Anybody with a modicum of self-respect wouldn't accept that counter-offer. The $5K offer was a gift, and publicizing a person's flights is sick behavior.
Putting someone's life in a spotlight without their consent is not much different from being an annoying paparazzi
Posting ADS—B data is not anything close to resembling that. Elon Musk claims to have “started” Tesla in the name of sustainability and yet personally is responsible for dumping more carbon in the atmosphere than god knows how much compared to the average person. Pointing out this hypocrisy with publicly available data is not a bad thing, and is nothing like the paparazzi.
> Putting someone's life in a spotlight without their consent
Elon Musk acquired Twitter supposedly in the name of free speech. He then chose to post borderline transphobic thoughts on Twitter because he knew it would stir the pot amongst his ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION Twitter followers. He then chose to go on stage at the end of Dave Chapelle's set in front of a _lot_ of people, and was booed by a large percentage of said people. When someone decided to post a video of this on Twitter, that persons account was banned.
Does that sound like someone who doesn't want to have their life put in the spotlight? Or does it sound like an attention seeking hypocrite who is using his money and power to try to silence people who question his extremely questionable actions?
There are millions of good hills to die on. I have no idea why one would choose to willingly throw themselves onto a mountainous pyre of bullshit.
The rich and powerful do not need bootlickers to defend their shitty actions.
And I say this as someone who until recently thought he has caught a bit too much flak for some of his immature antics.
I'm not sure where I stand on this but I can see why someone of Musk's public stature would be concerned about this.
Hell, I am a literal nobody and of someone did this or something similar to me I'd be paranoid as all hell.
Jesus.
But the point is, it poses no safety risk to the rich and powerful. It's just a curious thing for the public at worst. If someone was a mark, the perps are not going to use frigging Twitter and go directly to the public source of this data instead.
His problem if he uses a means of transportation which, in real time, updates its location. The information is public anyway and it applies to everyone.
I really don't see how this is wrong.
Firstly, the account doesn't track Musk himself, it tracks his private jet. If Musk wanted to, he could avoid the issue completely by chartering planes or just (heaven forbid!) flying in conventional airlines. Musk is explicitly making a convenience-privacy trade-off here.
Secondly, I think we do Musk a disservice by pretending that he is an ordinary person like me or you. He is, depending on your accounting, the world's richest person, which obviously affords him incredible luxury that we should bit begrudge, but it also means that he is one of the most influential people in the world. Bear in mind that he has recently bought one of the biggest media platforms in the world.
The problem with this is a principle of democracy is that power requires scrutiny. That's why we usually have a good idea of where our leaders are at any particular time - this obviously makes their lives difficult, but if we are going to hand power over to our presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors, then we should also demand accountability from them. But for Elon Musk, whose power comes solely from his wealth, there is no clear accountability. We have no right to know his whereabouts, or what he's doing with his money, or who he's being influenced by (and who he's influencing). His power is essentially unchecked (at least in the democratic sense) and limited only by the market.
So from that perspective, it seems very sensible and practically democratic to keep track of such powerful people.