Schneier: Metadata Equals Surveillance

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Bruce Schneier writes that lots of people discount the seriousness of the NSA's actions by saying that it's just metadata — after all the NSA isn't really listening in on everybody's calls — they're just keeping track of who you call. 'Imagine you hired a detective to eavesdrop on someone,' writes Schneier. 'He might plant a bug in their office. He might tap their phone.' That's the data. 'Now imagine you hired that same detective to surveil that person. The result would be details of what he did: where he went, who he talked to, what he looked at, what he purchased — how he spent his day. That's all metadata.' When the government collects metadata on the entire country, they put everyone under surveillance says Schneier. 'Metadata equals surveillance; it's that simple.'"

Comments

Metadata is the most important data

[i kan reed]

This is a basic fact for anyone dealing with any substantive volume of data. The details are of no interest to anyone in power, but patterns are.

The dividing line people will have here is whether the 4th amendment(and the human right it's based on) protects a right to privacy or a right against freely targed witchhunt prosecutions. This spying won't especially invade the first, but could easily be construed to lead to the second.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[SirGarlon]

Actually, when it comes to metadata, you could make a First Amendment case: freedom of association.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

The circle is now complete.

When I left you I was but a "symantic web evangelist".

Now I am the "metadata big data all seeing eye".

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[i kan reed]

Freedom to do something doesn't mean no one will know. I support prevention of chilling effects, but that's a weak argument. It's like the stupid 2nd amendment charge by the NRA, only on a more fundamental right.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[icebike]

The details are of no interest to anyone in power, but patterns are.

It has already been made public that huge volumes of email, actual phone conversations are recorded.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/15/yes-actually-the-nsa-says-they-can-eaves
http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/irs-audit-emails-warrant-aclu/

And further, the NSA leaks content to local and state law enforcement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

So the this whole discussion about meta-data is moot. When you can archive, transcribe and catalog content, who needs metadata?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[i kan reed]

Because they don't care what you said. It really is beneath them, even if they have it. We need to be worried about the consequences this will have on people.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[i kan reed]

Sorry, you're not going to get me in favor of letting people make life miserable for their subordinates. If that's your problem, you dislike the statute of limitations, not the law itself.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the importance of an inalienable right is judged by the number of the amendment. Good thing they are only violating our 4th amendment rights in passing on the way to the 2nd amendment.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't guarantee the general privacy of the masses you don't have freedom of association. In my mind freedom of association is suppose to be that guarantee. Unfortunately the government uses assumptions / suspicions that are not founded on hard evidence to target groups of people. As an example they targeted everybody who accessed services / web sites hosted by Freedom Hosting. If you ask me that was illegal. The same thing can be said about monitoring a group organizing publicly. There is a huge difference between policing a general population and targeting population with surveillance even if many of its members are involved in criminal acts, and then targeting those within, when those within are not themselves necessarily committing illegal acts. You should not assume / suspect me of committing an illegal act simply because I'm associating with a group whose individual members are known to be committing crimes. A few good examples of this would be KKK groups, communist groups, civil rights groups, various African American groups like the Black Panther Party, LGBT groups, pedophilia groups, free software groups (yes, they were targets of the IRS under the Obama administration), etc.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[icebike]

But if you had bothered to even give those links a cursory look, you would find that they DO CARE what you said, and if the NSA doesn't personally care, they know agencies that do, and they freely share what they learn.

The story is fairly straightforward. A unit of the DEA known as the Special Operations Division has been receiving and distributing vast levels of intelligence from agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security. Upon receiving information about a particular transaction or meeting place, DEA agents go make arrests, using traffic stops as pretext.

There is nothing "beneath them". In order to hold that view, you have to subscriber to the whole "Defenders of America" flag wrapping nonsense. These agencies have ceased working for YOU.

You can't worry about the consequences will have on the people, and ignore the fact that some how, somewhere along the line, this government has taken it upon itself to vet every communication, be party to ever conversation, and monitor every action, and watch every person. Where did that idea of government EVER come from?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the NSA isn't going to tell my employer to fire me.

No, no no. Oh, no, of course not. They wouldn't tell anyone to fire anyone.

What happens is men in suits come to your office and speak with the boss behind closed doors. Then they speak with the coworkers. They ask questions about what you were doing, how you work with other people. Has anyone seen you get angry, raise your voice, raise your fist, get a little violent? Do you have weapons? Do you bring them to work?

The details are fuzzy, but when I worked as a student worker at a big university back in the 90's, exactly this happened to one of my coworkers, courtesy of the CIA. The men introduced themselves as such, didn't suggest that we couldn't speak about the meeting (though he suggested we not discuss the boss's closed door meeting), but isn't that the point? Everyone knew the guy was being investigated for something. Things got awkward, and eventually the guy was let go because nobody wanted to work with him anymore.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[tqk]

You can't worry about the consequences will have on the people, and ignore the fact that some how, somewhere along the line, this government has taken it upon itself to vet every communication, be party to ever conversation, and monitor every action, and watch every person. Where did that idea of government EVER come from?

If you read history, that's always been the tyrant's plan. What you ought to be asking is how did the USA succumb to tyrrany?

You got lazy, arrogant, self-assured, and lackadaisical about how your country's run.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[mendax]

Actually, when it comes to metadata, you could make a First Amendment case: freedom of association.

Indeed, and, in fact, this is the major argument being made by the ACLU acting on its own behalf in its lawsuit against the NSA over the collection of metadata. It allows the government to determine who its clients are, who are its members, etc. Numerous Supreme Court rulings from the civil rights era make it clear that the First Amendment guarantees the right to associate anonymously. It should also be noted that the First Amendment freedoms are the most protected by the courts. When the government feels the need to do so it MUST MUST MUST as little as possible and only to satisfy its legitimate needs and no farther. The courts call the application of this "strict scrutiny". Because this is a geeky forum, most people here know a way this collection of metadata can be done that protects the identity of the parties. Because this exists, the NSA's collection of meta data is unconstitutional on its face.

There is no point in arguing that the NSA has a legitimate need to collect metadata from phone companies and ISPs. We don't like it but It has that need, it can demonstrate the validity of that need, and the courts are going to recognize it. But there is a less restrictive way of doing it that would accomplish the same thing and they didn't use it.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

raise your fist

Black power salute?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I have a similar story.

A decades long friend of mine was recently visited by four law enforcement officers - he was under suspicion of being a pedophile ... the same man who has baby-sat my kids quite a few times.

He got onto a list because they now deem that the 60s version of "Lord of the Flies" is sufficient grounds to judge you as a suspect, in other words 1+1=3.

These agencies are really fucked up. When you have four officers appear at your house with guns at 9pm at night, who take all of your computing equipment - including backups (regardless that it's all of your business data and is essential to keep your business running) ... just in case you might be a questionable suspect because you bought a "legal" video off Amazon.

I've really lost faith in the system.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the NSA isn't going to tell my employer to fire me.

No, no no. Oh, no, of course not. They wouldn't tell anyone to fire anyone.

What happens is men in suits come to your office and speak with the boss behind closed doors. Then they speak with the coworkers. They ask questions about what you were doing, how you work with other people. Has anyone seen you get angry, raise your voice, raise your fist, get a little violent? Do you have weapons? Do you bring them to work?

The details are fuzzy, but when I worked as a student worker at a big university back in the 90's, exactly this happened to one of my coworkers, courtesy of the CIA. The men introduced themselves as such, didn't suggest that we couldn't speak about the meeting (though he suggested we not discuss the boss's closed door meeting), but isn't that the point? Everyone knew the guy was being investigated for something. Things got awkward, and eventually the guy was let go because nobody wanted to work with him anymore.

So he applied for a job with the CIA, they gave him a standard background check, and you all were so paranoid that you fired him.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court ruling you are looking for is National Association for the Advancement of Colored people v. Alabama

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[gatzke]

Don't you still have freedom to associate? They are just keeping tabs on whom you associate with.

I would stick with privacy (which is not in the constitution). Just unreasonable search and seizure AFAIK.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Crawl back under your progressive rock. I am a NRA member I do belive in the 2nd Amendment. And I do belive that what the goverment is doing is wrong. Don't assume that the two are mutaly exclusive. Why do you people always have to pivot and attack? Never stay on the topic but always try to twist it to something else?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

I support the 2nd Amendment as well.

