logo
This Ad-Tech Company Is Powering Surveillance of US Military Personnel

This Ad-Tech Company Is Powering Surveillance of US Military Personnel

WIRED12-02-2025

Joseph Cox Dhruv Mehrotra Feb 11, 2025 11:00 PM In a letter to a US senator, a Florida-based data broker says it obtained sensitive data on US military members in Germany from a Lithuanian firm, revealing the global nature of online ad surveillance.
Last year, a media investigation revealed that a Florida-based data broker, Datastream Group, was selling highly sensitive location data that tracked United States military and intelligence personnel overseas. At the time, the origin of that data was unknown.
Now, a letter sent to US senator Ron Wyden's office that was obtained by an international collective of media outlets—including WIRED and 404 Media—reveals that the ultimate source of that data was Eskimi, a little-known Lithuanian ad-tech company.
This article was created in partnership with 404 Media, a journalist-owned publication covering how technology impacts humans. For more stories like this, sign up here.
Eskimi's role highlights the opaque and interconnected nature of the location data industry: A Lithuanian company provided data on US military personnel in Germany to a data broker in Florida, which could then theoretically sell that data to essentially anyone.
'There's a global insider threat risk, from some unknown advertising companies, and those companies are essentially breaking all these systems by abusing their access and selling this extremely sensitive data to brokers who further sell it to government and private interests,' says Zach Edwards, senior threat analyst at cybersecurity firm Silent Push, referring to the ad-tech ecosystem broadly.
In December, the joint investigation by WIRED, Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR), and Netzpolitik.org analyzed a free sample of location data provided by Datastream. The investigation revealed that Datastream was offering access to precise location data from devices likely belonging to American military and intelligence personnel overseas—including at German airbases believed to store US nuclear weapons. Datastream is a data broker in the location data history, sourcing data from other providers and then selling it to customers. Its website previously said it offered 'internet advertising data coupled with hashed emails, cookies, and mobile location data.'
That dataset contained 3.6 billion location coordinates, some logged at millisecond intervals, from up to 11 million mobile advertising IDs in Germany over a one-month period. The data was likely collected through SDKs (software development kits) embedded in mobile apps by developers who knowingly integrate tracking tools in exchange for revenue-sharing agreements with data brokers.
Following this reporting, Wyden's office demanded answers from Datastream Group about its role in trafficking the location data of US military personnel. In response, Datastream identified Eskimi as its source, stating it obtained the data 'legitimately from a respected third-party provider, Eskimi.com.' Vytautas Paukstys, CEO of Eskimi, says that 'Eskimi does not have or have ever had any commercial relationship with Datasys/Datastream Group,' referring to another name that Datastream has used, and that Eskimi 'is not a data broker.'
In an email responding to detailed questions from the reporting collective, M. Seth Lubin, an attorney representing Datastream Group, described the data as lawfully sourced from a third party. While Lubin acknowledged to Wyden that the data was intended for use in digital advertising, he stressed to the reporting collective that it was never intended for resale. Lubin declined to disclose the source of the data, citing a nondisclosure agreement, and dismissed the reporting collective's analysis as reckless and misleading.
The Department of Defense (DOD) declined to answer specific questions related to our investigation. However, in December, DOD spokesperson Javan Rasnake said that the Pentagon is aware that geolocation services could put personnel at risk and urged service members to remember their training and adhere strictly to operational security protocols.
In an email, Keith Chu, chief communications adviser and deputy policy director for Wyden, explained how their office has tried to engage with Eskimi and Lithuania's Data Protection Authority (DPA) for months. The office contacted Eskimi on November 21 and has not received a response, Chu says. Staff then contacted the DPA multiple times, 'raising concerns about the national security impact of a Lithuanian company selling location data of US military personnel serving overseas.' After receiving no response, Wyden staff contacted the defense attaché at the Lithuanian embassy in Washington, DC.
It was only after that, and on January 13, that the DPA responded, asking for more information. 'Once additional information is received, we will assess the situation within the scope of our competence and determine the appropriate course of action,' the DPA said, according to Chu.
The Lithuanian DPA told reporters in an email that it 'currently is not investigating this company' and it 'is gathering information and assessing the situation in order to be prepared to take well-informed actions, if needed.' If the Lithuanian DPA does decide to investigate and finds Eskimi in violation of GDPR provisions, the company could face significant consequences—including fines up to €20 million.
Wyden's office also contacted Google in November, to alert them to Datastream saying that Eskimi, a Google advertising partner, was selling the location data of DOD personnel overseas, Chu says.
Jacel Booth, Google spokesperson, wrote in an email that 'Eskimi is currently part of Google's Authorized Buyer program and must abide by our policies.'
'Google regularly audits its Authorized Buyers program participants, and reviews allegations of potential misconduct,' the spokesperson adds.
Even if Google does act against Eskimi, there may be plenty more advertising companies ready to sell harvested location data.
'Advertising companies are merely surveillance companies with better business models,' Edwards says.
This story was produced as part of an ongoing reporting project from an international coalition of media outlets, including Netzpolitik.org and Bayerischer Rundfunk (Germany), Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (Switzerland), BNR Nieuwsradio (Netherlands), NRK (Norway), Dagens Nyheter (Sweden), Le Monde (France), and WIRED and 404 Media (US).

