In late December, Swift’s camp hit Jack Sweeney, a junior studying information technology at the University of Central Florida, with a cease-and-desist letter that blamed his automated tracking of her private jet for tipping off stalkers as to her location. In the letter, attorneys from the law firm Venable accused Sweeney of effectively providing “individuals intent on harming her, or with nefarious or violent intentions, a roadmap to carry out their plans.”
Sweeney provided the link to that letter in an email to the Associated Press. In that message, he emphasized that while he has never intended to cause harm, he also believes strongly in the importance of transparency and public information.
“One should reasonably expect that their jet will be tracked, whether or not I’m the one doing it, as it is public information after all,” he wrote.
A spokesperson for Swift echoed the legal complaint, saying that “the timing of stalkers” suggests a connection to Sweeney’s flight-tracking sites. The spokesperson did not respond to questions seeking elaboration of that charge, such as whether stalkers have been seen waiting for Swift at the airport when her plane arrived or, alternatively, if there is evidence that stalkers have somehow inferred Swift’s subsequent location from the arrival time of her flight.
The legal letter likewise accuses Sweeney of “disregarding the personal safety of others”; “willful and repeated harassment of our client”; and “intentional, offensive, and outrageous conduct and consistent violations of our client’s privacy.”
Such statements are difficult to square with the fact that Sweeney’s automated tracking accounts merely repackage public data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, a government agency. That fact did not dissuade the Venable attorneys, who demanded that Sweeney “immediately stop providing information about our client’s location to the public.”
But a stalker could just check the same publicly available information right?
All they’ve done is saved a little bit of effort for the stalker.
She could just not own a private jet and use a company instead.
A stalker could also check her concert schedule.
They make that highly sensitive info public?!?!
Too late you are already getting a C&D from tay tays legal team
Yeap, this is a lot more to do with people utilizing his data to point out exactly how bad her private jet use is for the environment than it is about personal privacy.
It’s not like his data is giving any more information than her social media accounts or tour schedule. What exactly is a stalker supposed to do with the information? Are they going to break into the airport and then elude her security detail? Wouldn’t that be a lot harder than just following her after a show?
There’s a huge difference between the info being public and it being broadcasted in an easily-readable format with her plane number labelled.
Wouldn’t be a problem if she didn’t have a jet 🤷
Not for someone to be a stalker. You’re saying the only thing keeping some people from being a stalker is how easy the info is to find, or parse, even.
They’re not saying it is the only factor, only that it is a relevant factor. Which it obviously is.
What is the bar for difficult or easy to read data? Is a CSV difficult enough? How do you even quantify difficulty of readability to meet that standard? If I build a tool to parse that new data, does that mean every agency would have to change formats and make the data harder to read?