But I wouldn't fuck the NRA with *your* dick.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Flere Imsaho]

Do you have weapons? Do you bring them to work?

Do you realize how WTF that sounds to people outside the US? If you bring weapons to work you should be arrested. Fuck your 2nd amendment, or at least the batshit-insane interpretation of it you guys base your laws on.

Re: Metadata is the most important data

[sumdumass]

The fourth amendment protects both. History tells us that we need privacy to freely associate with people. This is more of a neccesity then an original intent. History also tells us that before the US broke away from England, the king and people representing them went on witch hunts regularly. If someone with any power disliked you or you said the wrong thing in front of someone, the would issue a general warrant and some goons would show up and turn your home, place of employment, and friends upside down trying to find any evidence of you doing anything wrong- even if they knew it would only harass you. Once the general warrant was issued, it remained in efect for the life of the king.
The fourth amendment specifically had this in mind with both the federalist ant anti-federalist bringing it up. There were four revisions to what became the fourth amendment and all those revisions were grammer and style in attemps to make it clear and understandable. It is well documented in our founding and the events attributed to it.

It most certainly is supposed to protect against wild witch hunts.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Phrogman]

The modern day equivalent to Bread and Circuses, Cheezeburgers and Movies/TV perhaps?

Consumers get focused on consuming, poor people get focused on where the rent is coming from and can they afford to eat. Neither gets involved in Politics, particularly when everyone knows that politicians do not have the interests of the people at heart, are actively accepting bribes (in the form of campaign contributions) and that the system is rigged to ensure that one of two candidates who are mostly the same will be elected no matter how they choose to vote, plus of course the rich are running it all.

Wrong response mind you but its easy to see how it happens.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

...I've really lost faith in the system....

What are you going to do about it then? Lie down and cry yourself to sleep?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[melikamp]

Things got awkward, and eventually the guy was let go because nobody wanted to work with him anymore.

Did you want to make a comment about NSA with this story? Because it sounds like people who "let him go" are to blame, as well as "everybody", since they decided to ostracize him for no reason at all. For all we know, NSA was simply doing their job.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[bigfoottoo]

I absolutely agree that they are scooping up EVERYTHING. When the Snowden story first broke, the government story was that they were collecting metadata on 3 billion US phone calls per day. They acted like this was a big deal. But, think about it. Suppose that each metadata entry requires 100 bytes. In this case, they are collecting 300 GBytes of meta data per day. Hell, I can store that much on my laptop! Instead, they are bringing an exa-Byte facility online in Utah, and they are building another giant farm at Ft. Meade. Something doesn't add up. I suspect that the raw data stream goes into the NSA "haystack" where it sits. So when Obama said, "Nobody is listening to your phone calls.", he technically was correct. Your phone calls are recorded, but nobody is listening to them. The voice data sits in the archive until probable cause is established by examining metadata. Once probable cause is established, an analyst gets to listen to everything you have muttered on the phone over the last several years. This retroactive aspect of NSA actions is truely disgusting. There probably are many good people in the NSA. But, there also were many good Germans doing bad things in WWII. Or, what we often did in Vietnam. The NSA, as an institution, seems to dispise the Bill of Rights, and unless this is changed, we will lose our nation.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Swampash]

Citizen you are free to associate with whomever you want, we'll just record who it was, where, when, for how long, and how that compares with previous meetings.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have weapons? Do you bring them to work?

Do you realize how WTF that sounds to people outside the US? If you bring weapons to work you should be arrested. Fuck your 2nd amendment, or at least the batshit-insane interpretation of it you guys base your laws on.

It's not that people wear ammo chains to work in the US.
That question leads the interviewees to believe that the CIA has reason to suspect that this man may be bringing weapons to work. It makes the coworkers think he is a dangerous and untrustworthy criminal without any sort of proof.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[icebike]

The technology that Google Voice uses, and that Android phones use, and even iPhones use to convert voice to text would allow them to grind away at those recorded conversations and weed out the "Honey pick up some milk on the way home" conversations and dump these to save space.

Meanwhile any talk of interesting subjects would get added to the text database for searching, and the audio saved.

Nobody "listened" to that call. But a computer did, and translated it, and cataloged it and made it searchable. And a human will listen to it, and so will the judge and jury any time the government wants to hang you out to dry for getting an ounce of weed, or a stock tip, or any little discrepancy on your taxes.

Now that these abuses are known, I actually expect to see the data used more often. Because they don't need to worry about disclosing a secret project any more. We will be treated to all sorts of "see how surveillance is good for you" stories cherry picked and praises sung when the meth dealer gets caught or the pedophile gets outed. We are all in for the "Frogs in a kettle" treatment.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[_UnderTow_]

I don't think there's anything to be done other than put your head between your legs and wait for the wreckage of our country to come to a full and complete stop. People in general are too apathetic, there is no fixing this.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[dkleinsc]

They don't care what you said or who you're talking to right now.

But let's say you started leading some sort of political movement to dismantle the NSA's surveillance of Americans. Do you think they'd then start to care what you said going back to the day they were able to start monitoring your conversations?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[noh8rz10]

same side, people! let's at least pool our resources to confront nsa. they want us to be divided.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem if it sounds uncivilized to you.

I note that massacres of people in 'gun free safety zones' happen in many countries, even where the guns are completely illegal. Were you at the Washington Naval Yard, you might have had a different opinion.

People don't kill each other unless crazy or with prior training. Crazies we will always have with us. For civilians, 'prior training' always means a history of violence. So far, no society has figured out how to have zero of those people.

Thus, any one may be faced with a need to defend themselves or others. Guns are really good for that task : FBI's crime data says the more effectively a victim resists, the better the outcome, and that guns are the most effective tool for that resistance.

Weapons are very good insurance policies, the kind that prevent injury or death.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

And fuck your foreign nosiness. If you don't like our Constitution and/or our laws then stay the hell away from us. We don't give a shit what you think about the way we run our country.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Flere Imsaho]

And fuck your foreign nosiness. If you don't like our Constitution and/or our laws then stay the hell away from us. We don't give a shit what you think about the way we run our country.

If you don't give a shit then why the flaming response? Your reply is almost a caricature of the attitude I'm talking about, so you could be a troll. Sadly though, I doubt it.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[dryeo]

The Canadian Supreme Court has interpreted our (Canadian) right to not be unreasonably searched and seized as a right to privacy.
I think the 3rd amendment can be interpreted as a right to privacy as well as having someone move in with you screws with your privacy.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[dryeo]

Came across this interesting link yesterday, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Flere Imsaho]

The naval yard shooter, who filed a police report in August, 2013, claiming to be the victim of harassment and was hearing voices in his head, who had also claimed that he was being stalked in an organized manner by a group of three people who were using invisible, electronic means and preventing him from sleeping, and who had been to a VA hospital emergency room seeking assistance with sleeping problems, was legally allowed to purchase and own guns.

This is despite his criminal record, including prior 8 citations for misconduct, being arrested for discharging a weapon within city limits, and being arrested for malicious mischief after shooting out the tires of another man's vehicle in what he later described as the result of an anger-fueled blackout.

But let's not discuss gun control. Let's get more people armed and carrying in public.

WTF?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[dryeo]

Not so much as apathy as other more immediate worries. With downsizing, outsourcing, the end of local manufacturing and the dismantling of the social safety net, most people have no time for politics.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have "guilt by association", as it appears has happened when everyone in suspect groups are tracked, then you don't have freedom of association.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the 3rd amendment can be interpreted as a right to privacy as well as having someone move in with you screws with your privacy.

Joe Nacchio's in prison, but it would have been a very interesting court case if he'd alleged that Qwest's third Amendment rights were being abridged by the government's installation of NSA (a subsidiary of DoD, aka, solders>) gear in his floorspace.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no prejudice at all in that statement, nope. None at all.

Non-US gun owner here. Competition shooter. On a few occasions I've brought guns to work, mainly when I know I won't have time to stop by the house on my way to the range after work. One time it was because we had a corporate outing hosted on the gun range where everyone got a chance to try shooting themselves. Also it's happened when I needed to pick up a gun at the repair shop on my lunch hour or when I just promised to show a coworker what a real gun looks like.

Guess what - most people don't throw a fit about it. Quite the opposite, many people think it's a toy and want to play with it!