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump is losing. Here's how California can keep the pressure on
Donald Trump is losing. Here's how California can keep the pressure on

San Francisco Chronicle​

time40 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Donald Trump is losing. Here's how California can keep the pressure on

Californians are angry. They should be. President Donald Trump's militarized mass deportation policies aren't just thoughtless and cruel — they have, in many instances, been executed illegally. This includes targeting international college students with legal residence for their political expression. Four undocumented children in San Francisco were also among those rounded up, among them a 3-year-old, whose family was lawfully complying with a scheduled check-in with immigration authorities. Abundant evidence suggests racial profiling is part and parcel of the administration's strategy. Federal agents aren't simply doing the hard work of tracking down the immigrants with criminal records whom Trump has emphasized for deportation. Instead, they've fished for people en masse at places like Home Depot — sometimes masked and without visible identification — sweeping up citizens of color in the process. In some cases, Trump isn't deporting people back to their native lands. He has sent hundreds of undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom had violated no other law than coming to the country without authorization, to prisons in places that are not their country of origin — including what could best be described as a gulag in El Salvador. In the fear and confusion that has ensued from these actions, criminals pretending to be Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are exploiting the chaos to attack vulnerable communities. And so Californians — and increasingly people across the nation — have taken to the streets in protest. The Constitution and the moral imperative are on their side. In response, Trump has sent thousands of federalized National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the streets of Los Angeles in a clear act of intimidation — claiming an insurrection, but notably not invoking the Insurrection Act statue that would give him the legal authority (and the checks and balances that come with it) to mobilize troops. When U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California attempted to publicly question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about these excesses and injustices, he was shoved and handcuffed by federal agents. It's a perilous time for American democracy. The threat of a descent into unchecked authoritarianism is real. Protestors are correct in their assessment that silence in the face of such tyranny is unacceptable. But as citizens of conscience take to the streets — particularly in California, where the undocumented migrant population is bearing the brunt of our nation's political war — there is something important they should keep in mind: Donald Trump is losing. In recent months, courts have shot down any number of his executive orders, along with his targeting of international students with legal residence. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on Thursday that Trump's federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops was 'illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will consider an appeal of Breyer's ruling on Tuesday. Beyond the legal realm, Trump's economic policies are floundering. His 'big, beautiful' budget is in disarray after an embarrassing public fallout with the world's richest man. His tariff negotiations have gone nowhere. His foreign policy bluster has resulted in heightened global instability. The American people are beginning to widely see Trump for what he is: a failure Only 38% of registered voters approve of his performance, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday. And on immigration, 57% disapprove of his policies. Perhaps recognizing the turning tide, Trump has wobbled on many of his more aggressive stances. After calling for an all-out ban on Chinese students, he suggested this week that he would actually like 500,000 to come to the United States. He further said he had changed his views on migrant farm workers. 'You go into a farm and you look at people — they've been there for 20, 25 years, and they've worked great, and the owner of the farm loves them, and everything else and then you're supposed to throw them out,' Trump said Thursday at the White House. He ultimately backed down from these positions. But the flip-flopping shows his weakness — and the reality that better federal immigration policy, not crackdowns, are needed if we want to better meet the country's workforce needs. The question now for Californians is how to keep the pressure on Trump and defend the rights of immigrants without turning against one another or giving the Trump administration the kind of public spectacle it craves. While Trump is weak, he remains a master manipulator. He has already tried to leverage scenes of carnage stemming from a handful of bad actors at the protests in Los Angeles. California cannot afford to give him more fodder. That danger runs particularly high in Los Angeles, where Trump's federalized troops add an element of unpredictability. 'It's like bringing in a new player to a game and not giving them the playbook,' former Houston police chief and crowd control expert Art Acevedo told the editorial board. 'It's counterproductive. It's theater. And it's not operationally sound.' Acevedo, who drew nationwide praise for his handling of the 2020 protests in George Floyd's native Houston in the wake of his murder by police, said that the best way to protect the public's First Amendment rights is through local organization and communication. Here in San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie has been criticized for his reluctance to even say Trump's name in public. But San Francisco doesn't need him to make fiery speeches. What it needs, Acevedo said, is for officials and the police department to keep lines of communication open with activists and protest leaders and to signal their compassion. San Franciscans are more than capable of speaking for their city. They need to trust that they will be safely empowered to do so. That does not preclude the necessity of weeding out bad actors. Trump is weak. With the discipline to maintain the moral high ground, he can be defeated. As Michael Ansara, who as a student helped organize the March on Washington in 1965, concluded in a recent op-ed: Protesting against Trump is good. Organizing against him is better.

