4 ms·

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 privac

by 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.
      - april1stislame 10y ago
        Inviting them for a cup of tea is not the same as authorizing a search of your house. Yes, they can look around at what's on sight but they can't start taking out your drawers and searching them.
- nxzero 10y ago
  We both know I'm legally allowed to have you watched in public in such a way that you would never know, and yes, I would legally be able to collect all that data; in fact, legally I'd be allowed to even listen to what you said. Questions relates to how tech has changed this and it's clear it has. Until there's one set of rules for expectations related to privacy, it will be exploited by anyone able to do so.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You're not responding to Rayiner's point. AT&T's customer records don't become "your data" simply by dint of being responses to "your actions", any more than security footage becomes "your data" by the same mechanism. It seems untenable to me that all rights to privacy in our metadata are entirely subverted by their being owned by telecom companies. It's not as if I'm arguing that warrantless access to metadata is a good thing. But there must be a better argument than "this feels wrong".
- omginternets 10y ago
  >Every time I walk into the local 7-11, my actions generate a videotaped record of my presence This is completely, and I mean completely different. There's no expectation of privacy in a 7-11. As such, the two situations are incomparable despite their superficial similarity. Whether there's an expectation of privacy online is unclear, and the government is trying to capitalize on this by setting a precedent.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Can you explain how they're completely different? Say I decide to meet someone at a Starbucks. Now Starbucks has not only my drink preference, where I was at a particular time of day, what I was wearing, but also who I was with at the time. They have more information than the phone company.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      I did: expectation of privacy. And I don't understand your example at all, as it argues in my favor. Starbucks is generally regarded as having no expectation of privacy.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    With regard to phone records, the relevant precedent was set almost 40 years ago in Smith v. Maryland, which held that the government can subpoena phone records without a warrant. And that case was correctly decided for two different reasons: 1) The "expectation of privacy" must be objectively reasonable. It's objectively true that phone call records are not private: they are kept by the phone company in the ordinary course of business and many people have access to them. As a purely factual matter, a lot more people (people who, unlike the 7-11 clerk, you've never even met!) have access to your data at a phone company than at a 7-11. So any subjective belief that those details are private is not objectively reasonable. 2) Callers have no ownership or control over call records. Even if you don't subscribe to the "property rights" view of the 4th amendment, you have to admit that it's less reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in something someone else owns and controls. It's not reasonable to expect privacy as to a 7-11's recordings of what you do on its premises because they own the recordings and control the premises. Similarly, it's not reasonable to expect privacy as to AT&T's records of what you do on its telephone network.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by nxzero 10y ago

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.
    - april1stislame 10y ago
      Inviting them for a cup of tea is not the same as authorizing a search of your house. Yes, they can look around at what's on sight but they can't start taking out your drawers and searching them.
nxzero 10y ago
We both know I'm legally allowed to have you watched in public in such a way that you would never know, and yes, I would legally be able to collect all that data; in fact, legally I'd be allowed to even listen to what you said. Questions relates to how tech has changed this and it's clear it has. Until there's one set of rules for expectations related to privacy, it will be exploited by anyone able to do so.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You're not responding to Rayiner's point. AT&T's customer records don't become "your data" simply by dint of being responses to "your actions", any more than security footage becomes "your data" by the same mechanism. It seems untenable to me that all rights to privacy in our metadata are entirely subverted by their being owned by telecom companies. It's not as if I'm arguing that warrantless access to metadata is a good thing. But there must be a better argument than "this feels wrong".
omginternets 10y ago
>Every time I walk into the local 7-11, my actions generate a videotaped record of my presence This is completely, and I mean completely different. There's no expectation of privacy in a 7-11. As such, the two situations are incomparable despite their superficial similarity. Whether there's an expectation of privacy online is unclear, and the government is trying to capitalize on this by setting a precedent.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Can you explain how they're completely different? Say I decide to meet someone at a Starbucks. Now Starbucks has not only my drink preference, where I was at a particular time of day, what I was wearing, but also who I was with at the time. They have more information than the phone company.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    I did: expectation of privacy. And I don't understand your example at all, as it argues in my favor. Starbucks is generally regarded as having no expectation of privacy.
- rayiner 10y ago
  With regard to phone records, the relevant precedent was set almost 40 years ago in Smith v. Maryland, which held that the government can subpoena phone records without a warrant. And that case was correctly decided for two different reasons: 1) The "expectation of privacy" must be objectively reasonable. It's objectively true that phone call records are not private: they are kept by the phone company in the ordinary course of business and many people have access to them. As a purely factual matter, a lot more people (people who, unlike the 7-11 clerk, you've never even met!) have access to your data at a phone company than at a 7-11. So any subjective belief that those details are private is not objectively reasonable. 2) Callers have no ownership or control over call records. Even if you don't subscribe to the "property rights" view of the 4th amendment, you have to admit that it's less reasonable to have an expectation of privacy in something someone else owns and controls. It's not reasonable to expect privacy as to a 7-11's recordings of what you do on its premises because they own the recordings and control the premises. Similarly, it's not reasonable to expect privacy as to AT&T's records of what you do on its telephone network.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]