Slashdot Mirror
It's Trivially Easy To Identify You Based On Records of Your Calls and Texts (dailydot.com)
Reader erier2003 shares an article on Daily Dot: Contrary to the claims of America's top spies, the details of your phone calls and text messages -- including when they took place and whom they involved -- are no less revealing than the actual contents of those communications. In a study published online Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Stanford University researchers demonstrated how they used publicly available sources -- like Google searches and the paid background-check service Intelius -- to identify "the overwhelming majority" of their 823 volunteers based only on their anonymized call and SMS metadata. The results cast doubt on claims by senior intelligence officials that telephone and Internet "metadata" -- information about communications, but not the content of those communications -- should be subjected to a lower privacy threshold because it is less sensitive. Contrary to those claims, the researchers wrote, "telephone metadata is densely interconnected, susceptible to reidentification, and enables highly sensitive inferences."IEEE has more details.
Land lines only. That was easy
And the slashdot theme for today is... rerunning the same stories that have been available for 20 years about online privacy because people are still as delusional as ever.
With thousands of agents with warrantless access, it will be trivial for a plant to track who a political opponent calls to flesh out their supporter network.
This will allow for mysterious IRS audits, in the worst case, or just rhetorical games to discredit people.
This is the reason government spy powers on citizens are supposed to be limited to warrants -- the goal was stopping those in power from harassing opponents.
The King of England would have traced phone call networks. And so the founding fathers would have banned it sans warrant.
The modern "metadata" concept is a complete unconstitutional fraud designed to pretend to honor this by asserting only the content of the call is private. Yet the connecting the dots is precisely and arguably more important.
Just get a damned warrant so it is all tracked and reviewed by elected officials.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Why this matters? Why is this important to anyone except Republican LUDDITE moo cow 9/11 Jews??? I'll get modded down to -1 for asking this because Slashdot users don't like answering important questions. But this needs to be asked, and I challenge any of you to give me a real answer rather than insulting me. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is up to the challenge.
I know a retard girl who already sucked 830 dicks trying to impress me. But the most impressive is that she falls more for a chat avatar rather than the person itself. So, even if I get money, I won't ride with your retarded daughter. Dop You see me in chats after that piece of shit that came from your diseased wife, for example?
The joke's on them, I never call or text anyone! No one wants to talk to me...
https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
We've known that the "b but it's just harmless metadata" lie is a lie for a long time.
Sorry - I don't answer A/C's. Incidentally, that's how you end up at minus one. TL;DR.
False positives will be devestating.
"We kill people based on metadata" -- Michael Hayden, former NSA chief, April 2014.
god help you if you don't have a properly filled out form 27b/6.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Contrary to the claims of America's top spies, the details of your phone calls and text messages -- including when they took place and whom they involved -- are no less revealing than the actual contents of those communications.
No less revealing? Really?
I might text a friend at 5pm to ask if he can help me move house. Or I might text him to ask if he can help me move a body.
I'd say content'd be pretty revealing in those cases.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
the details of your phone calls and text messages -- including when they took place and whom they involved -- are no less revealing than the actual contents of those communications
is plainly not true.
Make people aware that metadata is proven to *not* be anonymous; let them know they can be identified without ever looking at the contents of their communications.
But don't try to equate knowing who someone is and who they've talked to with knowing what they said.
Nothing posted to
They are far less revealing than the contents of the communications - but they are still very revealing.
No shit Sherlock.
When I call or text you my picture and name pop up.
Who cares? If it bothers you then use pen and paper and a tinfoil hat.
But yeah - if you do shady stuff, you are best off to not assume your postings can't identify you
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Most of us follow the same routines - e.g. call/text the same folks and take the same route to work each day. It's not hard to find out-of-bounds patterns. -T
Pay no attention to the Spook behind the curtain! They are merely analyzing your meta-data, which is most certainly not data! And we can't do a thing with it, we pinky swear. Really, we're not even sure why we spend billions of dollars on this stuff, it's all useless and certainly doesn't infringe on anyone's privacy!
The name and address are at the top of the form showing the records!
The metadata may be somewhat revealing, but not as much as the metadata AND the content of those communications.
When you make it just as difficult to get only the metadata, people will stop making a distinction and always get the more invasive option.