security.

What does the law say? Everything else is irrelevant.

Actually apparently it's illegal since Elon is also taking legal action against the guy.

Not necessarily. I can take legal action against somebody because I don't like the shirt they're wearing if I can afford to pay a lawyer, that doesn't mean it's illegal or that I'll win in court.  It's up to the court to determine whether a law has been broken.

[MT]

Elon not the olny bad hairless monkey who kills hairy monky with monky brain chip but also Bezoz the bald bad monkey and Gates very bad covid19 vaxx monkey
wants in to the brain chip monkey game via Australian monkey professors Tom Oxley and Nick Opie.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gates-bezos-invest-in-australian-designed-brain-implant_4927966.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge

[PlainName]

Either way if it is illegal then the guy will be arrested at some point

There are many things that are illegal but people do them anyway without being nicked. Apart from that, not being illegal doesn't  make it right.

[james_s]

There are many things that are illegal but people do them anyway without being nicked. Apart from that, not being illegal doesn't  make it right.

What is "right" is relative, and largely irrelevant here, since the discussion is on whether what the guy in question did is a crime. Someone called it stalking, someone else called it extortion, those are crimes, from the information available I don't believe either crime has been committed here. For what it's worth I don't see any moral or ethical problem with tracking the whereabouts of a private jet, it's a complete non-issue. I'd do it myself if I had any interest in doing so, I have my own standalone ADS-B receiver, I can see the data from any equipped aircraft that happens to fly over. I just happen to not care where that particular jet is.

Sure people get away with crimes all the time, but this isn't one of those cases, what this guy did is right out in the open, and involves a very high profile person, if it is in fact a crime he would be picked up for it.

[SiliconWizard]

Elon not the olny bad hairless monkey who kills hairy monky with monky brain chip but also Bezoz the bald bad monkey and Gates very bad covid19 vaxx monkey
wants in to the brain chip monkey game via Australian monkey professors Tom Oxley and Nick Opie.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gates-bezos-invest-in-australian-designed-brain-implant_4927966.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge

As I said, Elon Musk does it exactly because he knows it will be done, and he wants to be first and do it the "right way". Whether it can be any better than what others do is yet to be seen, but that's kinda the idea.

Anyway, a bunch of perverse weirdos do want normal people (so, not to treat any particular disability or disease) to get implanted, and they will do it.
And some people, not just monkeys, will die along the way. That's not even 'if', that's a guarantee.

[MT]

Elon not the olny bad hairless monkey who kills hairy monky with monky brain chip but also Bezoz the bald bad monkey and Gates very bad covid19 vaxx monkey
wants in to the brain chip monkey game via Australian monkey professors Tom Oxley and Nick Opie.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gates-bezos-invest-in-australian-designed-brain-implant_4927966.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge

As I said, Elon Musk does it exactly because he knows it will be done, and he wants to be first and do it the "right way". Whether it can be any better than what others do is yet to be seen, but that's kinda the idea.

Anyway, a bunch of perverse weirdos do want normal people (so, not to treat any particular disability or disease) to get implanted, and they will do it.
And some people, not just monkeys, will die along the way. That's not even 'if', that's a guarantee.

As I noted previoulsy "Bad monkey" as the end game/intent they all have is not what it seams, road to hell is painted with water collors of good intentions but when the first rain comes....
Elon have stated previoulsy he's all in with Technocracy, one example the whole "sustainability" statment appears numerous times in their 1932 manual.

[Ed.Kloonk]

It's been said before it's impossible to determine what is misinformation and what is genuine, because who moderates the moderators?  Well, who determines what is private info and not?  ElonJet is skirting the line between public and private, as another poster suggested, you have no right to privacy when in public (is a private jet's location public?)
 
Regardless of whether it is a privacy violation, how do you police it?  Because eventually you would have the risk of, e.g. an affair Elon had becoming public information.  Is that "Elon's privacy" with posts relating to that to be squashed?  What about one of his kids getting involved in a corruption scandal with the lithium mines in Bolivia?  Is that privacy?   A politician favourable to Elon needing some hush money covered up?

