• ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        The only action people have is to vote people in power who are not absolute pieces of shit.

        What they do once in office should directly affect your choice during the next election cycle.

        Unfortunately most people vote blindly along their party lines.

        So, yes, you’re right. It’s all talk here but it’s not like that talk can’t lead to actions.

  • Jackcooper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t want to engage in whataboutism but the fact is when they pass a law for one thing it’s at the cost of something else that will never see the floor

    The house passed a bill to help reign in insurance-pharmacy middle men (PBMs) who are directly responsible for the shitty system and pharmacy closures we are all experiencing. Schumer wont put it on the floor because it’s not a priority. But Musks private jets are.

    • rc_buggy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      This isn’t a stand alone bill, it’s just an amendment in the FAA re-authorization bill. They have to pass this bill every 5 years to keep air traffic going.

      like /u/toiletobserver memed in this thread, “Challenge Accepted”. All the airplanes are still going to have to broadcast ID through ADS-B. They are going to shuffle the N-numbers around but I’m sure we’re going to have the finest geeks on the case deciphering who is who in the air based on where people end up on the ground.

  • mombutt_long_and_low@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t know whether to laugh or scream at how outrageous it is that out of all the issues that could benefit from bipartisan cooperation, THIS is what we get. Bunch of turds.

  • cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    billionaires get this sort of data privacy amendment, while regular Americans get surveillance capitalism as usual.

    Well to be entirely fair, the amendment just says "private plane registration, so this should apply to billionaire jets but also down to the dinky weekend 1971 Cessna that a “regular American” owns

    ETA: actually now that I think about it, drones above a certain dinky threshold also require registration, so those would be covered as well I’d think

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m guessing the owner of a dinky 1971 Cessna most likely doesn’t care if they can be found on an FAA tracker website. Taylor Swift and Elon Musk, on the other hand…

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        7 months ago

        That Cessna owner also isn’t as likely to be a target of violence from some fanatic (arguably justified or not).

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Cool. Is there one shred of evidence beyond Elon’s spurious claim that has ever happened?

          Because if you are famous enough to worry about that and rich enough to fly around in a private jet and that worries you, hire security.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Taylor Swift has been dealing with stalkers showing up at the airport for years

              Can you show evidence of this? Because all I see when I search for Taylor Swift, airport and stalker are people watching her plane’s location online.

              It also doesn’t make much sense to me. She wouldn’t be walking through the regular airport if she was flying in a private jet.

              • andrewta@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                The plane has to land at some point. That is done at an airport. Not sure how that’s confusing. Yeah so it’s smaller air field. Not having crazy stalkers track her is a good thing.

                Because she’s rich she isn’t allowed any privacy or safety?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The confusing part is how these crazy stalkers (still haven’t shown that these people exist) get into the private area of the airport reserved for people who have private jets and chartered flights.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              There hasn’t been a successful attempt in 60 years since JFK, who insisted on terrible security practices (open roof vehicle) and some failings on the secret service. Since then theyve really tightened everything up.

              With proper procedures and a competent team, they’ll be fine.

                • prole@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Except that dude that just walked into the front door of the white house that one time… I’d say that guy got pretty close.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      drones above a certain dinky threshold also require registration

      Basically 0 chance that this law applies to RC helicopters/planes/multirotors. They don’t contain GPS and they aren’t monitored by air traffic controllers.

      The newer regs boil down to you basically have to write your ID number in the canopy and avoid restricted airspaces… and who the hell is gonna roll by and check that you have a number written in your canopy? Maybe cops that get a complaint, and that is pretty rare. The older guys who have been in the hobby that I know completely ignore the newer regs, if you aren’t bothering anybody then nobody cares.

  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    At last constant surveillance is deemed a problem, which is why ultra-rich have their privacy protected, while you, peons, keep being monitored.

  • ghostblackout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ok I’m just going to make a open source project to track that’s jets adsb Signal and let people put a reserve at there house oh wait that’s just flight 24 it doesn’t matter what law makers do she can always be tracked by 1 person with a sdr and a antenna

  • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 months ago

    So… so… so… soooooo… many problems in this world and this is what they rush to “fix”. Wanna bet someone is going to figure out how to tie plane registration numbers with people regardless, do it through some third-world country who doesn’t give a shit about USA and we are back to square one.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    What a bunch of bullshit, yet another example of how billionaires get their interests served but we just get to help make them even richer while being taxed, but not represented because we can’t afford the bribes lobbying.

    • ReiRose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yup. Its amazing how quick and efficient the government is when rich peoples interests are involved

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    But then how will we know when she takes her private jet jet jet to her private jet jet to her to her private jet?

    • rc_buggy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It’s fun to watch airplanes. Watching them via radio is also fun. The data has been public since the FAA started issuing tail numbers and it’s never really been an issue before.

      What’s really fucked up is that these jets currently operate under Part 91, just like grandpa’s Cessna. Quite unregulated when it comes to how long the pilots can fly and the taxes are lower than Part 135 which is where I believe these private jets should operate. IMO a private plane should be owner operated, allowing the individual to determine safety limits. Part 135 regulates quite a bit more, including pilot rest periods and allowed weather conditions. We already regulate these billionaire’s car drivers more stringently than a regular driver, why not the air travel too?

      edit: oh, duh. If the airplane operates under Part 135 it can easily be owned by an LLC which is the same form of privacy protection I (and many others) use to shield my identity in real estate records.