In other words, for people who aren't hysterically afraid of guns bringing your gun to work it about as "WTF" as other people bringing their gym bag to work because they intend to go training after work. It's not like you do it on a regular basis given how inconvenient it is (need to keep tabs on the gun makes it inconvenient to visit the bathroom, etc.) and given how troublesome others can be if you have a gun (both the "oooh, neat toy" crowd and the ones throwing fits), but if you occasionally do it it's not a sign of mental illness or you being a sociopath.

Oh, and one more thing. Where I live, you need to have a license to own guns and all guns are registered. Legal gun owners are - on average - more law-abiding than the police are. So before you worry about ME bringing a gun to work or anyplace else, you should perhaps consider that the police are armed...

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[denvergeek]

Which progressive rock? Jethro Tull? The Moody Blues?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[fsagx]

Even consumer-grade speach-to-text is quite good these days. Certainly, to a government lawyer, the text transcript of your phone call would "only" be meta-data. It is not the call itself. That it is smaller and much more easily indexed and searched is quite convenient. And this way "No one is listening to your conversations." Until they do.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, this particular case has pro-gun Americans asking WTF, too.

What we're worried about, though, is any sort of license/permit system turning into what concealed carry permits are in New Jersey - "technically it exists, but won't be granted to anyone". We're also worried about exorbitant fees, decade-long waiting periods or the requirement for a very specific reason to own a gun, which will then be vetted by some petty bureaucrat who knows nothing about guns or the reasons for having them. We also worry about losing the right to self-defense. Nobody likes the idea of being told "if you're attacked, just expose your throat and surrender, hopefully the attacker will make it quick and painless. If you resist, you're going to spend the rest of your life in prison."

Yes, most EU nations don't do this, and contrary to common American perception you *can* get guns in most of them - even pistols and semi-automatic rifles if you jump through the right hoops - but we have a horrible culture of obstructive buttinski-ism. Pro-gun folks in the US don't trust that any gun control short of total disarmament and imprisonment of all current gun owners would ever be enough to satisfy anti-gun folks. So far every measure that's been enacted has just led to calls for more.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't guarantee the general privacy of the masses you don't have freedom of association. In my mind freedom of association is suppose to be that guarantee.

If you are not aware you are being observed unless someone tells you, and that's really the default state, what is the impact on your freedom of association?

To me, a right that can be infringed without you knowing unless specifically told, and further - being unable to verify yourself if it was respected, that just seems like a silly thing to ask for.
Even more, I don't understand how you can reasonably expect anyone to be in a position to enforce that as your right.

So, I think when a right is interpreted that way, the interpretation is wrong. There are laws, and there are rights, and I don't think certain things qualify as rights no matter how nice they sound.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

Things got awkward, and eventually the guy was let go because nobody wanted to work with him anymore.

And that's... the government's fault?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[i kan reed]

Oh, yes, they would. Hence the witch hunt part of my post way back up.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a straw-man argument. I Kan Reed did not give his reason for stating why freedom of association is more fundamental than the the right to bare arms, you are just assuming it is based on the number of the amendment.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that, thanks to Edward Snowden, we know know we are being observed. The government is in a position to enforce its own actions, the constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do, so while it would be unreasonable to expect them to ensure nobody is surveilled by anybody, it is reasonable to expect they abide by the constitution and not surveil anybody.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

The chair is against the wall.
John has a long moustache.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[icebike]

Skyking, Skyking, Do no answer. Uniform Gulf Sierra niner seven echo. I say again....

Is this how we have to start communicating just to keep our government out of our business?

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[kermidge]

From a comment I posted on schneier.com:

  "Clearly the 4th Amendment was not written with any conception of today's electronic communications. We need more specific laws."

Perhaps. But it might be more to the point to have judges who made it into the electronic age.

The 4th uses the phrase "search" followed closely by "seizure." If you are forbidden to search for it without warrant its seizure (as in, collection) without warrant is forbidden as well.

I like the tree-mail analogy, especially because it might help judges and others. Just because the 'metadata' of name & address on the outside of an envelope needs to be seen by mail sorters and carriers does not in any way give them license to remember any of it, let alone collect such in some list.

On ownership: At no time is the data on the envelope owned by anyone other than the sender until such time as it it's the hands of the recipient. One might dredge up custodianship, but why introduce something thoroughly unnecessary?

If government want metadata they need to get a warrant for it.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether NSA surveillance violates any of the bill of rights. They have no authority to spy on citizens. It is all illegal.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[mcgrew]

I would stick with privacy (which is not in the constitution).

The constitution doesn't bestow rights on citizens; rights are endowed "by the creator". The constitution grants powers to the government and defines its structure, and spying on its citizens (taking away their god-given right to privacy) is not a power that is granted by the constitution anywhere at all.

Also, see the tenth amendment.

Re:Metadata is the most important data

[Si]

Until "Honey pick up some milk on the way home" becomes code for "the President will be at [X] on [Y]. Ensure asset [A] is in position.". At that point, even those conversations get handed over to Israel for analysis^W^W^W^W^W^Wstored as metadata "just in case".
 
Not that you're wrong about your final point. It's almost as if Snowden was intentional.

Big Data

[Anonymous Coward]

The result would be details of what he did: where he went, who he talked to, what he looked at, what he purchased — how he spent his day.

And with big data hitting the databases of Amazon (and every other retailer you shop), Google, credit cards, banks, credit bureaus, medical information bureau, IRS, .... they can find out just about anything they want about you.

When you turn off Ghostery, NoScript and AdBlock, it's pretty fucking eerie the ads that are placed on pages - and that's JUST the marketing people. Just image what the NSA can do!

Yep! Made fun of the Tin Foil hat wearers all those years and we're RIGHT!

Re:Big Data

[VortexCortex]

I recently opted out of Google targeted ads because of the interests it thought I liked. Among them: Women's Issues, Defense and Aerospace, Arts and Crafts, etc. I'm interested in Men's Issues (90%+ workplace deaths are males, 80%+ homeless are men, 40%+ of domestic abuse victims are male, and women are as violent or more so than men yet there are only "battered womens' shelters" no men's shelters), I don't really care about Defense just Space (why these are linked in their interests might be to fuzz defense nuts as possible space nuts? Maybe cryptography = defense?), I make inde games as a hobby but could give a fuck less about arts and cratfs... The list goes on and on -- over 20 interests, 5 were half right, the rest were just WAY off base.

The shit they know is WRONG. And if this is any indication of the power of "big data" (a new buzword for Analytics) then I'm even more wary of what the NSA thinks they can glean from their aggregate bullshit. With the things I research for my fictional writing & game plots, and my outspoken stance on government accountability, anti-war posts, and patent/copyright reform, etc. they probably think I'm a terrorist, when in reality, I would sooner die than kill another sentient being.

The road to despotism is paved with absolutist notions. Do not try to create absolute security, that is impossible. This complete intolerance for risk is ridiculous and destructive. You have more risk of heart attack or automobile accident than terrorist attack.... The funding should be in tastier health food, not killing brown people and spying on every citizen. Of course the message to the people is one of protection from drummed up threat. The reality is that those doing the spying know their ends can't fit the means; They have completely other set of agendas, and practically have to manufacture offenders to prove they're protecting you. Only thing you could really do with the data on that scale is controlling the world's financial markets. Protip: the CIA and other black-ops are funded not by tax money primarily, but by investments via shell corps...

You don't have anything to fear, citizen, unless you use uncontrollable currencies, like bitcoins, or develop new cryptographic ciphers, or use untrackable data transfers.

Truth is, I live not in fear of terrorists, but in fear of being hit by a bus or disappeared by a black van... I refuse to NOT post things online that could be taken the wrong way. Fuck 'em. Live free or Die, I say, like an American of braver times.

Additionally, my websites know when you're using Ghostery, NoScript, and AdBlock, or user agent spoofers, fingerprint normalizers, etc. Your use of these damn near perfectly profiles the kind of user you are... I just use the data to serve you the page for a downloadable game instead of the WebGL or flash version, but others could do much more...

Re:Big Data

[Burz]

Additionally, my websites know when you're using Ghostery, NoScript, and AdBlock, or user agent spoofers, fingerprint normalizers, etc. Your use of these damn near perfectly profiles the kind of user you are... I just use the data to serve you the page for a downloadable game instead of the WebGL or flash version, but others could do much more...

Yeah, but people using the Tor browser bundle pretty much all look the same.

