It's only "meta data," what's the problem?

[Anonymous]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-personal-information-does-phone-metadata-reveal/

NSA defenders, including Senator Feinstein, have minimized the NSA's collection of every Americans cell phone meta data. However, as the link reveals, the NSA can discover everything about you from that data.

Everything.

Are you comfortable with a stranger having so much information about you?

How does this intrusion fit with what you believe about our right to privacy in the US?

[Anonymous]

You have a right to privacy? You may want to, but it's not in the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have a right to privacy? You may want to, but it's not in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court disagrees. Griswold v. Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

I honestly don't care. If I did, then I probably wouldn't use technology. I assume that the government can access my information if my lifestyle touches "the grid" at all.

To draw an analogy, based on my choice to participate on this forum and post information, Jeff could probable gather a ton of information on me. Does this bother me? No, because no one is forcing me to use dcum. It is essentially his "grid". The same choice applies to all technology - users should educate themselves and participate with an understanding of what rights they are voluntarily giving up by doing so.

[Anonymous]

So they know who you called and when. So fucking what. If an NSA analyst were to ever look at your data, your pathetic life would no doubt bore him to tears, it'd probably be one of the most miserable jobs in the entire government.

[Anonymous]

metadata is one word

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-personal-information-does-phone-metadata-reveal/

NSA defenders, including Senator Feinstein, have minimized the NSA's collection of every Americans cell phone meta data. However, as the link reveals, the NSA can discover everything about you from that data.

Everything.

Are you comfortable with a stranger having so much information about you?

How does this intrusion fit with what you believe about our right to privacy in the US?

People discussing government surveillance frequently use Orwellian metaphors, and, at its most basic, government surveillance can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is a common response to things like this.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the only reason anyone would want privacy is because they have "something to hide," and it divides the world into two groups - those who don't want to be watched because they are doing something bad and those who are ok with being monitored because they aren't doing anything "bad" that they want to hide.

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it only views privacy as a form of secrecy. but the actual problem is deeper than that. An Orwellian metaphor requires a malevolent watcher. On the other hand, as anyone who has attempted to get a credit report corrected can tell you, Franz Kafka's The Trial may be more appropriate.

(If you haven't read it, Kafka's novel centers around a man who is arrested but not informed why. He desperately tries to find out what triggered his arrest and what's in store for him. He finds out that a mysterious court system has a dossier on him and is investigating him, but he's unable to learn much more. The Trial depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.)

The problems portrayed by the Kafka are of a different sort than those portrayed by Orwell. The problems relate to information processing—the storage, use, or analysis of data—rather than of information collection. They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. As Kafka presciently assessed, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones—indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability. Consider the fact that, according to this article, after 7 years only ONE person has managed to get himself removed from the government's Do Not Fly list. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/after-s...gets-off-the-govt-no-fly-list/)

The government won't disclose who is on the list and won't even disclose how big the list is.

According to an ACLU report, which cites a National Counterterrorism Center Fact Sheet, the "consolidated terrorist watchlist" contained about 875,000 names in December 2011, and the Terrorist Screening Center's watchlist has grown significantly over time, from approximately 158,000 records in June 2004 to over 1.1 million records in May 2009.

The ACLU also cites an AP report from February 2012 documenting that there were approximately 21,000 people on the no-fly list (including about 500 US citizens and permanent residents) and saying that the list had more than doubled in the previous year.

The problems of unfettered government data collection are much deeper than the Orwellian and are much more Kafkaesque.

Although personal information can reveal quite a lot about people's personalities and activities, it often fails to reflect the whole person. It can paint a distorted picture, especially since records are reductive—they often capture information in a standardized format with many details omitted.

For example, suppose government officials learn that a person has bought a number of books on how to manufacture LSD. That information makes them suspect that he's a drug dealer. However, the real truth is that the person is writing a novel about a character who makes LSD. When he bought the books, he didn't consider how suspicious the purchase might appear to government officials, and his records didn't reveal the reason for the purchases. Should he have to worry about government scrutiny of all his purchases and actions? Should he have to be concerned that he'll wind up on a suspicious-persons list? Even if he isn't doing anything wrong, he may want to keep his records away from government officials who might make faulty inferences from them. He might not want to have to worry about how everything he does will be perceived by officials nervously monitoring for criminal activity. He might not want to have a computer flag him as suspicious because he has an unusual pattern of behavior.

Our privacy is not being lost in one fell swoop, but our privacy is being eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone.

When the government starts monitoring the metadata around the phone numbers people call, many may shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah, it's just numbers, that's all."

Then the government might start monitoring some phone calls. "It's just a few phone calls, nothing more. They're welcome to listen to me talk to Aunt Edna."

The government might install more video cameras in public places. "So what? Some more cameras watching in a few more places. No big deal." The increase in cameras might lead to a more elaborate network of video surveillance. Satellite surveillance might be added to help track people's movements. The government might start analyzing people's bank rec­ords. "It's just my deposits and some of the bills I pay—no problem. I have nothing to hide." The government may then start combing through credit-card records, then expand to Internet-service providers' records, health records, employment records, and more. Each step may seem incremental, but after a while, the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.