No More Student Visas? No Problem.
No More Student Visas? No Problem.

Atlantic

timean hour ago

  • Atlantic

No More Student Visas? No Problem.

Just how mad is Beijing about President Donald Trump's decision to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals? Not as mad as it says, and not as mad as one might expect. Publicly, China's leadership will likely complain that Trump's action is yet another attempt to thwart the country's rise. But in reality, Beijing would probably just as soon keep its smartest kids at home. Late last month, the U.S. State Department announced that it would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,' and that it would 'enhance scrutiny' of the applications it received in the future. The new visa policy, a spokesperson said, is meant to prevent China from exploiting American universities and stealing intellectual property. A spokesperson for the foreign ministry quickly registered Beijing's objection to the new policy. But when Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke with Trump by phone last week, either he didn't raise the new visa policy or his foreign ministry didn't regard his comments on the matter worth including in its official summary of the call, which suggests that the issue is not a top priority in Beijing's negotiations with Washington. One reason for this underwhelming response may be that re-shoring its university students serves Beijing's current agenda. China first opened to the world in the 1980s; in the decades that followed, securing a Western education for its elite helped the country bring in the technology and skills it needed to escape poverty. China was 'sending people out, learning from other places, finding the best quality wherever it was, and bringing that quality back to China,' Robin Lewis, a consultant for U.S.-China education programs and a former associate dean at Columbia University, told me. Now that period has given way to one of nationalism and self-reliance, which means promoting China's own companies, products, technologies—and universities. Rose Horowitch: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students Xi has consistently stressed the importance of education in sustaining China's rise. His government has invested heavily in China's schools and lavished resources on science and technology programs, with some success. Some of China's top institutions, such as Tsinghua University in Beijing, have gained international recognition as serious competitors in scientific research. China would like to have its own Harvards, rather than sending its elite students to the United States, for political and cultural reasons as well as economic ones. Chinese authorities have long worried that the hundreds of thousands of students it exports to America will absorb undesirable ideas about democracy and civil liberties—and that they will access information about China that is suppressed at home, such as the story of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In fact, many young Chinese who study in the United States seem to enjoy American freedoms and seek to stay rather than return to serve the motherland. Beijing has tried to deal with this in part by monitoring the activities of its students in the U.S. and attempting to hold them firmly to the party line, including by harassing the families back home of those who stray. Within China, authorities can more easily confine students inside the government's propaganda bubble, which in recent years has become more airtight. Domestic media seek to portray the U.S. as unsafe, especially for Asians, by highlighting incidents of racial discrimination, violence, and disorder. One story published last year by the state news agency Xinhua, under the headline 'Chinese Students' Dreams Turned Into Nightmares at U.S. Doorstep,' tells the harrowing tale of a Chinese student detained and deported at an airport and claims that others had suffered the same fate. China's top spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, warned Chinese students at universities abroad against being recruited as foreign agents, and told of one such unfortunate national who was discovered and punished. Even before Trump's announcement, this climate of mutual distrust had led to a drop-off in Chinese students enrolled in American universities. The number had reached an all-time high during the 2019–20 academic year, topping 372,000, according to the Institute of International Education. But that figure has fallen since—by a quarter, to 277,000, in the 2023–24 academic year. Now India, with more than 331,000 enrolled, sends more students to American institutions than China does. The Trump administration appears to believe that curtailing Chinese access to American technology, money, and, in this case, education will give the U.S. the edge over its closest competitor. In some areas, this might work: Restricting the export of advanced U.S. semiconductor technology to China seems to have helped hold Beijing's chip industry back. So why not do the same with higher education? A case can be made that keeping Chinese students out of some of the world's top research institutions will hold back their skills acquisition and, with it, the country's progress. Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down In practice, though, the effect of this policy could be hard to gauge. The engineers behind the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which wowed Silicon Valley by developing a competitive chatbot on the cheap, were mainly locally trained. And the skills that Chinese students can't find at home they can seek in any number of places. There may be only so many Harvards, but Chinese students can receive a good education—and a warmer reception—in countries other than the United States. Universities in Japan and Hong Kong are already trying to capitalize on Trump's harassment of international students to lure them. The idea that any American policy can effectively dampen Chinese ambition may be far-fetched. 'People wake up in the morning and it's all about education here. There is nothing more important,' James McGregor, the chair for China at the consulting firm APCO, told me. 'You're going to stop Chinese people from learning the top skills in the world? No. They'll just deploy them somewhere else.' For now, the Trump team can't seem to decide whether it wants to get tough on China or make deals with China, and the new student-visa policy reflects this confusion. 'Chinese students are coming. No problem,' Trump said in a briefing after his call with Xi. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly.' China's leadership surely knows that many Chinese families still aspire to send their young-adult children to American universities. But Beijing is much more single-minded than Washington about the future of relations between the two countries: Xi appears to see Washington as the primary impediment to China's rise, and ties to the U.S. as a vulnerability best eliminated. From that viewpoint, relying on Harvard to train China's most promising students is a national-security risk. That means that Trump may be doing Xi a favor.