Re:Big Data

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they don't. There was a story few days back that they can get the patterns and differentiate between the users

So in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

metadata is data?

Re:So in other words...

[jedidiah]

Enough to choke SQLite with if you have a big enough media horde to throw at Plex or XBMC.

Putting that "meta" prefix on the front doesn't make it any less interesting.

Re:So in other words...

[Zero__Kelvin]

Since metadata is data about data nobody ever questioned if metadata was data. The argument was that it wasn't important data. Of course, the simple question: If it isn't important data, then why gather it? seems to elude most people even to this day.

Re:So in other words...

[gVibe]

Wholeheartedly agree!! Think of it like skimming only the headlines until you find a story that interests you. Then you click and read...except for the NSA, its click and catalogue.

Re:So in other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since metadata is data about data nobody ever questioned if metadata was data. The argument was that it wasn't important data. Of course, the simple question: If it isn't important data, then why gather it? seems to elude most people even to this day.

Uh, so how else would you locate the important data? Hello, is anybody home?

Re:So in other words...

[Zero__Kelvin]

You certainly couldn't do it with that data. Haven't you heard, it's not important. If it was data that was necessary in some way, that would make it important, but it isn't important, remember, so you couldn't possibly use it for that purpose.

" Hello, is anybody home?"

Evidently not at your "house".

Give people time...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's gonna take awhile for everyone to get upto speed on this whole 'spying on everyone' thing.
Heck just 5 years ago if you made the statement 'the goverment is spying on all of us'. You'd get some sort of response involving tinfoil and hats even tho it was 100% true 5 years ago as it is today.

And now... People are starting to realize it wasn't just crazy tinfoil hat ramblings... Give them some time and they'll wise up. Somewhat...
Nother 10 years we might be able to even start fixing the problem. But i wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Give people time...

[Ralph Wiggam]

Heck just 5 years ago if you made the statement 'the goverment is spying on all of us'. You'd get some sort of response involving tinfoil and hats

I read this all the time and it's just not true.

In 2006, the front page of the New York Times detailed how the NSA was copying basically all internet traffic right from the backbone. At the time it was seen as a confirmation of what basically everyone had suspected for decades. Obviously if they were gathering all of that data, they were doing something with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Re:Give people time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing will happen .. Since noone's moving , and we all know the only way things would change in Washington is the People walking on the capital by the tens of millions , and even then , true change would doubtfully happen . It's too late to change anything now. They have all the power they need , they got the machinery and the people , they even got secret laws and courts .. Nothing will take away their power now but using brute force and taking power from them. There's no way that people will be freed from the tyranny but by taking the power by force from those who have it now and will never let go unless they are taken out by force. It's too late now to wake up .. Maybe you can try that walk on Washington .. but politicians don't care about the People , whoever they are or whatever party they may be. You guys in the US are screwed . Too late , Big Brother has won.

Re:Give people time...

[Anonymous Coward]

He means from normal people. You know, unintelligent pieces of trash.

Re:Give people time...

[Burz]

It's gonna take awhile for everyone to get upto speed on this whole 'spying on everyone' thing.
Heck just 5 years ago if you made the statement 'the goverment is spying on all of us'. You'd get some sort of response involving tinfoil and hats even tho it was 100% true 5 years ago as it is today.

Yes, and we need a name for this kind of person with the very serf-ish, banal, pro-establishment social imagination. Denier seems almost too mild.

Re:Give people time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Denier seems almost too mild.

Denying is the way to cope with dangers one cannot avoid.

We - people - use it all the time. When driving: accidents won't happen to me. With government spying on people: I have nothing to hide.

Denial is the luxury of not having to deal with the risks.

When in prison, there is no denial that you're inside one. With the Snowden/Greenwald revelations, the people are robbed of their illusion that it did not matter to them. Now people are forced to accept the new reality. And forced to find new ways to cope with the risks. That's the reason for the outrage.

Re:Give people time...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

If you really want to get people to wake up and realize what is happening you need to get to and annoy those in power, request the meta data gathered on your elected representatives, all of them, by filing FOIAs. That will get the politicians up in arms about this and they can do something about it. It might also be helpful to do the same for TV and radio personalities who down play this information collection. Then submit some letters to the editor of local papers announcing this and encouraging others to do the same. You would see this issue becoming a major non partisan issue with all opposed to it.

Re:Give people time...

[Ralph Wiggam]

How charmingly elitist of you.

The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1979, the US Supreme Court ruled that collection of this metadata did not contitute a search.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, while they did say that collecting metadata did not constitute a search, they have never said that putting someone under surveillance was a search either. The police do not need a search warrant to follow you around. In 1979, when the Supreme Court made the ruling in question, the metadata available was no more thorough than a police officer could obtain by following you around. Since that time, things have changed significantly. If a lawyer argued the case correctly, they could convince the court that it could overturn the precedent without having to find that the original ruling was a mistake.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[ZombieBraintrust]

In 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled that the police needed a warrant to track your car with a GPS. That attaching a device to your car was a trespass.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[intermodal]

The fundamental difference between this and the Smith case is that the agencies had to do their own recording to accomplish it, as opposed to demanding (and getting, whether coerced, cooperative, or compelled) records. I have been saying for weeks that the most disturbing part of this is that even if your data is handed over by the telcos, you have no recourse because the documents searched were not yours in the first place. Even with the fourth amendment.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[WillAffleckUW]

In 1979, the US Supreme Court ruled that collection of this metadata did not contitute a search.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Yes, but SCOTUS also is so insane they think Corporations are People when corporations predate the Constitution and were NEVER MENTIONED IN IT ONCE.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Using that logic, call metadata (including location where the calls are made from) info also requires warrant, because one can deduce a lot about the movement.

The thing is that USSC ruling was made when most of the public did not know about the scale about the magnitued and reach of boundless surveilance.

In retrospective, FISA court "ruling" and USSC ruling are contradicting each other.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

The police do not need a search warrant to follow you around.

They don't need a warrant, but they DO need a reason.

while they did say that collecting metadata did not constitute a search

No, that's not what they said. Nowhere was the phrase "metadata" used. What they said was that you did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the numbers you dialed, because you told the phone company by dialing them. The term "metadata" is not defined legally anywhere, which is why the politicians keep using it.
You're also ignoring the fact that there are laws specifically dealing with information collected by Telcos. Search the FCC page for "CPNI" if you want specifics, but put simply the phone company is not allowed to disclose your call details to anybody other than you without a warrant or court order.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1979, the US Supreme Court ruled that collection of this metadata did not contitute a search.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

Yes, but SCOTUS offtopic rant redacted

In 1979 they did NOT use the term "metadata". And in the 30 years since that decision, Congress has passed data protections laws which make it so they DO need a warrant or court order in order to access a pen registry.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Tom]

Not only that, but there's also precedent that qualitative differences matter.

There are many cases where recording something is illegal even though my watching or listening it is perfectly legal, for example.

The officer following you around might be a similar case, and manual surveillance and database record keeping fall into entirely different legal categories.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[WillAffleckUW]

My point was they are insane.

Your point was you think that's ok.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but there's also precedent that qualitative differences matter.

Right there is the start of a uniquely American argument.

(Precedent is important in countries based on British common law, but is not universal.)

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is more a case of if a lawyer argued the case now they could likely convince a court to overturn the ruling. Back when the USSC made the ruling (1979) they were comparing to asking an operator "what numbers has this person called?" and the operator could choose to say "no" and then they would need a warrant. The problem is a pen register lacks any human at the corporation pondering the ethics, or looking at the shear volume of what is being asked for and saying "no". Since there is no longer a person making a decision, the basis of the decision is no longer valid.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Burz]

The police do not need a search warrant to follow you around.

This is also the definition of stalking, which a number of states have outlawed. Our police are supposed to heed civilian laws, but this is one of those subjects where they can be shown to be above the law.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Using that logic, call metadata (including location where the calls are made from) info also requires warrant, because one can deduce a lot about the movement.

No. There's a big difference between information you consent to provide and information they forcibly collect without your knowledge.

The police used the argument that they weren't collecting any information they couldn't have gotten just by following you around, but putting aside the issue of practicality, it's the method of collection that's intrusive. The information isn't at issue. They weren't collecting any information they couldn't have gotten by forcing you to let a police officer ride with you your vehicle, either.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Tom]

Right there is the start of a uniquely American argument.

