3 ms·
> in part because it assumes that it shouldn’t be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata alone. > One of the government’s
by dimino 10y ago
> in part because it assumes that it shouldn’t be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata alone.
> One of the government’s justifications for allowing law enforcement and national security agencies to access metadata without warrants is the underlying belief that it’s not sensitive information.
Is this true? I didn't think this was an actual part of the argument for using metadata, but that metadata wasn't covered under current laws, and was therefore easier to get.
I was working under the assumption that it was an unintentional oversight, not an intentional hole in legislation.
- DanBC 10y agoIn England the government say (when they want to expand laws to make it easier for them to get metadata) that it doesn't contain any content, it's just about who you call or who calls you and for how long. They never say that individuals cannot be identified from this - information about identified individuals is the point of gathering the data. So they seem clear about the difference between content and meta, and that metadata will identify people. They're less clear about the further de-anonymisation aspects of "just" metadata, and it's hard to know if that's because they don't know or don't care.