I guess one of the saving graces (for now) is that streaming and storing everyone's more-or-less accurate location constantly is something mobile providers have to actually work to have. So hopefully, it's not just a switch to be toggled and a cable to be hooked up to some simple box. Realistically, it of course already exists and is only waiting to be found due to some leak or governmental fuck up. :)
]]>First, today's mobile networks actively depend on knowing their user's approximate spatial position - otherwise they would not know through which cells to route calls to. This is true for 2G technologies up to 5G and I believe the state of the art in positioning a couple of years ago is called AECID. In a nutshell, it is calculating a phone's position by looking at the signal strength "fingerprint" (i.e. which nearby cells have what quality signal) and reference it back to their internal cell network planning map, which has all these coverages and levels neatly pre-calculated. In dense cities there are a lot of cells with smaller coverage (also think how reception is done in subways), thus allowing for more accurate positioning without the need for any permissions from the phone's operator. Admittedly, this will require the cooperation of the baseband model, I believe. However, I assume this positioning technology is or will be silently baked in to newer phones and having it could be a prerequisite of getting access to latest generation cell networks.
So, now the movements of all users of a cell network can be conveniently stored and mined from one or several central locations. I think it's pretty safe to assume that enterprising law enforcement agencies have already hooked their stuff up to this system and store this information.
Second, to me, the Equifax breach and all the other fun news from Silly Con Valley last year demonstrated pretty well that this sort of personal data will probably be stored not very securely and will eventually be sold off for fun & profit. If it is not already.
Personally I am hoping that the new EU directive on data protection will force some sort of reckoning in this area. The US on the other hand has decided to take a step back and end Net Neutrality, which will probably make it much much much easier for bigger companies to rig up some bad faith scheme in order to mine their customer's data and sell it to their hearts content, because the alternatives are their equally bad competitors or just to go pound sand.
]]>Yes, all this comes with the price of playing along with some U.S. imperialist interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan). The alliance is a lesser evil until the citizens of the US finally force their government and military-industrial complex to stand down. Until then it is as you said - shrimp among whales.
]]>I don't understand two things in this reasoning: 1) How is EU expanding to the Baltics a form of economic warfare against Russia? IIRC Russia has remained Estonia's (and the rest of the Baltics') major trading partners throughout all the years, even after sanctions after Ukraine. Bear in mind that Russia also imposed counter-sanctions, restricting the import of fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, milk and dairy produce. 2) Given the actual NATO land power that Martin described in 799, how is the NATO an actual threat to Russia, as opposed to mainly a defensive force?
In general I agree that threatening Russia is not a good strategy, but my argument is still the same: the Baltics in the beginning of the 90s up to today could not and still can probably not afford to bet on the long-term benevolence of Russia. Personally, I do not see how I can simultaneously believe that the current NATO capability in the Baltics is in any way threatening (again, see Martin@799) and that Russia's current leadership is trustworthy, reliable and actually deep down wants peace. The burden of proof for that last assertion is on both you and EC, because both of you seem to quietly assume this.
]]>