In a comment about the USSC that shouldn't be surprising. Still a funny reply, usually I'm the one reminding people on /. that a lot of readers are - like me - not USAians. :-)

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled that the police needed a warrant to track your car with a GPS. That attaching a device to your car was a trespass.

... because of the trespass. That has nothing to do with observing where you go through whatever other means.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[ZombieBraintrust]

The point is that the data they collected is not important. What is important is the trespass. It doesn't matter what data they collect. What matters is the means they used to get the data.

Re:The USSC has said otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

Uniquely American, yet based in British common law. I think you need to read what you write.

Metadata

[LoraxLobster0202]

Metada is as private as the contents is. However, I can't loose the the feeling, that somehow entire debate is being spun as if society "accepts" that metadata does not matter. It matters. The thing is that if existing law would be followed " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", then most of NSA would be out of work. The Irony is that one, merely mentioning his rights is automatically classified as potential terroris http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ridiculous-dhs-list-you-might-be-domestic-ter

Re:Metadata

[DutchUncle]

"Normal" people can be swayed by a technical-term-sounding difference, because they don't understand the difference. You know them, the sort of people who say "That's just semantics" without understanding that they are saying "That's just the REAL MEANING of the words".

Re:Metadata

[intermodal]

problematically, the records are not ours. They belong to the telcos, and the telcos are legally welcome to share them with anyone they please. I'd love to see new protections to the contrary.

Re:Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

problematically, the records are not ours. They belong to the telcos, and the telcos are legally welcome to share them with anyone they please. I'd love to see new protections to the contrary.

100% Wrong.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/protecting-your-telephone-calling-records

Re:Metadata

[intermodal]

I wish that really applied here. The problem is, they're not giving them YOUR data. They're giving them ALL data. It's unfortunate, but the law still pretends that your legal name is your only name, rather than the understanding you and I have that your name, social security number, email address, telephone number(s), browser ID, the hash associated with your account, and every username you have ever had are also your "name" for all intents and purposes these days. but only a few of those are actually protected accordingly.

I ChOoSe FrEe WiLl

[Anonymous Coward]

aNd yOu mUsT dO aS i dO oR eLSe

Or else what

eXaCTly

Conform or be cast out

eXaCTly

 

US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

The President of the United states refuses to divulge his visitor lists claiming that it might divulge privileged information. This has been going on for years under presidents of both parties. Visitor lists are metadata (who he talked to, not what they talked about). If the president recognizes his metadata is confidential, how can he claim other peoples' metadata is not confidential?

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Deluvianvortex]

because his has their names and other identifying information. Ours is just length of calls to anonymous numbers.

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously proposing the NSA doesn't have some sort of DB (or realtime access to the telco's own DB) of reverse phone-number lookups? Once the have the source + destination numbers, there's no reason to expect they wouldn't also be able to correlate those with individuals instantly (or at least to households).

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

No telephone number is anonymous unless it is to a prepaid cell phone that was bought with cash. Even that simply does not identify the speaker on said telephone.

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

because his has their names and other identifying information. Ours is just length of calls to anonymous numbers.

Numbers are not anonymous to the NSA. At least most of them are not. Would the President be willing to assign a number to a visitor and release those logs? That way you can see person 319 visited 8 times this week?

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

Even I have that database for landlines. You can get a copy too with just a few downloads and a simple perl script.

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[sconeu]

Hey, if he (and his visitors) have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.

At least that's what the .gov keeps telling us...

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure. Are you Funny +1 or Sadly Delusional -1

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Anonymous Coward]

It could go deeper than that though. If they wanted to they can pull the video from the convenience store, the video from the atm, plate scans from cops in the area at the time, etc.etc.etc. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they could get matches from voiceprint analysis against a database of high value targets. The stuff of tinfoil-hatter's dreams is today's reality!

Re:US President Hides His Metadata

[Bob the Super Hamste]

This is why we as citizens should request the metadata that was collected on all of our elected representatives. It would probably be a like a giant brown note for all of them and something might actually change then.

I propose Americans get metadata for politicians

[JoeyRox]

If the NSA collecting metadata on Americans isn't such a big deal then I propose the metadata for all politicians be posted on a publicly accessible website. I'm particularly interested in the phone records between Congress and K Street.

Shut up, Bruce...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and convince whatever journalists you're consulting with to start releasing reports with more technical details.

Not just the NSA

[ThatAblaze]

People seem to be losing sight of the fact that it isn't only the NSA that is doing this tracking. Europe and China are both huge on tracking, they just haven't had this kind of public leak. So, while the question of which US Constitutional Amendment has been breached is a good question, it doesn't address the larger picture question: Where do we, as citizens of whichever country, draw the line and force our governments to stop?

Re:Not just the NSA

[SirGarlon]

Far to the left of where our governments want it drawn. ;-)

Re:Not just the NSA

[SirGarlon]

We don't care what China and Europe are doing.

Speak for yourself. The Slashdot audience is global and the problem is global.

a few thousand people killed 12 years ago did not give the government of the USA the right to start using the Constitution for toilet paper

Quite right: an apathetic public gave the government the ability (not the right) to violate its founding principles. The terrorist attacks were a pretext to accelerate the trend, not the real reason.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to be losing sight of the fact that it isn't only the NSA that is doing this tracking. Europe and China are both huge on tracking, they just haven't had this kind of public leak. So, while the question of which US Constitutional Amendment has been breached is a good question, it doesn't address the larger picture question: Where do we, as citizens of whichever country, draw the line and force our governments to stop?

Let's leave China aside for a moment shall we? We can all jump on them afterwards. Europe does not, as a whole (UK peons of NSA are not EU mandated. Germany are a band of arsebandits in constant search of a convenient arse) condone or engage in this kind of perverse interest in the affairs of its citizens.

Re:Not just the NSA

[digsbo]

I don't think it's the left/right axis. Communism is left. Communism is also authoritarian. It's the authoritarian/libertarian axis that you're interested in here.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism is also authoritarian. It's the authoritarian/libertarian axis that you're interested in here.

Communism isn't authoritarian, Authoritarianism is. On paper, communism couldn't be authoritarian - it's arguably closer to democracy than even the ideal American state was. But that's on paper - in reality it's used by those desiring power to implement something completely different.

There's many schools of 'libertarian' (which should really be stated as Anarchism) communism, such as anarcho-communism. Marx was, ultimately, and Anarchist/Libertarian.

Re:Not just the NSA

[meta-monkey]

You're confusing economic systems with political systems. One could institute a communist democracy by voting on how resources are used.

Re:Not just the NSA

[fredprado]

By its own nature Communism cannot be achieved by anything other than Authoritarianism, even in theory.

Re:Not just the NSA

[fredprado]

Nah. It doesn't matter if the power is acquired by a coup or by democratic vote if all political and economic power are state controlled. In this case you will still have Authoritarianism, because those in power will very very quickly find a way to remain in power forever, abusing the power democratically entrusted to them. Hitler was a very clear example of this.

Re:Not just the NSA

[reboot246]

It's the democratic vote that's the culprit. Democracy never works in practice. That's what our founders were trying to avoid in establishing the United States as a representative republic.

That's why the country is in so much trouble today. We've forgotten (or more probably intentionally dumbed down) that we're not a democracy.

Though most of you probably don't like the John Birch Society, here is a brilliant piece on the difference between republics and democracies.
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

Re:Not just the NSA

[dryeo]

And yet many hunter gatherer societies were communistic as well as various modern communes, kibbutzes and such. The problem with communism is the lack of government creates a vacuum that is often filled by authoritarians, especially once the communistic society grows bigger then where everyone knows each other.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

In most democratic states, there are two forms of decisions: the ones made by elected officials, and the ones made by corporate leaders. Ideally, democratic elections should ensure that the first kind of decision is in line with what the people want; while the second kind of decision is usually dominated by a rich and powerful individuals. In theory, the point of communism is to move power from the second group to the first group, and therefore transfer power from the minority to the majority. How is this authoritarianism?

However, I agree that in practice, nobody has been able to create this non-authoritarian communist state, and I'm not convinced that there will ever be such a state. Lenin himself believed that the authoritarian state was a necessary transition phase on the road to the ideal state, but like every other communist state, the Soviet union got stuck in this "temporary" phase... I like this quotation about communism: "the right idea, but the wrong species."

