Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's being stalked and harrassed, but sure, she's the bad guy.

Just like any celebrity she can be stalked on the ground at any time, people know where she lives, where she has concerts, goes to football games... I don't see how she can actually be effectively and dangerously stalked or harassed in the air. If anything it's less of a risk. And he cannot possibly know what plane she is ever in with certainty.

Oh, ok. Looks like we have the expert in being stalked here to tell us what's risky and what isn't. Taylor Swift doesn't know what she's talking about and has no reason to feel threatened.

It's just bad PR: I am sure her fans were looking forward to tracking her flight to Vegas after she and her PR team created such hype around the Chiefs. These fans are the same age group as that college kid, and they are just excited. None of them have the money to commandeer a private jet to trail her. It's pretty far-fetched in any case to imagine some supervillain is going to stalk her from Tokyo to Vegas...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's being stalked and harrassed, but sure, she's the bad guy.

lol. She’s the victim? Another filthy rich hypocrite.

Well, yeah, she's being stalked.

She probably is being stalked but not by this guy. He's tracking her jet, whether she's on it or not (and sometimes she's not, and he has no idea whether she is or not). He's also tracking a bunch of other planes. There is no allegation that he's actually following any of these people or encouraging others to do so (again, he's not even reporting on the movements of people, just jets they own or are associated with).

Stalking statutes vary a little, but it's very hard to fit what he's doing into their definition. One aspect of stalking can be "surveilling," which might include online surveillance via social media or something like what this guy is doing. But unless he's also tracking Taylor in other ways, it's hard to argue that just tracking public info about her jet qualifies as online surveillance, because it's limited to tracking a plane moving between airports (a very high level movement) and because he's not even trying to figure out if Taylor's on the plane or not (it's actually irrelevant for his purposes, which have more to do with seeing how much wealthy people are using PJs and for what purposes). I think it would be incredibly hard to win a stalking case against him unless it turns out he's secretly also tracking social media and other information.

It's possible she could get some kind of "stay away" order though that would require him to stop reporting on her plane, if she could show that his reports are being used by others in a way that threatens her safety. That's probably what her potential case hinges on. She might have enough info about her actual stalkers using his info in scary ways to convince a judge that it's necessary for her safety, I don't know. It would really depend on the facts.

It's tough because we are still figuring out what it means to stalk someone in an era where so much info is available about people online, including this kind of tracking of planes. I have mixed feelings because I do think she's entitled to some privacy (not absolute privacy -- she's a public person and therefore willingly gives up a good amount of privacy) and she's absolutely entitled to safety. But the kind of private jet use she engages in is a public interest -- private jet usage is a genuinely concerning environmental threat and I think making all private jet usage private would ultimately do more harm than good. I don't know what the balance is here, luckily I'm not the one who has to figure it out!

She's not "probably" being stalked, she is being stalked. Same guy has been arrested 3 times for stalking her. And if the stalkers are getting her flight information from the college kid, then he is indirectly responsible. If people are only interested in the emissions a jet produces, then its flight can activity can still be tracked without identifying its passengers. This isn't some kind of moral quandary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's being stalked and harrassed, but sure, she's the bad guy.

lol. She’s the victim? Another filthy rich hypocrite.

Well, yeah, she's being stalked.

She probably is being stalked but not by this guy. He's tracking her jet, whether she's on it or not (and sometimes she's not, and he has no idea whether she is or not). He's also tracking a bunch of other planes. There is no allegation that he's actually following any of these people or encouraging others to do so (again, he's not even reporting on the movements of people, just jets they own or are associated with).

Stalking statutes vary a little, but it's very hard to fit what he's doing into their definition. One aspect of stalking can be "surveilling," which might include online surveillance via social media or something like what this guy is doing. But unless he's also tracking Taylor in other ways, it's hard to argue that just tracking public info about her jet qualifies as online surveillance, because it's limited to tracking a plane moving between airports (a very high level movement) and because he's not even trying to figure out if Taylor's on the plane or not (it's actually irrelevant for his purposes, which have more to do with seeing how much wealthy people are using PJs and for what purposes). I think it would be incredibly hard to win a stalking case against him unless it turns out he's secretly also tracking social media and other information.

It's possible she could get some kind of "stay away" order though that would require him to stop reporting on her plane, if she could show that his reports are being used by others in a way that threatens her safety. That's probably what her potential case hinges on. She might have enough info about her actual stalkers using his info in scary ways to convince a judge that it's necessary for her safety, I don't know. It would really depend on the facts.

It's tough because we are still figuring out what it means to stalk someone in an era where so much info is available about people online, including this kind of tracking of planes. I have mixed feelings because I do think she's entitled to some privacy (not absolute privacy -- she's a public person and therefore willingly gives up a good amount of privacy) and she's absolutely entitled to safety. But the kind of private jet use she engages in is a public interest -- private jet usage is a genuinely concerning environmental threat and I think making all private jet usage private would ultimately do more harm than good. I don't know what the balance is here, luckily I'm not the one who has to figure it out!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's being stalked and harrassed, but sure, she's the bad guy.

lol. She’s the victim? Another filthy rich hypocrite.

Well, yeah, she's being stalked.

Anonymous wrote:I think the true reason people are interested in these flights is not specific dates/times/routes or even people. (ok, maybe stalkers but it's a stretch and a lot of work) It's the hypocrasy.

What are the flights over a month? How long of a jump are they? I was very interested in seeing when our corporate jet went from DC to Delaware (court, where company was incorporated, etc). That's a train ride. It's insane, lazy and egregious to be using a corporate jet for that.

I'm sure folks would still have fun with Taylor's aggregated data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's being stalked and harrassed, but sure, she's the bad guy.

lol. She’s the victim? Another filthy rich hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:She's being stalked and harrassed, but sure, she's the bad guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He also tracked Elon Musk for awhile.

Who also sued him.

Yep, and somehow the kid no longer tracks Musk pubilcly. The kid asked for $50,000 to stop putting Musk's plane tracking info on public sites (per the Washington Post today) though Musk supposedly didn't pay (sure, Elon, sure!).

The data is publicly available, yes, but you need to know how to interpret and massage it to get it down to "Taylor Swift's plane is going from X to Y at these times." Which is actual information a stalker can use. Part of her suit against the guy is that stalkers, plural, have turned up at her homes (also plural) at specific times her lawyers say were determined by tracking her travel through this one guy's accounts.

I don't think she'll win, and probably she shouldn't, legally, but I get the concerns involved. And the kid smells like a money-grubber. Who knows what other celebrities he's shaken down successfully, who pay him not to publicize their flights?