Comment by jjwiseman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjwiseman | Hacker News Reader

I have a receiver that I use to feed the ADS-B Exchange network. In return I get an API key that I use to power a collection of twitter bots that tweet whenever they detect, in realtime, aircraft circling over various metro areas:

https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesLA https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesSF https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesDC

The bots have detected police and news helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, military aircraft (https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesSF/status/1227832420918935552), blimps (https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesLA/status/1213310909302493184), autogryos (https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesLA/status/1216464781869121536), power line inspection helicopters (https://twitter.com/SkyCirclesLA/status/1210280545952776193), and helicopters filming race cars (https://twitter.com/lemonodor/status/1228100397337702400).

ADS-B Exchange is the only completely uncensored, global aircraft tracking network. And it's powered by a considerable amount of specialized open source software. Even the multilateration client (https://github.com/adsbxchange/mlat-client) and server (https://github.com/adsbxchange/mlat-server) code that can determine an aircraft's position even when it's not broadcasting its coordinates, using the time-of-arrival information from multiple receivers, is online. tar1090 (https://github.com/wiedehopf/tar1090) is a much more efficient replacement for the old Virtual Radar Server front-end that is currently under development, and can be tried at https://tar1090.adsbexchange.com/

And if you want a view into some of the current status of the ADS-B Exchange multilateration (MLAT) network, check out the sync stats page: http://www.adsbx.org/sync/

Select a region to see the details. For example, here are the feeder health stats for the southwestern U.S.: http://www.adsbx.org/sync/1B/

And here's the map of feeder locations in that region: http://www.adsbexchange.com/coverage-1B/

Glad you are putting that data to good use!

I follow your account on twitter. I love these!

While an unfiltered network is cool, am I the only one who thinks it’s utterly reasonable for aircraft owners to want some basic level of privacy? I always have found it strange that communities of folks who very much don’t want to be tracked themselves are also very interested in aggressively tracking others.

Running aircraft has significant externalized costs on society so it's probably not unreasonable that people should be able to keep track of that.

Unsurprisingly, there's a difference between tracking any individual and tracking aircraft. Essentially nobody is interested in aggressively tracking aircraft owned by dentists, doctors, skydivers, or whatever. The interest is in things like tracking the movements of dictators (https://twitter.com/C4ADS/status/1156234995876413441), uncovering large scale secret aerial surveillance programs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9646065), corrupt politicians and money launderers (https://tech.occrp.org/), and exposing rendition flights (https://gijn.org/planespotting-a-guide-to-tracking-aircraft-...).

Tracking aircraft simply is not the same as tracking, say, all my neighbors.

If your neighbors are traveling by personal aircraft then it is very much the same thing. There are a lot of privately owned GA aircraft and many of us don't particularly like everyone snooping on us.

Many in this community get awfully nervous about things like police surveillance of cars, license plate tracking, etc. The Police say they need it just for special cases like crime, but we all know the dangers of dragnet surveillance. This is also dragnet surveillance; it's the same violation of privacy if the mode of transportation is different. Many on this forum think it's fun though because the mechanism is a bit nerdy and they aren't the ones being surveilled.

Your milage may vary but my experience of the GA community is that their concern is more based on being being 'busted' for any minor infraction of airspace rather than their neighbours knowing where they are flying too.

It's a bit like having a box in your car which automatically alerts the authorities every time you exceed the speed limit.

Wow, when can we have those boxes for cars please?

In theory, there doesn't have to be a power differential between the average car owner and the average aircraft owner. In practice, there is.

This is sousveillance, not surveillance.

I think this situation is closer to corporations and other companies having to list an address in a public catalog. Anyone can start a business, even my neighbors. It's much cheaper than buying an airplane. But we've decided it's in the public interest to have that information available.

Small aircraft can be surprisingly affordable; many small used GA aircraft cost about the same as a nice car does new and they generally don't depreciate very quickly -- there are lots of perfectly safe small aircraft from the 1960s and 70s still flying.

You'd be surprised how many middle and upper middle class americans fly.

I'd wager that the HN demographic skews just as wealthy as the hobbyist GA community. Indeed, your friend or coworker with a brand new Model X is probably wealthier than the person taking the occasional weekend flight in their used Piper Cherokee.

Government tracking (Prism etc) are generally not about tracking actions taken by dentists, doctors, skydivers, or whatever. The interest is in things like catching terrorists and criminals.

As you can see the same argument can be applied to any form of mass surveillance.

Not at all.

No, sorry, the world doesn't operate how you wish it or were told it does. And I don't think you yet comprehend the Snowden revelations, the military-industrial complex, the nature of powerful elites, inverted totalitarianism or reality. Please stop peddling the party-line lies of manufactured consent and educate yourself outside of the mainstream media and the many others who are also brainwashed but don't realize it.

I think you may need to re-read my post, my point was exactly that it's not a good argument :)

I don't want this to be taken as a blanket claim that there is no merit to considerations of privacy in this realm, but there is a critical distinction between flight tracking and license plate vehicle tracking. Am infinitesimally small proportion of people have to fly private planes without option. American society has become such that the same cannot so be definitively said about automobiles. For large segments of the population, their cars are, for better or worse, a necessity of their daily lives and opting out of their use would be tantamount to opting out of society as it is. Yes, people can move to places where cars aren't needed, either because other forms of transportation can fulfill they're requirements or because life becomes hyper localized and there's no need to travel the distances licensed vehicles are required for. But not everyone can do that, literally; hyper localized loves are typically underpinned by other people bringing crap to you in vehicles with license plates being tracked. For many people, getting between a job they need and a neighborhood they can afford to live in, requires a private car. Having those people movements tracked it's more of a concern to me than done rich person who decides to take their personal plane to Aspen for the weekend.

> I always have found it strange that communities of folks who very much don’t want to be tracked themselves are also very interested in aggressively tracking others.

I totally get this, but don’t think in terms of good and bad. Think in terms of power (empowerment and disempowerment).

I know how powerful mass surveillance is. I know how powerful knowledge is.

Therefore it isn’t surprising in the slightest that I should want to tear down every last shred of privacy in service of my own intelligence (empower my future self). Simultaneously I advocate to protect my own privacy (disempower future enemies).

It’s totally reasonable for anyone to want privacy. It’s also totally reasonable for me (or the Kremlin, or NSA) to want to thoroughly dismantle yours.

This (air)ship has sailed long ago. Even without ADS-B - which in effect will broadcast your location to any receiver, internet or not - there are many other sources. From flight plans, to radio communications, which are not encrypted in any way and can be listened to by whoever bothers to have a receiver (and not even counting liveatc.net)

There are likely to be other information sources that are out there in the open. I assume there's extensive paper trail, starting from the point someone decides to purchase aircraft, to aircraft maintenance. And even more if they want to pilot themselves.

Even without zero technology there are plane spotters, although they will likely not be interesting in every Cessna 172 that flies by.

None of this is very surprising though. The aircraft industry thrives on transparency. Which is a good thing for safety.

Note that you'll be tracking the aircraft, not who is flying it. For instance, we know that Elon Musks' aircraft tail number is N628TS (btw - N, or November, also tells us it's from the US). I just did a quick google search for it. So now you can track it. Whether or not there's anyone else other than the pilot is another matter entirely.

If you want privacy, owning an aircraft is not the way to go. Renting or chartering one might be better against casual observers, but there is still a paper trail. You may be able to add some more levels of indirection.

That said, you are correct that there is a slippery slope. For aircraft, the above is understandable, as you are dealing with human lives, including on the ground. However, now the FAA wants to add even more strict requirements for _drone_ operators(even recreational), including broadcasting your own position at all times while operating a drone. At least one can argue that you are safe while flying an aircraft, no such thing if you are on the ground. https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/faa-announces-drone-remote-id...

> If you want privacy, owning an aircraft is not the way to go. Renting or chartering one might be better against casual observers, but there is still a paper trail. You may be able to add some more levels of indirection.

But that paper trail cannot be accessed through ADSB. If you charter a plane, there's no way someone can deduct who you are via ADS-B signals alone. And agencies with access to the paper trail don't need ADS-B to know where you went.

If we're speaking about privacy, then ADS-B is just one element of concern. The FAA is now finalizing new Remote ID regulations that will require all unmanned aircraft over 0.55 pounds to be identified and tracked in real time, with data shared back to authorized data aggregators. This is a major concern to hobbyists (think first person quad-copter racing), because the details of the proposed rules make it virtually impossible for hobbyists to fly amateur built aircraft, while giving cart blanch to commercial drone operators (ie delivery services) to fly anywhere assuming they have the resources to comply with the new Remote ID rules. The FAA is essentially saying they have the authority to regulate all navigable airspace, and since UAVs can fly inches from the ground, they are claiming authority to regulate who flies an inch above your own property. The rules are open for comment right now https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/remote_id/. A good summary is to read DJI's point of view. https://content.dji.com/we-strongly-support-drone-remote-id-...

I'm not sure where everyone else comes down on these navigational tracking techniques? Here's my view.