I think that spreading instantaneous, private personal location information is a different category for obvious reasons.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the law says in the nation in which the event is taking place. There are written laws that determine what is legal and what is not. When a law contains ambiguity it is up to the courts to interpret it and determine if the law has been broken.

Yes. Of course. But Tom was not talking about laws.

Regardless of whether it is a privacy violation, how do you police it?

Hence my response above.

[vk6zgo]

Again, publishing his location in real time is not the same as publishing information about his life after the fact. Also I've seen a good argument that private jets often use small aerodromes without security, so it becomes a very serious security risk.

The same argument applies to privacy of private citizens. I, for example, do not understand why a flight that I, my small children and 300 other souls boarded in couch class can be tracked in real time, while Musk’s jet should be untraceable. As I suggested few posts above, Elon should lobby Congress, European Commission, Australian Parliament, King Charles III, Emperor of Japan on banning ADS-B.

It's not that jet is untraceable, it is traceable. The problem is with knowledge about who is on that flight. The difference with you flying is that it's not public who is on your flight. Also if you read previous posts Elon was using Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) but this guy still figured it and made public.

They are tracing Musk's plane---there is no guarantee that he will be on it.

Private aircraft often fly to various destinations, for varying reasons without the owner being aboard.

Sending it off to multiple strange destinations would be a good, if costly, counter measure---similar subterfuges were used in much more deadly situations, like General Montgomery's "double" being flown to destinations far from where he really was, during WW2.

This, of course, would only put off random Internet trolls.
Real "Bad actors" can no doubt do their own research, using either modern methods, or old fashioned spy work.

[vk6zgo]

Again, publishing his location in real time is not the same as publishing information about his life after the fact. Also I've seen a good argument that private jets often use small aerodromes without security, so it becomes a very serious security risk.

Then that's something the individual needs to take into consideration when arranging their security detail. Anybody wealthy enough to have a private jet can afford private security.

What does the law say? Everything else is irrelevant.

Actually apparently it's illegal since Elon is also taking legal action against the guy.

That doesn't make it illegal, as if it was, the State would arrest him & prosecute him.
It seems like Elon is suing him.

If I was a twit, I could sue "RJ" for calling me a "political activist" in an earlier post, & maybe a good lawyer in his country or mine could make a case for the ridiculous proposition that somehow, I had been injured by his passing comment.

What I can't do is call the cops on him.

It seems that Musk can't do the latter, either, so civil action is the best recourse in his case, although his case is potentially much more serious than my silly hypothetical.

[PlainName]

It seems that Musk can't do the latter, either, so civil action is the best recourse in his case

I am missing something here. If Musk can take out a civil action, then (assuming he succeeds) what does it matter if the thing is or isn't illegal? If he wins then clearly it is wrong, even if not illegal.

I get the impression the argument has degenerated to focus on "it's illegal" "no it's not" whereas what should be considered is just whether the chap shouldn't be doing it or it's perfectly acceptable.

[james_s]

It seems that Musk can't do the latter, either, so civil action is the best recourse in his case

I am missing something here. If Musk can take out a civil action, then (assuming he succeeds) what does it matter if the thing is or isn't illegal? If he wins then clearly it is wrong, even if not illegal.

I get the impression the argument has degenerated to focus on "it's illegal" "no it's not" whereas what should be considered is just whether the chap shouldn't be doing it or it's perfectly acceptable.

Clearly *he* thinks it's wrong, or that the court will side with him, or more likely, faced with the prospect of going to court the person will stop doing it, I think the latter is the most likely motivation. In the USA you can take someone to court for literally any reason, you don't have to have a leg to stand on, you only have to be able to afford to pay the lawyer. There is a risk though, a judge can simply throw out your case without looking at it if they think it's frivolous, or they can judge against you and you can be out everything you spent on court costs, or worse, you can be hit with a counter suit and have to pay the costs of the person you're suing. Musk is rich, he doesn't have to care about any of that, he can sue anyone he wants just for fun and he knows it. This sort of thing happens all the time here, people are effectively extorted into settling out of court because going to court can end up costing them a lot more.

