Stanford Researchers Spot Medical Conditions, Guns, and More In Phone Metadata

An anonymous reader writes "Since the NSA's phone metadata program broke last summer, politicians have trivialized the privacy implications. It's 'just metadata,' Dianne Feinstein and others have repeatedly emphasized. That view is no longer tenable: Stanford researchers crowdsourced phone metadata from real users, and easily identified calls to 'Alcoholics Anonymous, gun stores, NARAL Pro-Choice, labor unions, divorce lawyers, sexually transmitted disease clinics, a Canadian import pharmacy, strip clubs, and much more.' Looking at patterns in call metadata, they correctly diagnosed a cardiac condition and outed an assault rifle owner. 'Reasonable minds can disagree about the policy and legal constraints,' the authors conclude. 'The science, however, is clear: phone metadata is highly sensitive.'"

Comments

"Metadata" is the important stuff

[davecb]

Who you are, who you're talking to, where you are, where they are and how fast you're moving if you're changing cells.

Re:"Metadata" is the important stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter what it is describing; if it has information in it, it is "data." We should be calling it what it is. It is data about what people are doing. Calling it "metadata" only helps to obscure the issue.

Re:"Metadata" is the important stuff

[blueg3]

The holdover of calling it "metadata" is a little odd.

All metadata is, naturally, data. That's not the odd part; people should know that.

It's reasonable to call it "phone call metadata". That's what it is. That indicates that it is not the content of the calls, but it's other data about the calls. So in the context of phone calls, it's metadata, because it's not the phone call content itself. Once it's separated from that context, it's just "data".

Saying "it's just metadata" makes no sense at all, since the "meta-" part give you no information about the data's value.

Re:"Metadata" is the important stuff

[Sockatume]

For "metadata" read "your entire itemised phone bill". I think the layperson will grasp the implications of giving those to the NSA.

Re:"Metadata" is the important stuff

[rmdingler]

For "metadata" read "your entire itemised phone bill". I think the layperson will grasp the implications of giving those to the NSA.

I would sure like to believe you are correct, but I fear the layperson is much too busy (working to pay bills) to pay attention.

I do some random informal polling amongst the working class, my people, and even the most cerebrally capable lack either the will or the investment of time necessary to understand they're slowly boiling the water we're all in.

I am afraid those of us with inclination will have to speak a little louder to cover for our silent brothers and sisters.

Of course...

[msobkow]

Of course it's sensitive and provides "useful" information. If it didn't provide any information, they wouldn't bother collecting it.

Stazi. NSA. CIA. CSEC. GCHQ.

All the same animal, just different flags.

Hypocrite

[GoCrazy]

Dianne Feinstein is the same senator who complained that the CIA searched congress's computers.

It was obvious before that it was a violation of privacy, this is just an illustration. Do you think politicians will care if it doesn't have anything to do with them?

Re:Reasonable minds?

[Anonymous Coward]

THE Muslims want to kill and subdue us? All of them?

With such broad generalized accusations, you are a much greater danger to freedom than the average Muslim is. Specifically you seem to be defending your freedom by pissing it away.

Re:Let The Light shine In

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. There is nothing wrong with everyone knowing everything about everyone IF nobody will use such knowledge for malicious activities, nor to judge and/or segregate people into groups based on their preferences. I wouldn't mind people knowing which porn genre I prefer if they wouldn't treat me different for it. I'm sure many transsexuals wouldn't mind other people knowing that they are if people would just treat them as human beings just like any other.

The biggest issue with all information being public is that any deviation from social norm is usually met with hostility, instead of curiosity, thought, acceptance that not everyone thinks the same and that not all deviation is "bad".

Re:What people seem to forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's so useless, then why are they collecting it under the guise of preventing terrorism? It has some use, and obviously, they're able to identify people if they want.

I'm just saying that fears of metadata abuse are overexaggerated.

It's really not.

Re:Let The Light shine In

[jythie]

It is almost worth having all my other comments nulled out just to mod this up. This is exactly the problem with information being too public. In an ideal world we would all have nothing to hide, but in reality stereotypes and biases are rampant, with plenty of people perfectly happy to make your life miserable for failing to conform to norms they hold.

Re:Griswold vs Connecticut

[Zak3056]

Importantly, there's no explicit "right to privacy" in the US Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sure sounds a hell of a lot like "privacy" to me. Of course, an "explicit" right to privacy is not required, it's already guaranteed by those pesky 9th and 10th amendments.

Re:Outed?

[Archangel Michael]

You don't hate guns. You hate the people who own guns. Hating guns is illogical as hating chairs or hats or the air you breathe. They are inanimate objects and if you "hate" them, then you're clearly unable to deal with reality.

That being said, you don't hate guns, you hate "we the people" having guns. As a liberal, forcing people to join your collective under threat of government guns is what you depend upon. Your support of Government owning guns, is very likely. You likely support army, police and other national security people owning and bearing guns, even to protect the President (Republican OR Democrat) and high ranking officials like Feinstein, Reid and so on.

I have YET to meet a "gun hating democrat" that wants to disarm EVERYONE (including the government). Therefore, you don't hate guns. You hate average people having guns. And that speaks higher volumes about your hypocrisy than anything else.

Re: Outed?

[Archangel Michael]

We're well and truly fucked!!

FTFY

When Feinstein was okay with NSA spying on Americans we were fucked. Now that that chicken came home and roosted upon her doorstep, she is suddenly "offended". Where was that outrage when it didn't affect her. She is a hypocrite of the highest order. ANYONE who supports her at this point is the problem, regardless of how she votes on every other issue.