4 ms·

Where does that sort of hair-splitting get you when you consider a land line, and does that logical endpoint still make any sense at all?

rayiner 13y ago
It's not hair splitting, it's a deep truth about the nature of communications networks as they're currently designed: they can't route communications without inspecting metadata that discloses the endpoints. They can, however, perfectly happily route content that they can't inspect.
- throwawayaway 13y ago
  did this number talk to this number or anything four hops in its graph. that is the extent of the "metadata" level of anonymity that is admitted to. are the folks running this query system willing to remove numbers everybody has to call at one time or another? it is not and never has been metadata, it is data. it is not anonymous, it is not data about data and it can be cross referenced. it would be utterly idiotic to contemplate that it works any other way. if you were in charge of it, how would you have it work? leave all decency aside and answer in the "get the job done" frame of mind.
- Lagged2Death 13y ago
  I don't see how you can talk about "inspection" without some sort of intentionality, which the machines don't have. Digital systems in particular transport copies of bits, and the process by which the copies are made is "inspection" as surely as anything else is; the useful function of the system depends on correct interpretation of the payload bits as much as it does on any of the other bits. It is your revision from "exposure" to "inspection" that I feel is hair-splitting. It's not even a distinction without a difference. It's a distinction applied to a machine but based on human assumptions about intent. It's anthropomorphizing. I don't buy the legal justification for the collection of metadata that you describe, and I think that a really honest, thorough application of that line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that no electronically assisted communications have "an expectation of privacy." I guess that's where we find ourselves, though.
mpyne 13y ago
A land line makes an actual circuit to the other party. The signaling information is used to arrange the necessary relays/switches (for old analog gear) or virtual circuit routing tables (for newer stuff). Once this circuit is setup, there's no requirement to actually monitor the electrical signaling on the wire (physically or virtually) until the next out-of-band signal event (e.g. hang-up), just as there's no requirement for UPS to open your box while it's in their possession. Even for virtual circuits you don't need to inspect the data portion of the segment, you need only inspect enough of the header to send it on to the right endpoint. But either way, even that argument has a bit more nuance; the call metadata was a business record retained by the business itself, not the person. And the person knew the business had these records about them, because the phone company mailed them that metadata every month along with the bill. So (the argument went) there couldn't be a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the phone numbers dialed and the call lengths, since the phone company made it quite clear every month that this "metadata" wasn't actually private (to the person) at all.

rayiner 13y ago

It's not hair splitting, it's a deep truth about the nature of communications networks as they're currently designed: they can't route communications without inspecting metadata that discloses the endpoints. They can, however, perfectly happily route content that they can't inspect.

throwawayaway 13y ago
did this number talk to this number or anything four hops in its graph. that is the extent of the "metadata" level of anonymity that is admitted to. are the folks running this query system willing to remove numbers everybody has to call at one time or another? it is not and never has been metadata, it is data. it is not anonymous, it is not data about data and it can be cross referenced. it would be utterly idiotic to contemplate that it works any other way. if you were in charge of it, how would you have it work? leave all decency aside and answer in the "get the job done" frame of mind.
Lagged2Death 13y ago
I don't see how you can talk about "inspection" without some sort of intentionality, which the machines don't have. Digital systems in particular transport copies of bits, and the process by which the copies are made is "inspection" as surely as anything else is; the useful function of the system depends on correct interpretation of the payload bits as much as it does on any of the other bits. It is your revision from "exposure" to "inspection" that I feel is hair-splitting. It's not even a distinction without a difference. It's a distinction applied to a machine but based on human assumptions about intent. It's anthropomorphizing. I don't buy the legal justification for the collection of metadata that you describe, and I think that a really honest, thorough application of that line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that no electronically assisted communications have "an expectation of privacy." I guess that's where we find ourselves, though.

mpyne 13y ago

A land line makes an actual circuit to the other party. The signaling information is used to arrange the necessary relays/switches (for old analog gear) or virtual circuit routing tables (for newer stuff). Once this circuit is setup, there's no requirement to actually monitor the electrical signaling on the wire (physically or virtually) until the next out-of-band signal event (e.g. hang-up), just as there's no requirement for UPS to open your box while it's in their possession. Even for virtual circuits you don't need to inspect the data portion of the segment, you need only inspect enough of the header to send it on to the right endpoint. But either way, even that argument has a bit more nuance; the call metadata was a business record retained by the business itself, not the person. And the person knew the business had these records about them, because the phone company mailed them that metadata every month along with the bill. So (the argument went) there couldn't be a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the phone numbers dialed and the call lengths, since the phone company made it quite clear every month that this "metadata" wasn't actually private (to the person) at all.