3 ms·
The point is that metadata is more valuable for mass surveillance purposes than content. WhatsApp and FBM do nothing to protect metadata.
by agd 10y ago
The point is that metadata is more valuable for mass surveillance purposes than content. WhatsApp and FBM do nothing to protect metadata.
- wepple 10y agoare you serious? you're suggesting that the metadata of "alice messaged bob at 1:20am" is worth more than "hey bob, I'm looking to have $100,000 laundered, same methods as last time. I'll drop to the usual location. thanks, Alice."
- Sylos 10y agoWell, yeah, without meta-data, you only know that someone messaged someone about laundering money. You have no clue who it is, so it's ultimately pretty useless. Whereas with just meta-data, you can still at least figure out who the guy is talking to, even if you cannot figure out over this way that the guy is laundering money.
- Quiark 10y agoBut the situation being compared is 'metadata' vs 'metadata + content'
- sievebrain 10y agoEr, no. Mass surveillance wants both metadata and content. Metadata happens to be a bit easier to analyse, but often they are only analysing metadata to lead them to the content in the first place.