4 ms·

Schneier sets up and knocks down a strawman ... The NSA and Obama aren't "discounting" the NSA's actions because it's "just metadata." They're defending the leg

Schneier sets up and knocks down a strawman ... 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." Well, here's what the president actually said: When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program’s about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content. But by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. If these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation. So I want to be very clear. Some of the hype that we’ve been hearing over the last day or so — nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba... He didn't make the "it's legal because it's only metadata" argument. He did claim that the program is legal, and that it is overseen by Congress and a secret court. Maybe it's just a matter of opinion, but I'm very comfortable characterizing this reply as "discounting because it's just metadata." I'm unhappy about this, and I voted for the guy twice.

comrade_ogilvy 13y ago
>Maybe it's just a matter of opinion, but I'm very comfortable characterizing this reply as "discounting because it's just metadata." Perhaps. But keep in the mind the context: "nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls" The president spells out a specific concern that people are saying out loud. Is it "discounting" to disprove a specific concern by accurately characterizing the activity as something other than "listening to the content of people’s phone calls"? That he so happens to use "metadata" does not make his argument wrong or misleading. What word should he use?
- jarrett 13y ago
  I don't think Schneier's intention was to call President Obama a liar. Rather, I think he intended to say that, even if we accept President Obama's factual claims, we should still take issue with the government's actions. In other words, Schneier's not disputing the facts, but suggesting we ascribe different value to them. So when you say "That he so happens to use 'metadata' does not make his argument wrong or misleading," you're correct. But that also doesn't make Schneier incorrect. (Not that you said he was.)
  - Amadou 13y ago
    In other words, Schneier's not disputing the facts, but suggesting we ascribe different value to them. I've seen arguments like the president's called "true lies." A technical truth that obscures the larger more relevant issue. In this case, the real issue that people care about is that the government knows stuff about them that they expect to be private information. Whether they got that information via eavesdropping, metadata analysis or some other technique is largely irrelevant to the issue that makes people uncomfortable with the current state of affairs.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I don't think there's a consensus on what the more relevant issue is here. Based on my discussions with people I'm acquainted with, I'd bet a lot more are concerned about the legality issue: is the government making a good faith effort to stay within the bounds of the law.
      - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
        What they have declared legal is obviously the least of anyone's concerns. We care what they are actually doing. I'm not sure how one could think that people are just fine with being violated as long as there is a law that permits it.
    - jarrett 13y ago
      Calling it a "true lie" implies that there is some intentional misdirection. But we could just as easily conclude that the President genuinely holds a different opinion as to the relative value of phone call audio vs metadata. Suppose the President feels collection of metadata is not intrusive. In that case, his comments are merely a legitimate and accurate statement of his personal opinion, rather than a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue. None of this is to say that I personally consider metadata harmless. I'm actually rather protective of my data privacy. I'm merely pointing out that the President's stated valuation of metadata isn't an inherently dishonest rhetorical tactic.
- Lagged2Death 13y ago
  Well, if we get really pedantic and nit-picky, the alarming news that the president was responding to was actually that a tremendous percentage of phone calls are being recorded, IIRC. Strictly speaking, it's actually impossible for NSA employees/contractors to "listen to" more than a tiny fraction of them, there simply aren't enough human-hours to do that. Nobody seriously thought that the NSA actually had a human being snooping on every phone call. So the people say "You're recording our calls!" And the official answer is "Well we're not actually listening to them. We analyze the crap out of the metadata, though." I'm still OK with calling that "discounting."
tripzilch 13y ago
Yup, it's the GP that seems to be attacking (or rather defending?) a straw man.

comrade_ogilvy 13y ago

>Maybe it's just a matter of opinion, but I'm very comfortable characterizing this reply as "discounting because it's just metadata." Perhaps. But keep in the mind the context: "nobody’s listening to the content of people’s phone calls" The president spells out a specific concern that people are saying out loud. Is it "discounting" to disprove a specific concern by accurately characterizing the activity as something other than "listening to the content of people’s phone calls"? That he so happens to use "metadata" does not make his argument wrong or misleading. What word should he use?

jarrett 13y ago
I don't think Schneier's intention was to call President Obama a liar. Rather, I think he intended to say that, even if we accept President Obama's factual claims, we should still take issue with the government's actions. In other words, Schneier's not disputing the facts, but suggesting we ascribe different value to them. So when you say "That he so happens to use 'metadata' does not make his argument wrong or misleading," you're correct. But that also doesn't make Schneier incorrect. (Not that you said he was.)
- Amadou 13y ago
  In other words, Schneier's not disputing the facts, but suggesting we ascribe different value to them. I've seen arguments like the president's called "true lies." A technical truth that obscures the larger more relevant issue. In this case, the real issue that people care about is that the government knows stuff about them that they expect to be private information. Whether they got that information via eavesdropping, metadata analysis or some other technique is largely irrelevant to the issue that makes people uncomfortable with the current state of affairs.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I don't think there's a consensus on what the more relevant issue is here. Based on my discussions with people I'm acquainted with, I'd bet a lot more are concerned about the legality issue: is the government making a good faith effort to stay within the bounds of the law.
    - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
      What they have declared legal is obviously the least of anyone's concerns. We care what they are actually doing. I'm not sure how one could think that people are just fine with being violated as long as there is a law that permits it.
  - jarrett 13y ago
    Calling it a "true lie" implies that there is some intentional misdirection. But we could just as easily conclude that the President genuinely holds a different opinion as to the relative value of phone call audio vs metadata. Suppose the President feels collection of metadata is not intrusive. In that case, his comments are merely a legitimate and accurate statement of his personal opinion, rather than a deliberate attempt to obscure the issue. None of this is to say that I personally consider metadata harmless. I'm actually rather protective of my data privacy. I'm merely pointing out that the President's stated valuation of metadata isn't an inherently dishonest rhetorical tactic.
Lagged2Death 13y ago
Well, if we get really pedantic and nit-picky, the alarming news that the president was responding to was actually that a tremendous percentage of phone calls are being recorded, IIRC. Strictly speaking, it's actually impossible for NSA employees/contractors to "listen to" more than a tiny fraction of them, there simply aren't enough human-hours to do that. Nobody seriously thought that the NSA actually had a human being snooping on every phone call. So the people say "You're recording our calls!" And the official answer is "Well we're not actually listening to them. We analyze the crap out of the metadata, though." I'm still OK with calling that "discounting."

tripzilch 13y ago

Yup, it's the GP that seems to be attacking (or rather defending?) a straw man.