11 ms·

Metadata Equals Surveillance

320 points by antsar 13y ago

scrrr 13y ago
Somebody should start selling bumper-stickers with catchy phrases like this. I'd get one for my car.
- state 13y ago
  How about a t-shirt? http://teespring.com/metadataequalssurveilance http://teespring.com/metadataequalssurveilance
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  I like it, but it won't resonate with my non-technical family.
optymizer 13y ago
I don't know about all cases, but in some cases, that's spot on. The Government doesn't need to know WHAT you discussed with Saddam Hussein, they just need to know that you were there at some time talking to Saddam to place you under the radar. In other words, 'information about information'.
- devx 13y ago
  And that's exactly how they're picking some of their drone targets, too. If you've talked to the leader of al qaeda, it doesn't really matter what you discussed (maybe he was just quering about the neighborhood or whatever), you'll probably end up dead. So yes, metadata is very much "content", and can be very, very dangerous in the wrong hands.
  - comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
    That is the most ominous scenario, which is likely complete fiction (so far). Finding the high value targets requires good detective work. Blowing up acquaintances is destroying good leads. The metadata creates leads, and helps narrow them down to a more promising and manageable subset.
sh1989 13y ago
"Metadata in aggregate is content" - Jacob Appelbaum
- bediger4000 13y ago
  Quantity has a quality all its own. - Stalin.
  - jensgk 13y ago
    Everything counts in large amounts - Depeche Mode
    - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      My cat's breath smells like cat food! - Ralph Wiggam
      - contingencies 13y ago
        Welcome to the United Snakes Land of the thief home of the slave Grand imperial guard where the dollar is sacred and proud ... The Cold Continent latch key child Ran away one day and started acting foul King of where the wild things are daddy's proud cos the Roman Empire done passed it down Imported and tortured a work force and never healed the wounds or shook the curse off Now the grown up Goliath nation Holdin' open auditions for the part of David ... Only approved questions get answered Now stand your ass up for that national anthem - Brother Ali, Uncle Sam Goddamn ... I usually never listen to rap, but if you think the US is screwed up, you have to listen to this: it's gold! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ
        WickyNilliams 13y ago
        Don't usually expect to see Brother Ali lyrics on HN! It is a great song. If you're not a big hip hop head but wish to find more similar stuff, hit me up on twitter (@WickyNilliams), happy to recommend!
TomasSedovic 13y ago
I found Cory Doctorow's recent short screenplay on the topic quite fitting: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/05/metadata-wartime-drama-privacy http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/05/metadata-w... (features Winston Churchill, Alan Turing and Theresa May)
ijk 13y ago
Part of the problem, I think, is that our concept of privacy is tightly linked with our physical embodiment. But our concept of self is no longer limited to our bodies. We conceive of our online avatars as ourselves. But our instincts about privacy haven't kept pace.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  Right. Once upon a time, the physical control over our bodies and our personal property was an adequate definition of privacy. Yes, there were many corner cases, even two centuries ago, but it was "good enough" approximately always. Why make messy legislation over small problems? The Constitution never even tried to touch these issues. Over time the importance of all those corner cases has expanded, and the increased rate of growth of that importance is downright dizzying in the last decade or two. In today's world we have our old fashioned physical privacy (for the most part), and HIPAA to cover some narrow issues. That is it. In our brave new world, we do not really own our financial transaction records. For the most part those are privately owned records in the hands of various profit-driven corporations, and some of them happen to send us a copy of a subset of those records every month. rayiner (above) discusses this topic rather well. But I want to emphasize a different point: we can have privacy but we need to recognize we are basically starting from scratch. Trying to bemoan that the laws have been broken is counterproductive -- the spies have good lawyers and they have correctly identified gigantic legal loopholes. Even if privacy advocates win a few battles, the spies are still going to win the war, until we change the basic rules of the game with new legislation.
- state 13y ago
  Another way to look at it is that we haven't worked hard enough to build tools that adequately help us either build a new intuition, or maintain the physical metaphors. Perhaps more fundamentally, we haven't found business models to sustain the practice of thinking about digital tools in that way.
rayiner 13y ago
Schneier sets up and knocks down a strawman: "Back in June, when the contents of Edward Snowden's cache of NSA documents were just starting to be revealed and we learned about the NSA collecting phone metadata of every American, many people -- including President Obama -- discounted the seriousness of the NSA's actions by saying that it's just metadata." The NSA and Obama aren't "discounting" the NSA's actions because it's "just metadata." They're defending the legality of the NSA's actions by saying that it's "just metadata." The legally relevant distinction isn't how informative data versus metadata is, but who generated and controls the information that's the subject of surveillance. AT&T's metadata about your calls is generated by AT&T's equipment, stored on its servers, and is generally not even accessible to you. That not only puts it squarely within the domain of the third party doctrine, but makes it very hard to argue that it fits within even a common sense lay person's reading of the 4th amendment (which guarantees "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."). Arguing that AT&T's data is your data is an uphill battle to say the least. Now, maybe third party doctrine is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily give over to third parties every detail about their lives.[1] But it doesn't contribute to that debate for Schneier to totally mischaracterize what Obama is saying. [1] In my opinion, privacy is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily give over to third parties every detail about their lives, but reasonable minds can differ on that point.
- richardjs 13y ago
  Good point. On the other hand, many people have hand-waved the issues by saying "it's just metadata" in the sense that Schneier is describing. While Obama and the NSA might not have dismissed it that way, many people have, and it's that view that Schneier's objecting to.
- chopin 13y ago
  For phone calls, I wouldn't call it voluntarily. In order to call someone I need to dial a number and to rely on third party infrastructure, such as I have to at least put a receiver on a snail-mail. I believe the reason why past legislature did not have an eye on that is that it was not viable to slurp up this data en-masse. Such as writing down and correlating each mails sender and receiver. This is easily automatable nowadays. I am convinced that we need to fix this unless we want to live in some dystopian future.
adv0r 13y ago
so apparently every single thing this man writes ends up on the homepage of hn?
coldcode 13y ago
The government does not care what we think it is.
Mordor 13y ago
Everyone assumes metadata doesn't include the source data. Even a compressed copy of your telephone conversation isn't the actual call, just the 'metadata' describing how it is compressed...
ck2 13y ago
Remember when Nixon said "when the President does it, it's legal" ? Well we've reached the point where the government is arguing whatever it wants to do is legal. Of course metadata is surveillance, it is pretty darn obvious it is. It is just easier to spin.
cowboy_coder 13y ago
How can we hide or encrypt Metadata?
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
The NSA has the actual data as well. The metadata is there to serve as an index, for easy searching. Ref: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944 http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944

