668
submitted 5 months ago by GlitzyArmrest@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Even if it is. I don't personally feel that "CEO" does as much benefit as the multi millions a year they "earn".

Even then. I think my upper limit to "earnings"with the value of the dollar now would probably be ~200k. And only then if I got more specialized and did more projects for more people/companies with it.

It'd take me 25 years at that to get to my "5M". And I doubt I have that much left in me.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago

The reason CEOs make the money they do is because they have proven their judgemental value and there are few of them. Another reason is that it's a tough job to get, so you have to bail hay while the sun shines. Most CEOs don't find an equal job if replaced.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

I am going to have to disagree them proving their judgemental value. Especially not in the many hundreds of percent value above their average worker.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

I've managed engineers. It's not easy, but most of them knew they didn't want my job. Now you take that and multiply the effort accross business disciplines and you have to have good judgement to be successful.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That still doesn't match the current state of affairs in my opinion.

Just because effort is more does not inherently mean value generated from said effort is more.

Not to mention the huge jump in compensation for said "effort" by each level.

You say you don't like people who just live off the interest their money collects, I can respect that ideology. I feel that people who are actively funneling more money away from the people doing the useful work are worse than those just living off interest.

In a perfect world we would all die broke, and be born with equal opportunity. This isn't a perfect world.

Edit: thinking about this further. I also have to disagree about the "effort" a CEO puts in to be inherently more or less than any other position. Every job requires effort. I guarantee a server working a double is pouring a ton of effort into that job. For me that job would be a lot of effort, likely more than I ever have exerted in my work. It's what makes me not want that position. Does that mean a server should inherently make more money than I do?

Same with my boss' position. It would take a lot of effort from me, different than the server position would take, but still probably about the same effort in my opinion. Yet he gets easily 5x the pay a server gets (and more than I get).....

The effort claim just doesn't make sense.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago

Compensation is one of those things you juggle when you decide to take a job that's offered. You, or anyone else, wants as much as you can get. Usually, if the company has anything on the ball, they know the compensation of someone with your experience and ability that other companies offer. Same thing is true with CEOs. It's up to you to accept or not. Maybe the perks you get are worth aa lower offer. It's up to you. CEOs do get tied to performance, though, so if you are successful you get bonuses for that but if you're meh, you don't. If you continue to be meh, you may not be a CEO for long. Getting another CEO job isn't easy.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah and that doesn't make sense, because it's not actually the CEO that's doing the performance.

And against your effort argument.

I agree that's the system that is in place, just not that it makes sense, or should be accepted as a good system, let alone one to protect.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I don't know if it's worthwhile responding to you or not.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Respond or not. I've enjoyed the conversation.

this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
668 points (96.4% liked)

News

21850 readers
3491 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS