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.”

  • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 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.