5 ms·

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

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.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'm not sure who "he" is in this comment.
        unclebucknasty 13y ago
        Rayiner. Obviously.
        tptacek 13y ago
        He thinks Rayiner is trying to control him?
        wnight 13y ago
        You're pretty technically astute which leaves me thinking you're being obtuse for effect.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >In evaluating where the boundaries should lie, we shouldn't consider how new technologies might allow criminals to coordinate in new ways No one said that. The converse of that is actually what you're doing, and I simply called you on it. That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and analysis capabilities. Your argument rests on "oh, nothing new about that. Nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving." >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 What is this term "privacy advocate"? I don't consider myself one, because I reject it on its face. There should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution, privacy should be the default. That people like you so casually bandy about the term, as if your fellow citizens are asking for something foreign or not already a guaranteed right, is testament to how far we've gone astray. If anything, we should instead call you a "privacy-destruction advocate" or perhaps "anti-Constitution". Yours is the outlying position. In any event, there is a simple test for the balance you suggest and that is whether, in keeping up with modern communications, we are affording law enforcement with more capabilities or eroding privacy. I think it's pretty clear that especially since 9/11, that balance you reference has tipped much more heavily in law enforcement's favor. So, as much as you may sympathize with the government, they are doing just fine. The question is, where would you have them stop? >Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the police to do their work." It's ridiculous to suggest that's the intent. That you feel the need to re-characterize our position in such a silly manner reveals your insecurity in defending your argument against the very real and significantly weightier actual arguments made by people like myself.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > No one said that. People say it all the time. It's the go-to retort whenever anyone brings up the fact that new technologies allow criminals to coordinate and plot in new ways. "Why do we need new laws to fight Al Qaeda?" > That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and analysis capabilities. It's not a silly comparison. The internet may not have existed 100+ years ago, but people did, and the mechanics of people are remarkably stable. The underlying dynamic: certain information not falling within the scope of privacy rights because its made plainly visible, is mechanically similar whether you're talking about addresses scrolled on postal envelopes or e-mail addresses in an SMTP header. > here should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution, privacy should be the default. The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The word "private" appears just once (in the phrase "private property"). The 4th amendment has certain guarantees that protect certain kinds of privacy,[1] but not the broad guarantee of "privacy" that you imply. Specifically, the 4th amendment protects your house and your person from unreasonable searches. It's not a blanket right of privacy that protects your communications, even in contexts where those communications are disclosed to numerous third parties. [1] But the 4th amendment need not be interpreted in terms of a broader concept of "privacy" at all.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  The choice is starker than that. Phone "lines" are no longer tied to houses, addresses, and the identities of the people living there. It is possible to have communications devices that are pseudonymous and hard to trace to an individual, and communications payload that is completely opaque to police, and all this is cheap enough that every person could have communication that is completely opaque to inspection. Do you think having that should be illegal?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    No, but all that still goes through a highly centralized infrastructure (att, google, etc). I think there should be provisions for reasonable police access to that data, with appropriate safeguards.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      But that's the rub: You can buy and use a device fairly anonymously. Although systems like Thin Thread, as they are described, seem to be able to attack this kind of anonymity, and there are a variety of other attacks possible, that's not the same as a pen register or wiretap, and it takes significant resources to make it work in practice. 4G voice is just data, so that it can be end-to-end encrypted such that, as far as is known, calls can be made secure against any attack. There is no "man in the middle" with access to clear data. So you say that should not be illegal. Good, so far. But that also means that it is out of reach of law enforcement, and can even be made safe from "rubber hose" code-breaking. That's what I mean by a stark choice. There is no middle ground. The algorithms exist and that can't be undone. If you put your documents in a safe strong enough to keep a mafia or foreign spy agency out, you can keep anyone out. Should that be illegal? This isn't just a hypothetical. Any businessman or government worker traveling to places that are corrupt or have repressive governments would be a fool not to guard important documents and communications this well, and the tools are readily available.