MAGA Sheriff Issues Chilling Warning to Protesters: ‘We Will Kill You'
MAGA Sheriff Issues Chilling Warning to Protesters: ‘We Will Kill You'

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

MAGA Sheriff Issues Chilling Warning to Protesters: ‘We Will Kill You'

Florida residents looking to exercise their First Amendment rights on Saturday have been dealt a stunning warning by state law enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters gathering for the Florida expression of the 'No Kings' national rallies have been told they could face the 'graveyard' if they get violent. 'If you spit on us, you're going to the hospital and then jail. If you hit one of us, you're going to the hospital and jail, and most likely get bitten by one of our big, beautiful dogs,' Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey told reporters at a news conference. 'If you throw a brick, a fire bomb or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains, because we will kill you, graveyard dead. We're not going to play.' Ivey noted that 'peaceful protests' are part of American democracy but warned the operative word is 'peaceful.' 'I believe I can speak for my fellow sheriffs around the rest of the state,' Ivey said. The comments come on the heels of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' new 'zero tolerance' policy toward ICE protests, which engulfed parts of Los Angeles over the past week, prompting the president to send in the National Guard against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom. 'You have a right to flee for your safety,' DeSantis told The Rubin Report podcast. 'If you drive off and you hit one of these people, that's their fault.' The sheriff's words echo the president's recent threats toward protesters—notably the description of law enforcement canines as 'big, beautiful dogs.' Trump himself told reporters last week that if protesters spit on law enforcement, 'they get hit very hard.' The ACLU of Florida has condemned the sheriff's comments, warning on social media that officers and law enforcement departments 'could be on the hook' for millions in damages if they use excessive force against protesters. 'Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey's violent and provocative threat to 'kill' protesters exercising their First Amendment rights is extremely un-American, and unbecoming for an elected leader sworn to protect the public,' ACLU Florida wrote online. Protests have taken place across the country this week, with estimates ranging from 14 to 25 cities currently experiencing demonstrations against the actions of ICE as they carry out Trump's supercharged immigration policies. Millions are expected to join the roughly 2,000 'No Kings' demonstrations planned nationwide for this weekend, which coincide with Trump's own birthday-slash-military parade on June 14. The president warned earlier this week that any disruptions to the military parade will face 'very heavy force.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store