"My life's an open book," people might say. "I've got nothing to hide." But now the government has large dossiers of everyone's activities, interests, reading habits, finances, and health. What if the government leaks the information to the public? Should that information be subject to FOIA requests? Should it be subject to subpoena in a divorce case (for example, license plate reader data collected by local police departments could be very handy for that).

What if the government mistakenly determines that based on your pattern of activities, you're likely to engage in a criminal act? What if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd—even if you've done nothing wrong—and freezes your accounts? What if the government doesn't protect your information with adequate security, and an identity thief obtains it and uses it to defraud you? And what if, as in the case of the No Fly List and the other terrorist watch lists, the government will neither confirm nor deny that you are on the list?

Even if you have nothing to hide, the government can cause you a lot of harm.

[Anonymous]

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-personal-information-does-phone-metadata-reveal/

NSA defenders, including Senator Feinstein, have minimized the NSA's collection of every Americans cell phone meta data. However, as the link reveals, the NSA can discover everything about you from that data.

Everything.

Are you comfortable with a stranger having so much information about you?

How does this intrusion fit with what you believe about our right to privacy in the US?

People discussing government surveillance frequently use Orwellian metaphors, and, at its most basic, government surveillance can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is a common response to things like this.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the only reason anyone would want privacy is because they have "something to hide," and it divides the world into two groups - those who don't want to be watched because they are doing something bad and those who are ok with being monitored because they aren't doing anything "bad" that they want to hide.

The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it only views privacy as a form of secrecy. but the actual problem is deeper than that. An Orwellian metaphor requires a malevolent watcher. On the other hand, as anyone who has attempted to get a credit report corrected can tell you, Franz Kafka's The Trial may be more appropriate.

(If you haven't read it, Kafka's novel centers around a man who is arrested but not informed why. He desperately tries to find out what triggered his arrest and what's in store for him. He finds out that a mysterious court system has a dossier on him and is investigating him, but he's unable to learn much more. The Trial depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses people's information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.)

The problems portrayed by the Kafka are of a different sort than those portrayed by Orwell. The problems relate to information processing—the storage, use, or analysis of data—rather than of information collection. They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives.

Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered. As Kafka presciently assessed, the problem is not inhibited behavior but rather a suffocating powerlessness and vulnerability created by the court system's use of personal data and its denial to the protagonist of any knowledge of or participation in the process. The harms are bureaucratic ones—indifference, error, abuse, frustration, and lack of transparency and accountability. Consider the fact that, according to this article, after 7 years only ONE person has managed to get himself removed from the government's Do Not Fly list. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/after-s...gets-off-the-govt-no-fly-list/)

The government won't disclose who is on the list and won't even disclose how big the list is.

According to an ACLU report, which cites a National Counterterrorism Center Fact Sheet, the "consolidated terrorist watchlist" contained about 875,000 names in December 2011, and the Terrorist Screening Center's watchlist has grown significantly over time, from approximately 158,000 records in June 2004 to over 1.1 million records in May 2009.

The ACLU also cites an AP report from February 2012 documenting that there were approximately 21,000 people on the no-fly list (including about 500 US citizens and permanent residents) and saying that the list had more than doubled in the previous year.

The problems of unfettered government data collection are much deeper than the Orwellian and are much more Kafkaesque.

Although personal information can reveal quite a lot about people's personalities and activities, it often fails to reflect the whole person. It can paint a distorted picture, especially since records are reductive—they often capture information in a standardized format with many details omitted.

For example, suppose government officials learn that a person has bought a number of books on how to manufacture LSD. That information makes them suspect that he's a drug dealer. However, the real truth is that the person is writing a novel about a character who makes LSD. When he bought the books, he didn't consider how suspicious the purchase might appear to government officials, and his records didn't reveal the reason for the purchases. Should he have to worry about government scrutiny of all his purchases and actions? Should he have to be concerned that he'll wind up on a suspicious-persons list? Even if he isn't doing anything wrong, he may want to keep his records away from government officials who might make faulty inferences from them. He might not want to have to worry about how everything he does will be perceived by officials nervously monitoring for criminal activity. He might not want to have a computer flag him as suspicious because he has an unusual pattern of behavior.

Our privacy is not being lost in one fell swoop, but our privacy is being eroded over time, little bits dissolving almost imperceptibly until we finally begin to notice how much is gone.

When the government starts monitoring the metadata around the phone numbers people call, many may shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah, it's just numbers, that's all."

Then the government might start monitoring some phone calls. "It's just a few phone calls, nothing more. They're welcome to listen to me talk to Aunt Edna."