There are times when I do want to let everyone know where I am and who I am. This allows others to avoid running their vehicle into mine and improve rescue efforts if I'm in danger. So I think these sorts of digital beacons and aggregators can be a great improvement to support that mission.

If the nav beacon is mandated for safety reasons, I do not think that I should be required to give my personal information if I choose not to, and if there is a navigational concern, I don't think I should give more information than I need to to enable safe navigation. I think it's enough to provide telemetry (e.g. there is a boat, plane, car or drone at location x, y, and z).

I personally believe that people should own their data and forcing people to give more information than required to accomplish the task (e.g. navigation) is a problem for me. DJI's position is closer to what I'd prefer to see in this case.

(0.55 lb = 240 grams. wow)

> folks who very much don’t want to be tracked themselves are also very interested in aggressively tracking others.

You're thinking of Page, Brin, Zuckerberg, Bezos? Yeah.

If they want to cover their tracks they can just charter aircrafts. Hedge funds like to use ADS-B to track movements for information about upcoming mergers, they're probably a bigger threat to privacy than some hobbyists.

Want, perhaps. Expect, no way. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege, and the FAA makes sure you know that.

It's a kind of interesting point. At the time ADS-B was conceived they would have been aware of the lack of security I'm certain. However, the privacy element has, for the most part, only become relevant because of practically disposable Software Defined Radios being mass manufactured (actually repurposed TV dongles). At the time they created the spec I'm sure they considered the cost of buying a niche set of radio hardware a barrier to the general public having access.

> I always have found it strange that communities of folks who very much don’t want to be tracked themselves are also very interested in aggressively tracking others.

It fundementally comes down to information asymmetry, which is only growing. Any step that makes public knowledge available, especially when focused on areas predominantly used by the economically, socially or politically dominant classes help push back against this growing information asymmetry.

Because the folks doing it are doing it for hobby and therefore it is good but corporations are doing it for profit so it is wrong.

Tracking others is okay for me but not for thee.

I'm only saying this partly in jest but I think it is conceivable that this line of defense is used by these communities and is absurd.

I do agree with you: a basic level of privacy should be there for everyone from (almost) everyone. In this particular case ATC should track aircraft and ensure that not everyone is going in any airspace willy-nilly.

Hurtling tons of steel through the sky at hundreds and hundreds of kilometers an hour above my head is a massive privilege to have, and a huge responsibility to take on. Letting the world know that you are doing it is very much a lowest-baseline expectation.

It's extraordinarily rare that a plane crashes into a house. What actions do you take if you learn that a plane is flying overhead? My guess is that even with this tracking data available you're completely unaware of air traffic near your house the vast majority of the time and that when you are aware you don't do anything at all in response.

And it is so rare because of the incredibly strict regulations and limitation on it happening. And I feel safe to ignore that data because I can trust that my safety is taken care of by those same limitations.

Those regulations and their effectiveness have nothing to do with your being able to personally track flights around you. Indeed those regulations were in place and effective long before there even existed a means for you to obtain the tracking data you now regard as somehow essential to those same regulations.

The same question applies to capturing, storing and distributing the AIS data from boats and ships.

At least under our (Finnish) legislation capturing and distributing this information might be illegal. Law says you may not disclose captured radio transmissons unless they were ment for public use or you were the intended recipient.

You only need a transponder when flying an aircraft in controlled airspaces (Class A, B, C). You can fly without a transponder in a lot of places as long as you are in VFR conditions and not within 30 miles of most airports. It's just not a good idea. This is why gliders and paramotors can fly without a transponder in VFR conditions.

This is just basic safety for vehicles that can't see each other traveling at 100-1000 miles per hour in conflicting space.

Although it's a little concerning that ADS-B makes it so much easier to identify WHO is flying the planes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.215

I believe OpenSky also doesn't censor their data, although in some areas I've looked at their coverage isn't quite as good as ADS-B Exchange. IIRC OpenSky is also a lot more permissive if you want to use their API

I know that there's a big financial incentive to censor aircraft data, and I haven't seen an explicit statement from OpenSky on their policies, so... I'm not sure.

Unfortunately OpenSky does filter data (donors and sponsors to name a few) and is nothing more than a tax dollar black hole and front for commercially selling data while supporting the for profit Sero Systems.

ADSBx offered to share data, a data swap. Opensky was not interested and told us - "go fuck yourselves".

Why am I not surprised to find this here?

Quite a bit of volume on those feeds given that it's specific cities. Colour me surprised

tar1090 pleases me. Thank you for bringing that up!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com