Re:Not just the NSA

[ThatAblaze]

Europe does not, as a whole (UK peons of NSA are not EU mandated. Germany are a band of arsebandits in constant search of a convenient arse) condone or engage in this kind of perverse interest in the affairs of its citizens.

That is certainly what they want you to believe. The same thing was said about USA 6 months ago, and anyone who claimed differently was often called a conspiracy nut. I assure you that 80% of the governments in Europe are engaging in hardcore surveillance against the population's wishes. However, until/unless there is a leak I can't prove it to you.

Re:Not just the NSA

[meta-monkey]

I'd be fine with a democracy. Just make a rule that it takes a 60% vote to pass a law and a 30% vote to repeal one.

I'm just not a fan of the authoritarian fascist system we have now.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Pfhorrest]

Authoritarianism has nothing to do with how many people are holding the reigns, it has to do with how heavy a yoke is laid upon each person.

In other words: both a single dictator and a supermajority can pass and enforce laws trampling on the rights of every individual in the society. You might argue that the supermajority is less likely to do that, but liberty/authority dichotomy is about whether or not that kind of law is passed, not about how many people approved the passing of that law.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir Garlan,

the nsa did not carry out, and was not complicit with the WTC demolition. it were them izrayleeeeez. /. readers, metadata is great for record-keeping and archiving, for the 1st and 2nd parties. when the government (or its private-contractor profiteeeeers) violates peoples privacy, that is unacceptable. metadata itself is not to blame, its the violators.

Re:Not just the NSA

[fredprado]

Oh they weren't ever communistic. There was always the boss, the chieftain, the witch doctor, who had power over others and used his authority to get privileges and rule the rest. There is no register of ANY human society were people lived in equality and weren't eventually violently bossed by someone or some group.

Re:Not just the NSA

[fredprado]

Your hopes are misplaced, my friend. Socialism will always imply in restricting people economic freedom, and that will always lead to Totalitarianism. There is no other way, and all the experiments made in Human History show this. You can keep believing that the implementation that will make this flawed concept magically work hasn't come yet, but you will be just fooling yourself.

Re:Not just the NSA

[sFurbo]

In most democratic states, there are two forms of decisions: the ones made by elected officials, and the ones made by corporate leaders. Ideally, democratic elections should ensure that the first kind of decision is in line with what the people want; while the second kind of decision is usually dominated by a rich and powerful individuals.

That's a bit of a double standard, isn't it? The reasonable way to put it would either be "ideally, democratic elections should ensure that the first kind of decision is in line with what the majority wants, while market forces should ensure that the second kind is in line with what the individual wants" or "usually, the first kind of decision is dominated by powerful individuals, while the second kind is dominated by rich individuals". The first example also highlights how communism becomes authoritarian: While it is fine for the majority to decide that murder it not OK, it becomes authoritarian for the majority to decide whether people are allowed to eat cereal for breakfast.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go. That's a known example from Sweden. When this law was about pass through the Swedish parliament, the Pirate Party was protesting in the streets. However, even when Rick Falkvinge was reading parts of the then-draft of the law, nobody took them seriously because "this could never happen in a democracy".

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

What bearing does that have on the distinction between an economic system and a political power structure being ORTHOGONAL???

Communism has NOTHING to do with what political power makes policy decisions. Communism is an economic theory. -1 for derail, probably due to plain ignorance.

Re:Not just the NSA

[dryeo]

That's not always true. While you naturally get leaders, in a small society it can be simple respect that creates the leader, eg the best hunter leads the hunting expedition, the guy who is close to 70 years old probably learned a lot and such. People respect and listen to well respected people, even if they don't follow their advice. Look at cultures such as the Inuit.

Re:Not just the NSA

[fredprado]

That is a romantic and naive view of the world, my friend. Even if a small community manages to implement such a system it will be torn apart by internal or external forces. Either the strongest inside would take power and organize the society into an hierarchy, or they would be enslaved by those that did it.

And no, the Inuit were never communist. They may have some communist traits in their culture, but they did have private property. Only land was a shared resource mainly because land was plentiful and useless as they survived exclusively from hunting and fishing.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall where I read it, but someone posed the question about how many lives would be saved if we were to dump all the extra security and simply offer free blood pressure screenings at airports.

Re:Not just the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Godwin is dead." -- Nietzschewin

Re:Not just the NSA

[fredprado]

To be orthogonal two things must be completely independent from each other. Authoritarianism can exist without Communism, but Communism cannot exist without Authoritarianism and therefore cannot be considered orthogonal to it.

And no Communism is NOT a pure economic theory. Communism is a political ideology based on fantasized economic and social principles that do not exist in our world.

police

[Spaham]

You guys still haven't understood you lived in a police state ?
What's it gonna take ??

Re:police

[WillAffleckUW]

You guys still haven't understood you lived in a police state ?
What's it gonna take ??

When they start quartering troops (e.g. bots) in our houses (e.g. computers).

oh.

wait.

It's ironic

[ThatAblaze]

Does anyone else see the irony in that an article composed entirely of metadata about NSA spying (i.e. explanations of the implications of the data, rather than new data) is pointing out how harmful metadata itself can be?

Location data

[Hentes]

Cell information is basically location data. They may not collect what your talking about, but they do know where you were.

Metadata is Worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am actually more worried about the false positives created by using just metadata. For example before I got a regular job, I worked as a Freelance I.T. consultant. Okay, that sounds good on the resume but really I just went around helping people and super small businesses with minor computer problems advertised mostly through word of mouth and flyers. The word of mouth part being very important because I helped one guy who was a member of ultra right wing Christan church. Well, he thought I did a good job for reasonable pay and wasn't lefty pinko; so he put a few flyers up at the chruch which lead to several more jobs. So the metadata would I have shown I was member of this church. I never heard of any credible threat and I don't see them doing anything but still it just takes one guy off his meds....

the social graph colours all nodes

[epine]

Traffic analysis is the process of intercepting and examining messages in order to deduce information from patterns in communication. It can be performed even when the messages are encrypted and cannot be decrypted. In general, the greater the number of messages observed, or even intercepted and stored, the more can be inferred from the traffic.

The primary filter has always been traffic analysis. It constructs the social graph. I've heard that's worth something. An otherwise valueless company seems to trade on it.

Traffic analysis is what one can do effectively on a perversive scale. It puts the "focus" into focused intelligence, which would otherwise amount to extracting needles from haystacks concerning the detection of novel threats. Indeed, often the forest is worth more than the trees. The bits of business of an individual life are often less easy to read than a person's extended social footprint.

Fu..hrermore, in an electronic society where six degrees of separation is an overestimate by half, is there anyone in the population less secluded than a junior wife in a Mormon splinter town who couldn't be painted as a threat for having crossed digital paths with at least three shady characters over three decades of normal living?

The social graph colours all nodes. Does anyone think that members of the judicial oversight committee are required to bone up on Turing's use of log probability to establish meaningful discrimination thresholds?

Consider the four principal categories of metadata:
* who
* what
* when
* where

Looks harmless to me. What goes under "why"? Anything their little minds decide to write down.

Who: public school teacher
What: google search for "pressure cooker"
When: yesterday
What: google search for "backpack"
When: day before yesterday
Where: domestic residence, Springfield

Yet again, the metadata paints a compelling picture: moral turpitude. What could be more obvious among a law enforcement community prone to the syllogism that "I don't like the look on your face" equates to "disturbing the peace".

Checks and balances? Guess what? Metadata signs all cheques.

Re:the social graph colours all nodes

[amRadioHed]

Your "whats" aren't metadata, those are data. The metadata would be just the URL of the site you visited. Of course with the the web your metadata often contains data so it's hard to separate the two, but this whole metadata thing was about phone records anyway, so the point is moot.

Re:the social graph colours all nodes

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "whats" aren't metadata, those are data.

Data about other data. Which happens to be exactly what metadata is in the first place.

Re:the social graph colours all nodes

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "whats" aren't metadata, those are data.

CONTEXT, man, CONTEXT! "The Real Data" in this case (as self-servingly defined by the Powers That Be) refers to the HTTP body of web-pages you are retrieving.

Thus "metadata" involves the headers, your IP, when the request comes in, what URL it goes to, etc. This is analogous to how the words of a phone conversation are "the data" while the source/dest numbers and timing is metadata.