320 points by antsar 13y ago

scrrr 13y ago

Somebody should start selling bumper-stickers with catchy phrases like this. I'd get one for my car.

state 13y ago
How about a t-shirt? http://teespring.com/metadataequalssurveilance http://teespring.com/metadataequalssurveilance
mixmastamyk 13y ago
I like it, but it won't resonate with my non-technical family.

optymizer 13y ago

I don't know about all cases, but in some cases, that's spot on. The Government doesn't need to know WHAT you discussed with Saddam Hussein, they just need to know that you were there at some time talking to Saddam to place you under the radar. In other words, 'information about information'.

devx 13y ago
And that's exactly how they're picking some of their drone targets, too. If you've talked to the leader of al qaeda, it doesn't really matter what you discussed (maybe he was just quering about the neighborhood or whatever), you'll probably end up dead. So yes, metadata is very much "content", and can be very, very dangerous in the wrong hands.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
  That is the most ominous scenario, which is likely complete fiction (so far). Finding the high value targets requires good detective work. Blowing up acquaintances is destroying good leads. The metadata creates leads, and helps narrow them down to a more promising and manageable subset.

sh1989 13y ago

"Metadata in aggregate is content" - Jacob Appelbaum

bediger4000 13y ago
Quantity has a quality all its own. - Stalin.
- jensgk 13y ago
  Everything counts in large amounts - Depeche Mode
  - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    My cat's breath smells like cat food! - Ralph Wiggam
    - contingencies 13y ago
      Welcome to the United Snakes Land of the thief home of the slave Grand imperial guard where the dollar is sacred and proud ... The Cold Continent latch key child Ran away one day and started acting foul King of where the wild things are daddy's proud cos the Roman Empire done passed it down Imported and tortured a work force and never healed the wounds or shook the curse off Now the grown up Goliath nation Holdin' open auditions for the part of David ... Only approved questions get answered Now stand your ass up for that national anthem - Brother Ali, Uncle Sam Goddamn ... I usually never listen to rap, but if you think the US is screwed up, you have to listen to this: it's gold! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ
      - WickyNilliams 13y ago
        Don't usually expect to see Brother Ali lyrics on HN! It is a great song. If you're not a big hip hop head but wish to find more similar stuff, hit me up on twitter (@WickyNilliams), happy to recommend!

