[no_opinions]

> Like with dumb-phone they can avoid cell-tower tracking

I don't think there's any kind of cell phone that can avoid being triangulated. I believe it has to do with call routing.

If that mechanism was completely removed, wouldn't there be no way for us to get phone calls, and calls would drop between towers.

Wouldn't a better way of exploring this be to begin at who is accessing the data and why? Businesses have a legitimate case to access their own information to provide a better experience, at the very least.

Also if it's a criminal / national security purpose, what's wrong with the idea of a big data / hay stack warrant, in certain circumstances? Isn't there some situations where it'd clearly make sense?

> The people that scoff at surveillance are an indicator that something is broken.

While there's probably always a case to improve things, when I read conversations on data privacy, I feel many don't want to draw nuance into the technical and legal specifics.

Regardless of society, isn't there always a certain kind of person, due to their upbringing, feels persecuted, though? Isn't there also a type of person who just raises a stink out of pure catharsis? Aren't they almost always ignorant of basics behind the law or technology of what they rant about, often both?

If it was really a sincere thing, why not go into details: e.g. For instance, GPS'ing a vehicle. State or federal law? What predicate / proof is needed? Is there a notification or redress? How long does it last? Any scoping/minimization? Is it supervised judicially or administratively?

While I think of it, maybe there's a reason these things are kept ambiguous, I guess in every country: I don't think people want organized criminal enterprises like mobsters, spies, drug lords, and terrorists gaming the system.

> State and corporate stalking must stop.

I don't think all government surveillance is the same. In most cases they seek authorization to access a private businesses data some how.

If someone is a "normal" consumer, a hospital patient, etc. I don't think the conversation is the same anymore. Wouldn't this be what most normal people care about?

[whinythepooh]

> If someone is a "normal" consumer, a hospital patient, etc. I don't think the conversation is the same anymore.

That's the thing. Crime-prevention is a plausible excuse. "Normal" consumer's data is mass harvested, profiled, stored, and used for social engineering of some more convenient "normal" consumer. Is there so many mobsters that require exabytes of data storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

> Regardless of society, isn't there always a certain kind of person, due to their upbringing, feels persecuted, though?

Well there were some precedents of abuse in history. Secondly, people don't like to be a subject to be ruled. Thirdly, some people are under(d)evolved and still are primates that fear any powerful entity (leopard) watching them. Surveillance makes them paranoid and then depressed and then they snap and bad things happen.

[no_opinions]

> Well there were some precedents of abuse in history.

And in the case of Xinjiang is right now, unfortunately!

> Surveillance makes them paranoid and then depressed and then they snap and bad things happen.

Two points / ways I can take that:

- Big picture: In Eastern Europe, the turning point was more more complicated than that. Many informants / surveillance - but they were ancillary - antagonists being monitored were eclipsed by legitimate beef with how they were getting treated day to day. There were strikes, austerity things, and the security apparatus clamping down harder was probably one of the last straws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution

The other thing worth mentioning is how the government monitored and disrupted strikes in workplaces, which presents an impossible situation to employees. In USA there are rules around that: https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/i.... In this instance coworkers, eventually will talk to each other, and this situation is so much more direct and practical rather than a vague thoughtcrime thing

- Individuals: There are people who develop schizophrenia, very rarely will they be violent. That process begins partly due to biology and partly due to trauma during childhood, and sometimes involves substance abuse. They are super, super sensitive and associate conspiracies to objects, people, and events. They attract attention to themselves, and the thing just feeds itself.

Persecution is a recurring theme (it's not that people are oh so nice! the world is bad and spiteful), and it commonly manifests itself with suspicion of being watched and followed. Also noteworthy is the intensity attributed to events, and the compulsion they feel to keep bringing it up. Common is bringing up sexual fears out of thin air (https://youtu.be/5LPS7E-0tuA?t=525), superego run amok. The sad truth is many were traumatized as children and further degraded as an adolescent. Not being able to process twisted family situations makes it extraordinarily hard for them. You wouldn't want to trade childhoods with them.

Normal people feel distrust, in these cases they're processing information extremely dysfunctional way. Like people who complain about privacy, they have an amazing pattern of not understanding technology, laws, and organizational structure. Everyone is busy and stressed with their own lives and trying to figure it out (and people are also caring, on the other hand, but they won't accept that). You'll also notice the common theme of omnipotent paternal/maternal persons or organizations. There's always an information deficit, they don't go research or pull documents on a subject.

They feel there's no potential reality for them without a punishing, omnipotent presence. So they're in hell, no doubt.