9 ms·

Note that this alludes to the latest technique being used to erode privacy: the idea that "metadata" is somehow distinct and less deserving of protection than [

by polemic 13y ago

Note that this alludes to the latest technique being used to erode privacy: the idea that "metadata" is somehow distinct and less deserving of protection than [other stuff]. The implication is "metadata" (like phone logs) is not really "data", which is absurd and dangerous.

rosser 13y ago
Without going anywhere near how "absurd" or "dangerous" treating phone traffic metadata differently than the phone traffic itself may or may not be, it's certainly not new. In the US, at least, who you called, when, and for how long is subject to much less legal safeguard than the content of the conversation had, and has been for a very long time. Of all the things to take from this article, to my mind, that's not the first.
rayiner 13y ago
Its not new. Metadata (e.g. addresses on the outside of envelopes sent in the mail) have never been considered private.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  No. Whether it's new depends on the specific meta data being captured. Also, what is new is the scale of meta data capture and analysis capabilities enabled by current technology. It is silly to say that authorities have historically looked at postal addresses on envelopes, so that makes it also OK to sniff virtually all forms of meta data for all forms of electronic communications. You can extrapolate that point into inanity, such that virtually anything is fair game. Here, you are literally using what was permissible with Pony Express technology to make the case that it should still be permissible (or is at least no different) in today's hyper-connected world. But, at some point, technical capabilities render safeguards in old laws obsolete, and we must take a fresh look at long relied upon precedents. Some of those precedents are based on capabilities available at the time, long before many of those available today could even be imagined. When that happens, there is a material difference in implication and meaning.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    So let me get this straight. In evaluating where the boundaries should lie, we shouldn't consider how new technologies might allow criminals to coordinate in new ways, perhaps rendering existing privacy protections obsolete, but we should consider how new technologies that allow more effective policing might render existing exceptions to the privacy protections obsolete. Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the context of modern communications. Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the police to do their work." Which goes wholly against what the founders intended when they wrote that limitations on the power of police to search must be "reasonable."
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      > Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the context of modern communications. Yes, we do. If you're trying to get information not accessible to the public, get a warrant. If you're not prepared to defend your request to a judge, you have no business making it in the first place.
    - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
      We shouldn't craft laws with the prime concern of making one set of public servants' job easier for them. See: Blackstone's formulation.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        We shouldn't be doing the opposite either, which was Rayiner's point.
        wnight 13y ago
        We don't. That's just more crazy rhetoric. It's almost as if he doesn't actually have anything compelling to say and has to try to misrepresent what everyone else is saying. It goes to show who we're talking to, and the level of discussion we can have with those who wish to control us.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  Would you expect, then, that a list of phone numbers someone called or sent text messages to would be the kind of information that are not considered private? A list of addresses to which someone sent email? A list of URLs visited or books checked out of the library?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    There are certain protections that apply to libraries as public institutions. I wouldn't expect any of the others to be private. The rationale for why the postal "metadata" is not private is simple: no one can reasonably expect anything they write on the outside of an envelope and then drop in a box for potentially dozens of people to handle to be private. That same reasoning can be applied to phone numbers, text messages, e-mail addresses, and URL's. If I'm disclosing to Google what URL's I'm visiting by typing them into Chrome, I can't complain if the government can access them too. There is this idea among hackers that you should be able to trust Google, etc, to keep information private from the government. But that's not what privacy means in the context of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment starts with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." It's clearly referring to things that are truly private: things you keep in your house or on your person, not things you voluntarily share with potentially hundreds of people at AT&T, Google, Apple, Akamai, etc.
    - waqf 13y ago
      > If I'm disclosing to Google what URL's I'm visiting by typing them into Chrome, I can't complain if the government can access them too. How many people realize they're (with the default configuration) disclosing to Google what they type into the address bar?
      - westward 13y ago
        Reminds me of a Cory Doctorow short story that takes place in the near future. In it, US Customs can't view your Google search history, but they can view the ads served to you as a result of your searches.
dsl 13y ago
This is far from a new thing. In 1979 the Supreme Court decided (Smith v. Maryland) that pen registers and tap and trace devices did not require a warrant. The basis is that you have no expectation of privacy because a reasonable person knows that the phone company itself is privilege to details such as calling party, receiving party, time, and duration. The 2001 PATRIOT ACT clarified the Pen Register Act, extending this privilege to internet communications.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Metadata can be very valuable for all sorts of operations though. Should we really reject its use out of hand? Can we not simply establish guidelines for how it must be obfuscated?
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  How would we enforce them?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Audits.

