re: 54% of the cell phones at Kamala's Nevada rally were also at her Arizona rally

quote:

---

Anyone can pay for it. It’s essentially sold to anyone under the guise of advertising information.

---

The city manager for our over-the-mountain suburb here in Bham has this data. What they can tell you is amazing and scary at the same time. If I didn't need a smartphone for work, I'd get rid of it. Seriously.

She’ll still get 90 million votes

quote:

---

But you are on board with the same type of tracking used to convict Jan6 people?

---

Where the hell did that come from? It makes no sense given what I posted.

I hope I'm not coming off adversarial and that I'm making sense. Geofencing isn't illegal. It's a cornerstone of modern advertising, smart homes, etc.

What is illegal (and extremely difficult, if not impossible, on a technical level) is pulling IP addresses from all endpoints within a particular geolocation, agnostic of vendor and on multiple networks. The fact that 54% of the results appear to be static and seen in a different geolocation days earlier is just further in the realm of *extremely* unlikely results (to put it mildly). That is the information they're claiming to have.

quote:

---

I know for a fact that the government also buys the data, globally including US. It's literally how they tracked down all of the Jan 6th folks.

---

This is true. The way they get around this (and potentially other things that might be useful for what Segura is claiming, like cell tower data) is by specifically stating that it's not an invasion of privacy if they aren't actively looking at it. They ingest a TON of privacy-invading data but get around the associated violations by claiming they only use it in service of targeted investigations rather than actively scanning it all (i.e., if no one has looked at it, then one's privacy hasn't been violated).. Again, that's the claim, but they store/have access to a lot of information if they happen to "need" it.

quote:

---

That guy is a sack of shite. Please stop posting stuff from Tony Seruga

---

A coupled of weeks ago Tony made me lose 2 hours of sleep while scrolling through X right before bedtime when I stumbled upon his post that said Rikers Island was prepping the prison for Trump and his Secret Service.

quote:

---

It's even more than cellphones. If your car has OnStar, FordPass, BMW Assist, etc... that data gets linked. Same with SiriusXM. You use your cellphone #, and/or email to sign up. We live in a surveillance state and we've all agreed to it for convenience.

---

These all have IPs, yes, but again, from a cybersecurity perspective, the necessary tech to do what Segura is claiming evades the top cybersecurity firms in the country and would require extralegal tools and enormous processing power that might only be available to alphabet agencies. The analysis and validation of this data would take an army of people and an untold amount of time (and then when you get into creating live searchable data lakes that involve cell towers/ISPs/wireless networks for *multiple* small geographic regions around the US like he claims to have you're in a whole different territory that would involve an endless source of funding). Turning it into anything actionable on the scale of Seruga's claims would require a superhuman level of logistical efficiency. I try not to dismiss anything outright but it's *highly* dubious and, if he did have backend access to the ISPs/cell towers/etc. they'd lock him out in an instant if he was just publishing this kind of information because that stuff usually requires a warrant or some kind of authorization contract that states the intent of your usage.

quote:

---

ou have no idea the technology that is out there to track cell phones, do you? PR and marketing firms have been doing this for years.

---

Not trying to escalate and I've tried to leave an opening for any possibility. If you have a technical explanation for how the intel in the OP might be collected and allowed to be disseminated on X, I will gladly listen. I've tried to point out the differences between the scope of the data Segura claims to have (as well as its validity) and the nature in which advertising data is collected (in addition to how geofencing works). I looked over Segura's explanation over how he got what he claims to have and that's what I'm primarily responding to.

I wouldn’t hang my hat on that supposed fact. People travel to rallies
For both candidates. Tracking cell phones is a desperate ploy.