Re:the social graph colours all nodes

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, so change that to visiting "pressure cookers-R-us" and "backpacks-R-us"

The metadata is how we figure you out

[WillAffleckUW]

the metadata is how we figure you out.

the data is just the evidence when we finally put you in jail for thoughtcrimes.

Re:The metadata is how we figure you out

[wbr1]

You better doublethink that buddy.

The metadata is necessary for the furtherance of the war effort.

The data itself is a flexible as we rewrite it to be.

NSA Definition of Metadata and it's official usage

[wjcofkc]

Metadata can be abused as an ambiguous term, as we are seeing the NSA doing. I would like to hear the NSA definition of metadata in clear, no uncertain, and thorough terms. They are peddling the term to a populace that hasn't realized that by and large, they themselves don't know what it means. By saying "it's just metadata" that seems to be enough for much of the population to think what they are up to is benign without even knowing what it is, and I really don't understand why.

There's no reason to believe that it's only metada

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason to believe that they're only capturing metadata. There's no technical distinction between the "data" and "metadata", as it's all just a byte stream. And if the NSA has direct access to the byte stream, there's absolutely nothing keeping them from capturing the whole thing rather than parsing out and keeping just the headers (to/from, subject, etc.). Keep in mind that these are people who've already demonstrated that they're willing to lie to Congress, and even to fund their surveilance of the American people out of secret funds to keep them going when explicitly forbidden (and the program de-funded) by Congress. Compared to that, it's not hard to believe that they're lying again, because they know in their hearts that they're the "good guys" and that they have to break the rules to stop the "bad guys". And the fact that it's illegal, immoral and unconstitutional is, apparently, a technicality.

Re:NSA Definition of Metadata and it's official us

[Anonymous Coward]

Because although the American people don't want their conversations listened in on, they're not worried about the governemnt knowing who they called when.
That is all.

My rule of thumb

[PPH]

Metadata or not, here's the way I figure surveillance, espionage, wiretapping, etc.: If I can collect the data on some government officials and sell it to the Russians, Chinese, or North Koreans, its OK for them to collect it on me.

Bad analogy

[pbjones]

It's a bad example, you can see who you are following, metadata is blind, it does not know anything about the specific person, it just indicates patterns.

Never yield

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Politicians stole the word "metadata" from computer science, and declared it on-limits for warrantless spying. This is a sophistry, invented out of whole cloth.

The king of England would have used phone metadata to round up the Founding Fathers in quick order. Therefore government doesn't get to do this.

Stop government from building the tools of tyrrany to begin with. That is the meaning of the Constitution.

Re:Never yield

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop government from building the tools of tyrrany to begin with

How many more thousands of years will it take before we can admit that what you suggest is impossible?

Re:Never yield

[Burz]

+1,000 Good day to you!

Re:Never yield

[Anonymous Coward]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the United States does not have the right to act as a person.

Bruce's analogy is bad, because as a person I have the right to freedom of movement and expression, which gives me the right to follow people around and record what they do. An agent, acting in the official capacity of government, has no right to do anything, except exercise those powers specifically delegated to the United States as necessary to perform his duty to the United States. Considering this type of shadowing people and spying on commerce is specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as the acts of tyrrany by King George, I would make the obvious assumption that the power to arbitrarily spy on citizens is not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" and is therefore reserved.

Re:Never yield

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians stole the word "metadata" from computer science, and declared it on-limits for warrantless spying. This is a sophistry, invented out of whole cloth.

The king of England would have used phone metadata to round up the Founding Fathers in quick order. Therefore government doesn't get to do this.

Stop government from building the tools of tyrrany to begin with. That is the meaning of the Constitution.

You have things hopelessly backwards.

The 'rounding up of the Founding Fathers' part is what's wrong with that picture, not the collection of information.
I'm dead serious when I say what matters is what you or anybody _DOES_ with information that is right, wrong, and no matter how it was obtained.

Your focus on "tools of tyrrany" implies that in the absence of accurate information, the king of England wouldn't have been a tyrant. You are so dead wrong.

Re:I propose Americans get metadata for politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see the metadata on their (also 1st and 2nd degree relatives) financial transactions. Not the list of what they bought, just metadata, like the transaction origin, time and ammount is fine.

Have we forgotten WHY they want the metadata?

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know that the NSA is recording and monitoring every phone call and internet conversation. This has already been well documented. They don't START from the meta-data. They use it as a reverse lookup for the taps that they have already performed. All the phone calls, emails and web conversations arrive in their servers with only phone numbers, email and IP addresses. They listen to 100% of the conversations and then use the meta-data to attach a name to those that were 'of interest'. They request the meta-data once every few months in order to keep track of changes, but the phone and internet taps are comprehensive and in real time.

They have rifled through every house in the neighborhood but only look up the name of the individual after they find something. The FISA court then offers ex-post-facto 'probable cause' in order to attach a name to the discovery. This is exactly opposite the 4th amendment protection we assume we have.

Re:I propose Americans get metadata for politician

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Let's post all their calls with all donors, strategists, and members of the media.

If it's no big deal for people to know this, or abuse it .

Let's get scary...

[jasno]

I feel like what needs to happen is for all of us geeks to get off our collective asses and start companies which openly, agressively track people and sell that data to the public. For instance, start tracking license plates. Make the database searchable for $10 per query. Advertise it. Scare the hell out of people. Only then will enough calls make it to congressional phone lines.

Re:Let's get scary...

[dbc]

Good idea. All it would take is a reference design that can capture and upload license plate information, and contains the letters "duino" in its name. It will be an overnight sensation, mainly because of the "duino" part, but in any case I'm sure lots of folks would pay $10 to know where all their city's police cars are at the moment.

Re: Let's get scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an interesting idea. +3

That's what he gets....

[Anonymous Coward]

For breaking up with the Director's daughter :D

(Seriously though, given the stories you hear about cops, regardless of gender, doing that to their spouses, can you imagine what happens if you're in the right position and have the resources of the CIA or NSA backing you up and little to no legal supervision?) Anybody remember 'True Lies'? :D Now imagine that with an irate ex instead of a loving husband? Oh wait... what did he do to that used car salesman?

Don't you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

mail metadata, or public square discussions, or maybe even 'gentleman's club meetings'?

I think even telegraphs would be a bit of a stretch for the founding fathers :)

Re:I propose Americans get metadata for politician

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose going the other way... people complain about politicians... unless you seriously plan on changing the form of government, the solution would appear to be putting in better politicians. As running for public office is voluntary, why would you make the conditions worse, so that only the likes that would want to be on reality TV would want to sign up?

"Anonymous numbers"? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

calls to anonymous numbers

Associating those numbers to a human being the same way that a name-string links to a human being? As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable!

Not.

metadata! surveillance! bad!

[Anonymous Coward]

ironic that bruce's use of the word metadata is as arbitrary as his opponents in the government: the term is inherently meaningless without defining what "data" you're talking about. IP addresses are metadata relative to the application layer payload; but can be considered data relative to the metadata of MAC addresses. his blog post would be much more pertinent if it contained any new insight into how the collection of the specific telephony metadata amassed per 215 raises fourth amendment concerns.

This won't be popular

[msobkow]

This won't be a popular perspective, but I agree that metadata is not data.

It's like collecting the "from" addresses on the mail delivered to your door without opening the envelopes. They're not steaming open your letters, so it's legal.

The problem is that "legal" isn't necessarily moral. Especially given the sheer volume of meta data generated by the average internet-connected humanoid in modern times.

For one thing, I keep in touch with far more people and places using email than I ever did using snail mail. I used to get maybe 3-4 letters a year, a few magazines, and anonymous junk mail when I relied on snail mail for communications. In the electronic age, I keep in touch with several dozen friends, get newsletters from vendors and sometimes click on the links to read the articles they've published or subscribe to the online training they've offered, I broadcast emails to groups of friends (something I couldn't do with snail mail at all), and generally am far more connected via email alone than I ever was by snail mail or phone calls.

Add in the browsing meta data, and you start to get a painfully clear picture of my likes, dislikes, interests, and associations without ever diving into the details. When you consider that the NSA, CSEC, GCHQ, and others track not only my direct interests but n levels of indirection, and I end up associated with all kinds of distasteful figures that I'd never willingly associate with in real life, much less send a snail-mail letter to.

The only saving grace is the needle-in-a-haystack problem. The more meta data they collect, the bigger the haystack and the harder it is to find the needles buried within.