The government might install more video cameras in public places. "So what? Some more cameras watching in a few more places. No big deal." The increase in cameras might lead to a more elaborate network of video surveillance. Satellite surveillance might be added to help track people's movements. The government might start analyzing people's bank rec­ords. "It's just my deposits and some of the bills I pay—no problem. I have nothing to hide." The government may then start combing through credit-card records, then expand to Internet-service providers' records, health records, employment records, and more. Each step may seem incremental, but after a while, the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.

"My life's an open book," people might say. "I've got nothing to hide." But now the government has large dossiers of everyone's activities, interests, reading habits, finances, and health. What if the government leaks the information to the public? Should that information be subject to FOIA requests? Should it be subject to subpoena in a divorce case (for example, license plate reader data collected by local police departments could be very handy for that).

What if the government mistakenly determines that based on your pattern of activities, you're likely to engage in a criminal act? What if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd—even if you've done nothing wrong—and freezes your accounts? What if the government doesn't protect your information with adequate security, and an identity thief obtains it and uses it to defraud you? And what if, as in the case of the No Fly List and the other terrorist watch lists, the government will neither confirm nor deny that you are on the list?

Even if you have nothing to hide, the government can cause you a lot of harm.

This is a good argument! But in reality, regardless of what laws are on the books, what prevents the government or private industry try from collecting this with or without your knowledge or consent?

[Anonymous]

Snowdens.

[Anonymous]

Oh, please. The private sector surveils average Americans far more than the government does. They know your most intimate personal habits and information - where you live, where you work, your shopping habits, your medical issues, what size clothes you wear, what your vices are, your sexual orientation and habits, the places you go, who your friends and family are, what organizations you are involved in, et cetera et cetera et cetera....

That kind of blows away the whole "privacy" issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please. The private sector surveils average Americans far more than the government does. They know your most intimate personal habits and information - where you live, where you work, your shopping habits, your medical issues, what size clothes you wear, what your vices are, your sexual orientation and habits, the places you go, who your friends and family are, what organizations you are involved in, et cetera et cetera et cetera....

That kind of blows away the whole "privacy" issue.

It's different. Most of their information comes from the use of credit cards or internet. This is a choice that you make, and you can decide who you want to deal with. I don't think any company knows my "most intimate personal habits".

[FruminousBandersnatch]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please. The private sector surveils average Americans far more than the government does. They know your most intimate personal habits and information - where you live, where you work, your shopping habits, your medical issues, what size clothes you wear, what your vices are, your sexual orientation and habits, the places you go, who your friends and family are, what organizations you are involved in, et cetera et cetera et cetera....

That kind of blows away the whole "privacy" issue.

It's different. Most of their information comes from the use of credit cards or internet. This is a choice that you make, and you can decide who you want to deal with. I don't think any company knows my "most intimate personal habits".

Odds are very, very strong that you'd lose that bet, but it's possible.

The difference is that the companies are trying to sell you products, while the government could be making decisions about your rights, patriotism, eligibility for government jobs, ability to travel, need for surveillance, etc.

There's a grey area when you talk about the credit reporting agencies, but even they are required by the Fair CRedit Reporting Act to disclose information to you if they are using it to make decisions regarding your credit.

The government doesn't have to tell you anything.

[Anonymous]

Now they are collecting biometric data to go with their file about you:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/nsa-collecting-millions-of-faces-from-web-images.html?referrer=

As far as keeping government files on innocent Americans, wasn't J Edgar Hoover infamous for that?

Has America forgotten every painful lesson from the McCarthy era abuses of our civil liberties?

[Anonymous]

Ah, the Big Evil Gubmint. But who cares when it's some Big Evil Corporation.

Problem is, the two are becoming more and more the same, as America heads ever more toward becoming a corporate-run oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please. The private sector surveils average Americans far more than the government does. They know your most intimate personal habits and information - where you live, where you work, your shopping habits, your medical issues, what size clothes you wear, what your vices are, your sexual orientation and habits, the places you go, who your friends and family are, what organizations you are involved in, et cetera et cetera et cetera....

That kind of blows away the whole "privacy" issue.

It's different. Most of their information comes from the use of credit cards or internet. This is a choice that you make, and you can decide who you want to deal with. I don't think any company knows my "most intimate personal habits".

You are living in delusion. Google knows way more about you than the USG does. I somewhat agree with the PP that the risks are more Kafka than Orwell to the extent that once you're in the bureaucracy, it's hard to exit it. I disagree as to the evil intent. The public expects two contradictory things - they want all bad things stopped and immediate answers when something bad does happen, but they don't want to be "watched" and want openness and transparency. They also have a simplistic view that "valid suspects" spring from the earth fully formed with big signs on their necks, so you can create a list of valid "targets" without the tools to give you the situational awareness that there is plot in the first place. So they write laws that essentially say "please make omelettes but do not break any eggs".

Google, Facebook, Apple and other companies just do whatever they want, change their agreements with the user base with no recourse, and don't have any obligations to uphold Constitutional principles. They just want to make money.

I know which one concerns me more.