Taylor Swift’s legal team is threatening to sue a Florida student who has made quite the name for himself by sharing publicly available information about the location of celebrity private jets.
Continue reading: Taylor Swift Threatens To Sue Student Over Private Jet Tracking
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
The first amendment protects Sweenie's free speech. One could even postulate that Sweenie is a type of modern journalist.
Ben, you might think differently if the shoe was on the other foot. TS has a right to privacy just like everyone else.
How would you feel if someone started posting publicly available information about your husband and your young son.
While Sweenie might not be doing anything illegal, what is his motive? Is it right?
The CEO of LVMH Group in Paris, Bernard Arnault sold his private jet due to the same type of tracking and now uses Vistajet in order to avoid being tracked. He doesn't care about the flex of having his own PJ but he doesn't want his competitors to be able to speculate about the deals he is making based on where he is (likely) conducting business. Taylor could do this, but of course it would be annoying.
@ eightblack -- You're absolutely right I wouldn't like it, and as I acknowledged, I don't blame her for not liking it. But I also know that me not liking something doesn't make it illegal.
You say that "TS has a right to privacy just like everyone else." But that's the thing, at least in the United States, we don't really have a right to privacy. Anyone can legally stick a camera in our face in public, and can track the tail numbers of aircraft. So you're right, she does have the same right to privacy as everyone else, and that's not much...
As far as what his motive is, I'm not sure it really matters? Maybe he's doing it for attention. Maybe he wants to bring attention to the carbon footprint of celebrities. But he's definitely not targeting her specifically.
Look, let me be very clear -- I'm not suggesting Sweenie is some hero, and that he's doing God's work here. Rather, I'm just saying that he's doing something he's legally allowed to do, whether anyone likes it or not. And trying to baselessly sue someone for doing something legal just because you have deep pockets isn't really cool.
Sweeney tracking down a ditsy purveyor of sugary teen pop music is not journalism. It's called 'a waste of time'.
There's no such thing as a "right to privacy" folks. The truth of the matter is, if he doesn't track celebrity jets, someone besides the FAA will.
The actual reason he's doing this imo is to show carbon footprint. Especially for the folks like Gates who preach having less carbon footprint than they actually do. Just a thought.
Since you're repeatedly misspelling 'Sweenie' it's pretty clear how you feel about what he's doing. You misspell it while embedding his correctly spelled Twitter posts...
@ Matt -- The typo was an honest mistake and has been fixed, I apologize. And I'm defending him here, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting about how I feel about him? You think I misspelled his name because I don't like him?
Not all. You can’t generalise. However I cannot stand all these wannabe influencers, real housewives of .. and Kardashians versus Judi Dench and Maggie Smith.
Barbara Streisand effect in full force here. I had no idea who this kid was before her legal team got involved and now I do!
I believe he's being represented by a team that has been paid for by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF: https://www.eff.org/). They've been championing a free internet for a while now. I have a few friends that worked for them about 10-15 years ago.
Tay Tay and her team are accustomed to threatening lawsuits and having people comply because she has money (see: Olivia Rodrigo). That's it. A C&D doesn't mean a damned thing, legally, and EFF is all over crazy bullshit claims people have about the internet. I'd love to see TS and her team get completely obliterated if they DO try to sue. I think theres some anti-SLAPP potential, too, against Taylor and her team given that she's done this a couple of times. That would be the icing on the cake.
Taylor doesn't like that she's being called to task for being a hypocrite. That's it. If Taylor Swift were TRULY that concerned about "privacy", she wouldn't be taking pap-walks weekly, using the front doors of restaurants/stores consistently so paps can see her (when many of the venues she frequents have private entrances specifically for celebrity customers), jetting to every KC Chiefs game, etc.
There's a LONG list of instances where her publicist has made Taylor VERY present on purpose. And that's what publicists do. So to now claim that Taylor is wanting privacy is despite all her many, many actions to the contrary - both current and past - will get laughed out of court. Her legal team knows they will so they're hoping to scare the kid first because no judge - let a jury - would believe that she's truly concerned for her privacy.
This has nothing to do with first amendment. Yes, he has the right to free speech, but first amendment applies to the government censuring that speech. There is no government involved here. In fact, the FAA is giving him information under FOI rules when requested. This is a private individual bullying another, and a matter for the courts. First amendment rights have nothing to do with this case.
I think "exert dominion" is the phrase of the day. I shall use it once in every work call I have today.
It's not like the guy invented software to track people, right? He's using publicly available data sources?
I think she is more concerned to be hurt by a militant environmentalist than for someone to know her current location.
Seems like Swift should just register ownership of her jets better next time...
There's a big difference between something being unethical or a bad person and something being illegal. What he's doing may be unethical as he could definitely inspire some crazy people to do something with the information he's gathering but it's clearly legal as public information.
The FAA, NTSB and our air traffic controllers are all funded by tax dollars. Therefore, the information is publicly accessible. TS uses these services just as does anyone who flies on an airplane. If you had a civil or criminal case in court, had a documented recorded in your county (eg a home purchase), anyone can access that information and publish it. You can label it anything you like (bullying/harassment) but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s perfectly legal. Why does she deserve special protection just because she has money? No expectation of privacy in public.
I used to like Taylor Swift's songs, but after she took her music off of Spotify because she didn't think poor people deserved to listen to her music, I really couldn't understand why people would still like her. The fact that she has the carbon footprint of a small village is also hardly commendable.
Not a first amendment issue but yeah Taylor Swift is bullying this guy for curating public information. It's a frivolous lawsuit she'll end up losing.
Yeah, but are sure it's about speculating a deal rather than about paying alimony.
Taylor Swift needs to hire some new lawyers. First of she's not winning this case and more importantly this will bring was more traffic to Sweenies sight.
Not that I give a FF but apparently she will be in Japan and flying to Vegas for the super bowl so here comings and goings aren't secret.
It could be related to coverage of her carbon footprint but this response is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
Yeah.Right.While politicians,government officials,presidents,air forces all fly around the world every day while telling everyone we have to reduce our carbon footprint.Such a bunch of hypocrites.Who cares.We will all be dead before it affects us so stop moaning and just let people get on with their lives.
How do I send a cease and desist notice to Taylor Swift? I only read financial media and I still hear her name at least once daily - I'd rather not hear it ever, and I say it as someone who likes some of her old stuff.
The Kardashians vs Judi Dench and Maggie Smith? Sounds like a show I would watch.
The strange capitalization in legal writing has always puzzled me. Why would "Client" need to be capitalized? I wonder if British legal writing contains so many odd capitalizations.
Hi Malc.
I had the same question and now I have the answer.
In legal papers there is a difference between "client" and "Client". The former has the same meaning as in any general correspondence - just any client.
The "Client" form refers to something that was mention earlier and is in relation to a specific client. In other words, at some point, usually the beginning of the document, they said something like "... Taylor Swift (Client)..." and from that point on, they can use "Client" instead of naming her. Sounds awkward I know, but it makes perfect sense, especially in cases where there are multiple parties, sometimes with very similar names.
I don’t believe this kind of information was available until ADS-B came along. So before it was could I call up LA Center and ask where Elvis’s plane was? I’m not sure that just because ADS-B made this information accessible means that the public is entitled to it. If you extrapolate the idea that all government information should be accessible by the public then I should be able to call up the TSA and ask them where is Ben off to today. He might not care but others certainly will.
If he’s doing it for a large number of people at one time then it could be argued she’s not being targeted
Since any person can take their cell phone and video or photograph anyone else and it's legal, just get over all this crap. It's just a waste of time and life.