[vk6zgo]

It seems that Musk can't do the latter, either, so civil action is the best recourse in his case

I am missing something here. If Musk can take out a civil action, then (assuming he succeeds) what does it matter if the thing is or isn't illegal? If he wins then clearly it is wrong, even if not illegal.

I get the impression the argument has degenerated to focus on "it's illegal" "no it's not" whereas what should be considered is just whether the chap shouldn't be doing it or it's perfectly acceptable.

A civil suit normally concentrates upon whether what is done injures the person bringing the suit in any way.
If the person being sued loses, they normally have to pay damages & cease the offending action.

If something is illegal, in Australia, it is officially an offence against "The Crown" (King Charles III in all his glory ), but in effect against the State or the Commonwealth of Australia.
You may have to pay a fine, or perhaps be sent to the slammer, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

Most countries have similar laws.

[PlainName]

That is clearly STALKING.

Musk is a public figure who loves to be in public spotlight both on TV, in the press and while twitting to his 121 million followers. He is known for making political statements in public, and making actions that impact political system both in this country and around the world.

As being the public figure, Musk does not have the same privacy protections as a private citizen has. It is of public interest to know every piece of Elon’s life: including information about his travel destinations, who he golfs with, who his mistress is, and what did he eat for breakfast. This also includes information about his adult family members. People who are obsessed with Hunter Biden’s affairs should fully support the last part.

If Musk was a typical workaholic CEO, who screws competitors, demands employees to work 80 hours a week while sleeping in the office, enjoys private jets, yachts and expensive mansions, but keeps his mouth shut in public, then that would be a completely different story.

So engaging with people on social media means one is public and fair game? If you post a Youtube video are you now fair game for 'public interest'? Are YOU fair game because clearly you want to engage in public on this forum? How about Dave? He's not exactly shy, so would it be OK to stalk him for 'public interest'?

Sorry, but I think that just because someone is well known it doesn't mean they lose their right to privacy. Actors are famous and stalked, but all they are doing is a job and once that job is done they are a private person like you and me. You will say that they promote themselves on Twitter and Facebook, but why should they be silenced merely because you know of them from another source?

I think there some element of envy involved here: those people are famous and rolling in money whereas I am not, so therefore they should suffer where I don't.

[PlainName]

A civil suit normally concentrates upon whether what is done injures the person bringing the suit in any way.

Well feel free to correct me, but if someone has been injured then surely the person causing that has been naughty.

[james_s]

So engaging with people on social media means one is public and fair game? If you post a Youtube video are you now fair game for 'public interest'? Are YOU fair game because clearly you want to engage in public on this forum? How about Dave? He's not exactly shy, so would it be OK to stalk him for 'public interest'?

Sorry, but I think that just because someone is well known it doesn't mean they lose their right to privacy. Actors are famous and stalked, but all they are doing is a job and once that job is done they are a private person like you and me. You will say that they promote themselves on Twitter and Facebook, but why should they be silenced merely because you know of them from another source?

I think there some element of envy involved here: those people are famous and rolling in money whereas I am not, so therefore they should suffer where I don't.

Yes. Again what you think is irrelevant, it does not matter at all to anyone but you. The only thing that matters is what the law says. If something is against the law then it's a crime, if not then it's legal to do.

If someone wants to track Dave's whereabouts it is perfectly ok for them to do that (in the USA at least, I do not know about Australian law) and it is not stalking. To stalk someone requires either physical presence on their property or unwanted communications. You can't follow Dave around and heckle him everywhere he goes, that would be harassment and a pattern of this could be considered stalking. There is nothing to stop you from creating a website that shows his location and following him around from a distance in public observing where he goes and what he does. A person has no right to privacy when they are in public, no matter who they are, that has been long established. It's annoying, I could understand him being irritated with you, and I would question your motivation for doing so, but it is not stalking and it is not a crime. He could try to sue somebody for doing it, and in most cases the person would probably stop rather than risk losing in court but there is absolutely no guarantee that he would win if it did go to court.

[MK14]

Apparently, the latest stunt Elon is pulling, is.  He has started up a poll, which he will allow to vote him out of the chief of twitter job.

Elon Musk puts future as Twitter chief to public vote

Twitter's owner Elon Musk is asking users of the social media platform to vote on his future as its chief executive officer.