TomasSedovic 13y ago

I found Cory Doctorow's recent short screenplay on the topic quite fitting: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/05/metadata-wartime-drama-privacy http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/05/metadata-w... (features Winston Churchill, Alan Turing and Theresa May)

ijk 13y ago

Part of the problem, I think, is that our concept of privacy is tightly linked with our physical embodiment. But our concept of self is no longer limited to our bodies. We conceive of our online avatars as ourselves. But our instincts about privacy haven't kept pace.

comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
Right. Once upon a time, the physical control over our bodies and our personal property was an adequate definition of privacy. Yes, there were many corner cases, even two centuries ago, but it was "good enough" approximately always. Why make messy legislation over small problems? The Constitution never even tried to touch these issues. Over time the importance of all those corner cases has expanded, and the increased rate of growth of that importance is downright dizzying in the last decade or two. In today's world we have our old fashioned physical privacy (for the most part), and HIPAA to cover some narrow issues. That is it. In our brave new world, we do not really own our financial transaction records. For the most part those are privately owned records in the hands of various profit-driven corporations, and some of them happen to send us a copy of a subset of those records every month. rayiner (above) discusses this topic rather well. But I want to emphasize a different point: we can have privacy but we need to recognize we are basically starting from scratch. Trying to bemoan that the laws have been broken is counterproductive -- the spies have good lawyers and they have correctly identified gigantic legal loopholes. Even if privacy advocates win a few battles, the spies are still going to win the war, until we change the basic rules of the game with new legislation.
state 13y ago
Another way to look at it is that we haven't worked hard enough to build tools that adequately help us either build a new intuition, or maintain the physical metaphors. Perhaps more fundamentally, we haven't found business models to sustain the practice of thinking about digital tools in that way.

rayiner 13y ago

Schneier sets up and knocks down a strawman: "Back in June, when the contents of Edward Snowden's cache of NSA documents were just starting to be revealed and we learned about the NSA collecting phone metadata of every American, many people -- including President Obama -- discounted the seriousness of the NSA's actions by saying that it's just metadata." The NSA and Obama aren't "discounting" the NSA's actions because it's "just metadata." They're defending the legality of the NSA's actions by saying that it's "just metadata." The legally relevant distinction isn't how informative data versus metadata is, but who generated and controls the information that's the subject of surveillance. AT&T's metadata about your calls is generated by AT&T's equipment, stored on its servers, and is generally not even accessible to you. That not only puts it squarely within the domain of the third party doctrine, but makes it very hard to argue that it fits within even a common sense lay person's reading of the 4th amendment (which guarantees "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."). Arguing that AT&T's data is your data is an uphill battle to say the least. Now, maybe third party doctrine is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily give over to third parties every detail about their lives.[1] But it doesn't contribute to that debate for Schneier to totally mischaracterize what Obama is saying. [1] In my opinion, privacy is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily give over to third parties every detail about their lives, but reasonable minds can differ on that point.

richardjs 13y ago
Good point. On the other hand, many people have hand-waved the issues by saying "it's just metadata" in the sense that Schneier is describing. While Obama and the NSA might not have dismissed it that way, many people have, and it's that view that Schneier's objecting to.
chopin 13y ago
For phone calls, I wouldn't call it voluntarily. In order to call someone I need to dial a number and to rely on third party infrastructure, such as I have to at least put a receiver on a snail-mail. I believe the reason why past legislature did not have an eye on that is that it was not viable to slurp up this data en-masse. Such as writing down and correlating each mails sender and receiver. This is easily automatable nowadays. I am convinced that we need to fix this unless we want to live in some dystopian future.

adv0r 13y ago

so apparently every single thing this man writes ends up on the homepage of hn?

coldcode 13y ago

The government does not care what we think it is.

Mordor 13y ago

Everyone assumes metadata doesn't include the source data. Even a compressed copy of your telephone conversation isn't the actual call, just the 'metadata' describing how it is compressed...

ck2 13y ago

Remember when Nixon said "when the President does it, it's legal" ? Well we've reached the point where the government is arguing whatever it wants to do is legal. Of course metadata is surveillance, it is pretty darn obvious it is. It is just easier to spin.

cowboy_coder 13y ago

How can we hide or encrypt Metadata?

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

The NSA has the actual data as well. The metadata is there to serve as an index, for easy searching. Ref: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944 http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944