Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumswhat's the matter with metadata?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/verizon-nsa-metadata-surveillance-problem.htmlDianne Feinstein, a Democrat from liberal Northern California and the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, assured the public earlier today that the governments secret snooping into the phone records of Americans was perfectly fine, because the information it obtained was only meta, meaning it excluded the actual content of the phone conversations, providing merely records, from a Verizon subsidiary, of who called whom when and from where. In addition, she said in a prepared statement, the names of subscribers were not included automatically in the metadata (though the numbers, surely, could be used to identify them). Our courts have consistently recognized that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this type of metadata information and thus no search warrant is required to obtain it, she said, adding that any subsequent effort to obtain the content of an Americans communications would require a specific order from the FISA court.
She said she understands privacythats why this is carefully doneand noted that eleven special federal judges, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret, had authorized the vast intelligence collection. A White House official made the same points to reporters, saying, The order reprinted overnight does not allow the government to listen in on anyones telephone calls and was subject to a robust legal regime. The gist of the defense was that, in contrast to what took place under the Bush Administration, this form of secret domestic surveillance was legitimate because Congress had authorized it, and the judicial branch had ratified it, and the actual words spoken by one American to another were still private. So how bad could it be?
The answer, according to the mathematician and former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau, whom I interviewed while reporting on the plight of the former N.S.A. whistleblower Thomas Drake and who is also the author of Surveillance or Security?, is that its worse than many might think.
The public doesnt understand, she told me, speaking about so-called metadata. Its much more intrusive than content. She explained that the government can learn immense amounts of proprietary information by studying who you call, and who they call. If you can track that, you know exactly what is happeningyou dont need the content.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 806 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
what's the matter with metadata? (Original Post)
xchrom
Jun 2013
OP
randome
(34,845 posts)1. Sure, anyone COULD do all that. So could a hacker.
But I'm not going to get all bent out of shape when there is a sufficient review process that allows this and only under limited circumstances.
Metadata only. Review and approval every 90 days since 2006. That's good enough for me. I'm not in a position to micro-manage the world.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]
pipoman
(16,038 posts)2. Well then..maybe as a demonstration of the
benign activity, maybe Ms. F would like to publish her metadata for a month online so we can all see how harmless it is?
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)3. we were deceived about the data collection
in the first place. Now we are to believe that they are "not really looking at it"?
And with all this in place, what do you think will happen when the next right wing tyrant gets in the Whitehouse?
But the sheeple were asleep at the wheel.