by polemic 13y ago

rosser 13y ago

Without going anywhere near how "absurd" or "dangerous" treating phone traffic metadata differently than the phone traffic itself may or may not be, it's certainly not new. In the US, at least, who you called, when, and for how long is subject to much less legal safeguard than the content of the conversation had, and has been for a very long time. Of all the things to take from this article, to my mind, that's not the first.

rayiner 13y ago

Its not new. Metadata (e.g. addresses on the outside of envelopes sent in the mail) have never been considered private.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
No. Whether it's new depends on the specific meta data being captured. Also, what is new is the scale of meta data capture and analysis capabilities enabled by current technology. It is silly to say that authorities have historically looked at postal addresses on envelopes, so that makes it also OK to sniff virtually all forms of meta data for all forms of electronic communications. You can extrapolate that point into inanity, such that virtually anything is fair game. Here, you are literally using what was permissible with Pony Express technology to make the case that it should still be permissible (or is at least no different) in today's hyper-connected world. But, at some point, technical capabilities render safeguards in old laws obsolete, and we must take a fresh look at long relied upon precedents. Some of those precedents are based on capabilities available at the time, long before many of those available today could even be imagined. When that happens, there is a material difference in implication and meaning.
- rayiner 13y ago
  So let me get this straight. In evaluating where the boundaries should lie, we shouldn't consider how new technologies might allow criminals to coordinate in new ways, perhaps rendering existing privacy protections obsolete, but we should consider how new technologies that allow more effective policing might render existing exceptions to the privacy protections obsolete. Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the context of modern communications. Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the police to do their work." Which goes wholly against what the founders intended when they wrote that limitations on the power of police to search must be "reasonable."
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    > Privacy advocates do not have a principled approach to the problem of how to reconcile the legitimate needs of the police with privacy rights in the context of modern communications. Yes, we do. If you're trying to get information not accessible to the public, get a warrant. If you're not prepared to defend your request to a judge, you have no business making it in the first place.
  - retrogradeorbit 13y ago
    We shouldn't craft laws with the prime concern of making one set of public servants' job easier for them. See: Blackstone's formulation.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      We shouldn't be doing the opposite either, which was Rayiner's point.
      - wnight 13y ago
        We don't. That's just more crazy rhetoric. It's almost as if he doesn't actually have anything compelling to say and has to try to misrepresent what everyone else is saying. It goes to show who we're talking to, and the level of discussion we can have with those who wish to control us.
meepmorp 13y ago
Would you expect, then, that a list of phone numbers someone called or sent text messages to would be the kind of information that are not considered private? A list of addresses to which someone sent email? A list of URLs visited or books checked out of the library?
- rayiner 13y ago
  There are certain protections that apply to libraries as public institutions. I wouldn't expect any of the others to be private. The rationale for why the postal "metadata" is not private is simple: no one can reasonably expect anything they write on the outside of an envelope and then drop in a box for potentially dozens of people to handle to be private. That same reasoning can be applied to phone numbers, text messages, e-mail addresses, and URL's. If I'm disclosing to Google what URL's I'm visiting by typing them into Chrome, I can't complain if the government can access them too. There is this idea among hackers that you should be able to trust Google, etc, to keep information private from the government. But that's not what privacy means in the context of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment starts with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." It's clearly referring to things that are truly private: things you keep in your house or on your person, not things you voluntarily share with potentially hundreds of people at AT&T, Google, Apple, Akamai, etc.
  - waqf 13y ago
    > If I'm disclosing to Google what URL's I'm visiting by typing them into Chrome, I can't complain if the government can access them too. How many people realize they're (with the default configuration) disclosing to Google what they type into the address bar?
    - westward 13y ago
      Reminds me of a Cory Doctorow short story that takes place in the near future. In it, US Customs can't view your Google search history, but they can view the ads served to you as a result of your searches.

dsl 13y ago

This is far from a new thing. In 1979 the Supreme Court decided (Smith v. Maryland) that pen registers and tap and trace devices did not require a warrant. The basis is that you have no expectation of privacy because a reasonable person knows that the phone company itself is privilege to details such as calling party, receiving party, time, and duration. The 2001 PATRIOT ACT clarified the Pen Register Act, extending this privilege to internet communications.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Metadata can be very valuable for all sorts of operations though. Should we really reject its use out of hand? Can we not simply establish guidelines for how it must be obfuscated?

6d0debc071 13y ago
How would we enforce them?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Audits.