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.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm not sure who "he" is in this comment.
      - unclebucknasty 13y ago
        Rayiner. Obviously.
        tptacek 13y ago
        He thinks Rayiner is trying to control him?
        wnight 13y ago
        You're pretty technically astute which leaves me thinking you're being obtuse for effect.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>In evaluating where the boundaries should lie, we shouldn't consider how new technologies might allow criminals to coordinate in new ways No one said that. The converse of that is actually what you're doing, and I simply called you on it. That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and analysis capabilities. Your argument rests on "oh, nothing new about that. Nothing to see here. Let's keep it moving." >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 What is this term "privacy advocate"? I don't consider myself one, because I reject it on its face. There should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution, privacy should be the default. That people like you so casually bandy about the term, as if your fellow citizens are asking for something foreign or not already a guaranteed right, is testament to how far we've gone astray. If anything, we should instead call you a "privacy-destruction advocate" or perhaps "anti-Constitution". Yours is the outlying position. In any event, there is a simple test for the balance you suggest and that is whether, in keeping up with modern communications, we are affording law enforcement with more capabilities or eroding privacy. I think it's pretty clear that especially since 9/11, that balance you reference has tipped much more heavily in law enforcement's favor. So, as much as you may sympathize with the government, they are doing just fine. The question is, where would you have them stop? >Their approach boils down to "do whatever makes it the hardest for the police to do their work." It's ridiculous to suggest that's the intent. That you feel the need to re-characterize our position in such a silly manner reveals your insecurity in defending your argument against the very real and significantly weightier actual arguments made by people like myself.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > No one said that. People say it all the time. It's the go-to retort whenever anyone brings up the fact that new technologies allow criminals to coordinate and plot in new ways. "Why do we need new laws to fight Al Qaeda?" > That is, you are not accounting for new technology when you make such silly comparisons between addresses scrawled on postal mail envelopes 100+ years ago and today's sophisticated electronic communications intercept and analysis capabilities. It's not a silly comparison. The internet may not have existed 100+ years ago, but people did, and the mechanics of people are remarkably stable. The underlying dynamic: certain information not falling within the scope of privacy rights because its made plainly visible, is mechanically similar whether you're talking about addresses scrolled on postal envelopes or e-mail addresses in an SMTP header. > here should be no such term in this "debate", because per the Constitution, privacy should be the default. The word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. The word "private" appears just once (in the phrase "private property"). The 4th amendment has certain guarantees that protect certain kinds of privacy,[1] but not the broad guarantee of "privacy" that you imply. Specifically, the 4th amendment protects your house and your person from unreasonable searches. It's not a blanket right of privacy that protects your communications, even in contexts where those communications are disclosed to numerous third parties. [1] But the 4th amendment need not be interpreted in terms of a broader concept of "privacy" at all.
Zigurd 13y ago
The choice is starker than that. Phone "lines" are no longer tied to houses, addresses, and the identities of the people living there. It is possible to have communications devices that are pseudonymous and hard to trace to an individual, and communications payload that is completely opaque to police, and all this is cheap enough that every person could have communication that is completely opaque to inspection. Do you think having that should be illegal?
- rayiner 13y ago
  No, but all that still goes through a highly centralized infrastructure (att, google, etc). I think there should be provisions for reasonable police access to that data, with appropriate safeguards.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    But that's the rub: You can buy and use a device fairly anonymously. Although systems like Thin Thread, as they are described, seem to be able to attack this kind of anonymity, and there are a variety of other attacks possible, that's not the same as a pen register or wiretap, and it takes significant resources to make it work in practice. 4G voice is just data, so that it can be end-to-end encrypted such that, as far as is known, calls can be made secure against any attack. There is no "man in the middle" with access to clear data. So you say that should not be illegal. Good, so far. But that also means that it is out of reach of law enforcement, and can even be made safe from "rubber hose" code-breaking. That's what I mean by a stark choice. There is no middle ground. The algorithms exist and that can't be undone. If you put your documents in a safe strong enough to keep a mafia or foreign spy agency out, you can keep anyone out. Should that be illegal? This isn't just a hypothetical. Any businessman or government worker traveling to places that are corrupt or have repressive governments would be a fool not to guard important documents and communications this well, and the tools are readily available.