5 ms·

What I don't get about the whole meta-data debate is that if there's no expectation that meta-data is private information, and therefore requires a legal reason

by nxzero 10y ago

What I don't get about the whole meta-data debate is that if there's no expectation that meta-data is private information, and therefore requires a legal reason to access and store, then why isn't all meta-data required to be public; and by all, I mean all. More to the point, as it relates to the DEA and local narco units - they do illegal stuff all the time and if historic meta-data was made available to the public, heads would roll.

rayiner 10y ago
That's like saying that just because the government is allowed to walk by your house and see if anyone is home without a warrant, then a webcam pointed at your front door should be broadcasting on the Internet. The fact we don't do the latter isn't a valid argument to justify requiring a warrant for the former. Since there are degrees of privacy, "not private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment doesn't necessarily mean "totally public." The line that has been drawn is that if information is "not private" enough to share with your thousand closest friends at AT&T, it's "not private" enough for the government to see it without a warrant. With regards to meta-data, you don't even have to get into the whole expectation of privacy inquiry. It's not even your data, it's AT&T's data. The 4th amendment explicitly states that people will be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects. That implies ownership or at least control. But call metadata is AT&T's property; the digital records are their papers, generated by their computers, for their internal purposes. If it were up to you, you probably wouldn't even want those records to exist, but they do, because they're not yours. Regardless of where you draw the line on public versus private, it's clear you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's property. Don't get me wrong: I wish Congress would pass a law requiring telecoms to erase such data immediately, keeping only aggregate data for billing purposes. But the Constitution says what it says, not what you want it to say.
- nxzero 10y ago
  What's reasonable is defined by law, not some magical force. It's clear that meta-data is being used in ways that compromise generally expected forms of privacy. The very fact you're against making all meta-data public provides evidence of this. Claiming the meta-data belongs to AT&T is false, since the data is generated by the users actions, not AT&T; it's like saying the phone number belongs to them, which we both know is not true. Please explain why you feel it'd be illegal to follow you or have you followed in public, watch your front door, etc.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Every time I walk into the local 7-11, my actions generate a videotaped record of my presence, what I bought, and what I was wearing. That's extremely personal. Are you therefore claiming I have a property right to that section of the 7-11 security tape?
    - dTal 10y ago
      In the UK you do (obviously not property rights because that's stupid, but access rights): https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yourself https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yourself
      - rayiner 10y ago
        But do the police have to get a warrant to review CCTV footage?
        Ntrails 10y ago
        If the owner of the data doesn't voluntarily share it, sure. Same as they need a warrant to search my house, unless I invite them in for a cup of tea.
        rayiner 10y ago
        But who is the owner of the CCTV data? The 7-11, or the guy on the tape? If the former, then that's the same as how phone call records are handled in the U.S. The government is getting these call records with AT&T/Verizon's cooperation.
        BillinghamJ 10y ago
        (In the UK), the 7-11 owns the recording, but the person shown on the tape has the right to inspect the recording as they please.
        10y ago
- themartorana 10y ago
  The idea of it being theirs implies that it (the information) wasn't mine to begin with. If it was, and I had some expectation of privacy, then AT&T may be in the wrong collecting it. Or take another path to VOIP - when your call passes AT&T's servers, if they log the bits, are they then AT&T's? Basically, if information passed to and logged by AT&T is their data, then it applies to everything passing AT&T's servers, and call content would not require a warrant either. In reverse, if there is an expectation of privacy of call data, there can/may/should be an expectation of privacy in metadata as well.
saosebastiao 10y ago
I would prefer that we apply the idea to elected legislators. Our privacy laws would be overhauled overnight if they were routinely spied on by the general public using metadata that is supposedly so harmless that it doesn't require a warrant. We might even get a 28th amendment to update the 4th.
- harryh 10y ago
  The argument that metadata on you can be acquired my law enforcement without a warrant is not that it's harmless. It's that it isn't your data. You are mischaracterizing the legal justification.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Laws are not magic or inherent, but what people agree to. There's no reason to believe meta-data shouldn't or couldn't be owned by the entity it was created for.

by nxzero 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

That's like saying that just because the government is allowed to walk by your house and see if anyone is home without a warrant, then a webcam pointed at your front door should be broadcasting on the Internet. The fact we don't do the latter isn't a valid argument to justify requiring a warrant for the former. Since there are degrees of privacy, "not private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment doesn't necessarily mean "totally public." The line that has been drawn is that if information is "not private" enough to share with your thousand closest friends at AT&T, it's "not private" enough for the government to see it without a warrant. With regards to meta-data, you don't even have to get into the whole expectation of privacy inquiry. It's not even your data, it's AT&T's data. The 4th amendment explicitly states that people will be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects. That implies ownership or at least control. But call metadata is AT&T's property; the digital records are their papers, generated by their computers, for their internal purposes. If it were up to you, you probably wouldn't even want those records to exist, but they do, because they're not yours. Regardless of where you draw the line on public versus private, it's clear you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else's property. Don't get me wrong: I wish Congress would pass a law requiring telecoms to erase such data immediately, keeping only aggregate data for billing purposes. But the Constitution says what it says, not what you want it to say.

nxzero 10y ago
What's reasonable is defined by law, not some magical force. It's clear that meta-data is being used in ways that compromise generally expected forms of privacy. The very fact you're against making all meta-data public provides evidence of this. Claiming the meta-data belongs to AT&T is false, since the data is generated by the users actions, not AT&T; it's like saying the phone number belongs to them, which we both know is not true. Please explain why you feel it'd be illegal to follow you or have you followed in public, watch your front door, etc.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Every time I walk into the local 7-11, my actions generate a videotaped record of my presence, what I bought, and what I was wearing. That's extremely personal. Are you therefore claiming I have a property right to that section of the 7-11 security tape?
  - dTal 10y ago
    In the UK you do (obviously not property rights because that's stupid, but access rights): https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yourself https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yourself
    - rayiner 10y ago
      But do the police have to get a warrant to review CCTV footage?
      - Ntrails 10y ago
        If the owner of the data doesn't voluntarily share it, sure. Same as they need a warrant to search my house, unless I invite them in for a cup of tea.
        rayiner 10y ago
        But who is the owner of the CCTV data? The 7-11, or the guy on the tape? If the former, then that's the same as how phone call records are handled in the U.S. The government is getting these call records with AT&T/Verizon's cooperation.
        BillinghamJ 10y ago
        (In the UK), the 7-11 owns the recording, but the person shown on the tape has the right to inspect the recording as they please.
        10y ago
themartorana 10y ago
The idea of it being theirs implies that it (the information) wasn't mine to begin with. If it was, and I had some expectation of privacy, then AT&T may be in the wrong collecting it. Or take another path to VOIP - when your call passes AT&T's servers, if they log the bits, are they then AT&T's? Basically, if information passed to and logged by AT&T is their data, then it applies to everything passing AT&T's servers, and call content would not require a warrant either. In reverse, if there is an expectation of privacy of call data, there can/may/should be an expectation of privacy in metadata as well.

saosebastiao 10y ago

I would prefer that we apply the idea to elected legislators. Our privacy laws would be overhauled overnight if they were routinely spied on by the general public using metadata that is supposedly so harmless that it doesn't require a warrant. We might even get a 28th amendment to update the 4th.

harryh 10y ago
The argument that metadata on you can be acquired my law enforcement without a warrant is not that it's harmless. It's that it isn't your data. You are mischaracterizing the legal justification.
- nxzero 10y ago
  Laws are not magic or inherent, but what people agree to. There's no reason to believe meta-data shouldn't or couldn't be owned by the entity it was created for.