In a poll to his 122 million followers, he tweeted: "Should I step down as head... I will abide by the results..."

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-64021412

[vk6zgo]

A civil suit normally concentrates upon whether what is done injures the person bringing the suit in any way.

Well feel free to correct me, but if someone has been injured then surely the person causing that has been naughty.

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean a physical injury---it could be an injury to the reputation, or financially.
Even a physical injury may be due to an accident, but the person or corporate body being sued is alleged to have contributed to it.

That is very different from an assault, where the cops will probably charge the alleged assailant.

IANAL (I'm not a lawyer, but I may well be "anal". )

[Towger]

Well the fun is over.  Looks like Elon met his middle eastern financial backers at the World Cup and they told him to step down as CEO.

[tooki]

It's like the old phone books that were in order of last name and initials and if you looked up someone name in the book you could find their phone number and address.
But it was illegal to use the info to make a new book reordered by phone number to locate an address and name from a phone number.

Why would that have been illegal? Until Caller ID came out, there wouldn’t have been any need for reverse phone lookup. But land-line caller ID not only showed the caller’s number, but name as well!
It really wasn’t until digital cellphones, where caller ID inexplicably doesn’t support sending the caller name, that reverse lookup even became necessary, and clearly compiling that data into a reverse lookup is not illegal, or there wouldn’t be reverse lookup websites.

[Ranayna]

He has started up a poll, which he will allow to vote him out of the chief of twitter job.

Who seriously would want to take the job as Twitter CEO while Musk is still the owner? You can only loose here.

[vk6zgo]

It's like the old phone books that were in order of last name and initials and if you looked up someone name in the book you could find their phone number and address.
But it was illegal to use the info to make a new book reordered by phone number to locate an address and name from a phone number.

Why would that have been illegal? Until Caller ID came out, there wouldn’t have been any need for reverse phone lookup. But land-line caller ID not only showed the caller’s number, but name as well!
It really wasn’t until digital cellphones, where caller ID inexplicably doesn’t support sending the caller name, that reverse lookup even became necessary, and clearly compiling that data into a reverse lookup is not illegal, or there wouldn’t be reverse lookup websites.

Easy!------ landline caller ID didn't show the name in Australia, just the number.

[vk6zgo]

He has started up a poll, which he will allow to vote him out of the chief of twitter job.

Who seriously would want to take the job as Twitter CEO while Musk is still the owner? You can only loose here.

Thinking about it, I don't really care much---- I've never has a Twitter account, anyway.

I didn't like Elon when he was lauded for his efforts in energy conservation, & I still don't like him, now that the other side love him because he is supposedly "anti-woke".

As rich people do, he will do whatever he wants.

[tom66]

In a poll to his 122 million followers, he tweeted: "Should I step down as head... I will abide by the results..."

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-64021412

Every Twitter user who votes 'No' mysteriously finds their account locked out the next day...

[PlainName]

Again what you think is irrelevant, it does not matter at all to anyone but you.

That's your standard reply in this, isn't it? You can't engage to say why something is OK and something similar is not, or discuss the merits or whatever of something. "That's your opinion." Well everything YOU post is merely your opinion, so let's drop that kind of non-engagement (or just don't bother rejoining).

And, FYI which is going to come as some surprise, not everything that is bad is illegal. It takes the law a long time and/or some very, very public situations to get with the times and, as has already been noted, there is civil law where things are not expressly illegal. Which is not to mention that illegal shit doesn't always get punished (even when TPTB has chapter and verse of a trangression), and many people are just too poor or lacking in willpower to sue someone else. Does that make it fine to walk all over them? Of course not,  but by your book - it's not illegal and I don't see any court case - says it is.

[PlainName]

A civil suit normally concentrates upon whether what is done injures the person bringing the suit in any way.

Well feel free to correct me, but if someone has been injured then surely the person causing that has been naughty.

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean a physical injury---it could be an injury to the reputation, or financially.

Yes, that's the context in which I used injury. The question remains: if someone is injured (their reputation shredded, say) there the person or entity causing that might have been naughty. No-one will get nicked and shoved in the slammer but, nevertheless, they have been bad.