And the number of mass shootings and bombings in the US and around the world just proves that point. I've not seen it broadcast that they arrested anyone other than the VIA train plotters in Canada to date.

One instance where surveillance did what it should. Versus dozens of instances where it failed abysmally.

Re:This won't be popular

[msobkow]

As to the phone, in the internet age I call even fewer people than I ever did before. I've got maybe 4 friends I hear from throughout the course of the year by phone, other than that the only people I talk to are relatives and pollsters. So for me, personally, the CDR collection isn't a big deal.

Metadata, Smetadata

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a lad it was referred to as 'call detail records,' at least for phone calls. That's a far too honest term for the Nominal Security Agency, which disguises it with the pablum of 'metadata.' Of course, when I was a lad we had a press that aspired to something higher than mere stenography. Today, unfortunately, our media lapdogs are more interested in the latest tweaking twit than they are in fourth amendment violations.

Metadata is worse...

[OldSport]

...than listening to calls in detail. Crappy bitrate audio of conversational speech is very difficult to analyze with voice recognition, etc. However, simpler digital data can be churned through massive datacenters and with ease, resulting in detailed dossiers on anybody with a cell phone (which is everyone these days). People don't seem to realize just how much info can begleaned from metadata. Shit, I'm on the paranoid side an I bet I would be shocked by the info the NSA probably has on me.

Doesn't matter!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCOTUS has already determined that 'metadata' is fair game, and unless he can argue around that decision, his opinion is meaningless.

Metadata is data

[sabt-pestnu]

>This won't be a popular perspective, but I agree that metadata is not data.

You may view this merely as pedantic, but... metadata is data. Data about data. Thus the "meta".

It's just not considered "personal" data, just as you described.

TFA get a Captain Obvious award

[duke_cheetah2003]

I've been saying this all along. The metadata vastly more valuable than the content.

Bad analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perfectly legal to follow someone around in public, and record everything you see them doing in public, private investigators do this all the time.

The problem here is that the government is not a person or a citizen, and specifically doesn't have all the rights and privileges of citizens, or "US persons". The constitution grants certain rights to the government to do things "people" aren't allowed to do, and at the same time places limitations on what it can do that don't apply to regular people.

The fact that they are the government and have certain powers granted to them makes it extremely dangerous if they also seize powers granted to "the people", because the combination of powers of government and power of "the states or the people" is pretty much unbridled.

A PI can follow you round and collect intelligence on you when there is no law against it because they have the right to do anything that isn't outlawed. The government has no such right because they weren't specifically granted that right, and anything they weren't specifically granted the power to do, they have no right to do.

Re:I propose Americans get metadata for politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, as a private citizen you have this right. The government on the other hand does not.

You can think of it this way: you have the right to do everything that is not outlawed. The US government has the right to do only those things specifically granted to it by the constitution.

Re:Metadata is data ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY

[Anonymous Coward]

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY

Any geek, nerd or other slashdot denizen who starts out with such a stupid basic factual error has obviously drunk the Kool-Aid, or is too ignorant to be worth reading.

Anyone who says "it was not X, because Metadata is not data is simply ignorant or lying, or both. That includes Obama and his NSA minions and apolo-ratchiks.

Not just metadata.

[darkonc]

The NSA stores all encrypted communications until they can decrypt them -- How do you determine that (parts of) a call or communication is encrypted without downloading and processing the actual content of the connection?

A visit to the Holocaust museum and recent history

[Anonymous Coward]

So about a month ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Holocaust museum in Paris. At first, as a non-jew I felt disconnected from its history almost to the point of not making the visit... but in the end, I'm glad that I went... and now I recommend that everyone visit this museum, Jewish or not. As it pertains to this discussion, inside the innermost shrine there is what appears to be a card catalog of the type that you'd find in almost any library in the United States. Ordinary and unassuming in appearance, the casual onlooker at first might not grasp the ominous and ghastly nature of the catalog. The reality was however that as opposed to housing cards describing books, each card described the identity of a person. Later the cards would be used to round up Jews and other undesirables, pack them on trains, and send them to concentration camps where they would be killed.

Thus, the world witnessed information used as a weapon. So when "the authorities" talk about harmless meta-information, recognize that your cell phone and email records tell the authorities who you are, who you know, where you live, and where you were. In other words, turn back the clock a few decades and it becomes clear that the harmless meta information would have been the Nazi's wet dream to obtain if they could have years ago. Even if you trust this administration (and I don't know why you would) not to abuse its authority (despite the fact that it already has), there is no guaranty that a future administration wouldn't abuse its authority and misuse the information.

Perhaps at this point you may think that the Fascist Nazi' comparison is over the top, but even THIS GOVERNMENT understands the potential harm the information can cause because THEY EXPRESSED AS MUCH in their action against the online information broker industry in the mid 2000s. See FTC vs. 77 Investigations/Reginald Kimbro ( http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/pretextingsweep/77Investigations.shtm )

The argument that the FTC made against the online information broker industry was:

11. The invasion of privacy and security resulting from obtainingand selling confidential customer phone records without
the consumers' authorization causes substantial harm to consumers and the public, including, but not limited to, endangering the
health and safety of consumers. Consumers cannot reasonably avoid these lnjuries because Defendants' practices are entirely
invisible to them. The harm caused by Defendants' unauthorized access to and disclosure of confidential customer phone records
is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

The government knows that it is putting you in jeopardy. The very powers it rightfully denied the private sector it accumulated for itself
despite having recognized the harm it was doing. That it claims a need to snoop on the lives of Americans in order to protect them
is a false argument because the 4th Amendment doesn't deny them the right to snoop. It denies them the right to snoop without a
warrant. The founding fathers knew what they were doing in this regard, it is a pity that so many in government have lost sight of the
importance of their accomplishments.

Re:I propose Americans get metadata for politician

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Fill out some FOIAs for your elected representatives. I now have a task for tonight and I will be writing to the local papers' letters to the editor sections letting them know that this has been done as it won't matter if no one knows.

Hardcore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like, bedroom cams?

Europe is kinky.

In time, the computer will get better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, there's an idea for a movie. Terminator-esque but instead of Skynet starting with the military and having access to a bunch of nukes and trying to kill off the human race, the computer in question starts as an advanced AI sorting data for the NSA. Eventually it is given the ability to send commands to human officers. Humans then go about believing they're getting rid of the "bad guys" while instead allowing the machine to supplant the government; anyone in the machine's way clearly is a terrorist according to report X or a monster according to report Y or a liberal according to report Z. Clearly dangerous. The [new] government then begins a program of "military modernization" and begins building an absurd number of drones for some reason.

Oh darn, I'm back to the going crazy and trying to kill humanity thing. Wait, didn't the Matrix say we could be batteries? Yay!

Is surveillance really the correct word?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does a bunch of data on some hard drive in some giant warehouse of computers really constitute surveillance if no human ever sees it? 99.99...% (to how many nines?) of this data is never seen by a human. It is impossible for the employees of an agency to observe more than the tiniest fraction of the data generated by the activities of the population of the planet.

Re:Is surveillance really the correct word?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. yes it does.

the mind boggles

[Anonymous Coward]

to call another person on a radio phone, the switching network needs to know
where the recipient is located.
obviously every radio phone needs to "phone home" and report its location
so it can be found / called.
also the company providing the antennas and switching gear and databases
won't do it for free, so they have to record every radio phones usage somewhere.
on the bill you can then double check if the company billed you correctly
by looking at the numbers you made calls to.
this also is in a database. ...
if the government doesn't want to this data, then only employees of the mobile
company can access this data.
how can a radio phone user know if an company employee is spying on her (8+)? they can't.
if the government gets involved (another guy sitting in the room), then maybe there is a chance that the young
girlfriend-less mobile phone company tech will be more cautious about looking up
location data of the latest elite model using a radio phone on their network (or they do it together).
-
you know the effect, you are less likely to kick the crap out of a mars bar vending machine
if there are other people around...

Ghostery/AdBlock/RequestPolicy = INFERIOR

[Anonymous Coward]

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C & load w/ OS + 1st net request resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits hosts files provide on numerous levels for speed, security, reliability, & anonymity = in link above)

---

* Makes hosts population (even w/subdomains) EASY via 12 reputable security community sources + saves up to 40% bandwidth on avg. per site page!

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk