Matt Blaze Examines Communications Privacy 44
altjira writes "Matt Blaze analyzes the implications of a recent Newsweek story on the Bush administration's use of the NSA for domestic spying on communications, and questions whether the lower legal threshold for the collection of communications metadata is giving away too much to the government: 'As electronic communication pervades more of our daily lives, transaction records — metadata — can reveal quite a bit about us, indeed often much more than a few out-of-context conversations might. Aggregated into databases with other people's records (or perhaps everyone's records) and analyzed by powerful software, metadata by itself can paint a remarkably detailed picture of connections, relationships, and other patterns that could never be recovered simply from listening to the conversations themselves.'"
Indeed ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, metadata is a powerfull thing, very powerfull.
Infact, it's metadata which matters the most. An real world example of the power of metadata is Google. Basicly, the ranking works because of metadata, originating as metadata or derived from the content of the page.
Re:Indeed ... (Score:5, Informative)
An real world example of the power of metadata is Google. Basicly, the ranking works because of metadata, originating as metadata or derived from the content of the page.
While probably correct, there really isn't much substance to your comment, so I decided to add some links to one of the best examples of exploiting metadata: network analysis (or applied graph theory, depending on your bent). It's been applied to webpages, phone call records (using just who calls whom), scientific collaboration networks, social networks, and a whole bunch more. The following links make for some interesting reading about the scope and power of exploiting metadata (at least the introductions):
PageRank, HITS: rank webpages as authoritative based on the links between them (i.e. assume that good pages link to good pages, etc.) PageRank [tugraz.at] Analyzing the web [dcg.ethz.ch] web communities based on link structure [intelligence.tuc.gr] analyzing scientific collaborations based only on patterns of co-authorship and co-citation [cornell.edu] another one like the previous [arxiv.org] (although as a computer scientist, i don't think much of mark newman, he writes well).
Remember kids, it's popular because it works!
Bad for innocent, neutral for guilty (Score:2, Insightful)
Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Too late (Score:5, Informative)
It depends on what definition of "terrorist" you use.
The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.
source [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hrm, not quite.
If I decide to disappear, none of my current friends and acquaintances would know where to find me. Facebook would be useless.
What the authorities would need to do is find all the long lost childhood friends and acquaintances from any one of the many places I used to live as a kid, assuming they would remember anything if found.
HOWEVER, having said that, I didn't grow up on Facebook, kids these days are different. With Facebook their childhoods are pretty much on record.
Makes me wonder if
The communiocations spying via telcos and NSA... (Score:2)
... wasn't to find terrorist, but to weigh the public response so to know how best to manipulate the public via the media, so to support political agendas... such as the war on Iraq drum banging bandwagon for public approval.
It is because such information can be used in such a way, and inherently will be as who wouldn't make use of such information to achive their own agendas, especially when they think they are doing nothing wrong?... that such information should not exist.
However, there is no stopping it
Not big boom; but, lotsa boom... (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I try to work the words "bomb plan", "explosive" or "sulfuric acid as a catalyst" in all of my instant message conversations online. The poor analysis software must get lonely without stuff to find in most communications.
Of course a real anarchist bomb making skeptic might also include words like "tax dodge" or "after downing street" in their mail...
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be a FireFox plugin that would do a random Google search in the background. It would search for things like "fluffy kitten" or "kiddie pr0n" or "bomb + whitehouse". Things like that.
The first plan was to completely screw up any analysis software. The second idea was to give plausible deniability if your computer was ever seized.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
If the government argues that meta-data isn't important and doesn't need to be protected, then the citizens should demand that the government also abide by this and release all communications meta-data relating to government employees. It might open the eyes of a few to see who their elected representatives actually spend their work days talking to. It would also massively boost the case for greater government transparency.
Traffic analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
Link analysis (Score:3, Informative)
The NSA program was and is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that this NSA program was illegal. The Newsweek article suggests that several high-ranking members of the Justice Department were aware that the program was illegal, and did nothing to stop it.
Such a violation of the law represents a fundamental failure of our system of government to protect the rights of its citizenry. Because the Bush administration has willfully broken the law, the federal government no longer has the moral right or authority to govern the people of the United States.
Barack Obama needs to take drastic steps, including impeachment and prosecution of all those within the Bush administration who have broken the law, if he wishes to restore the validity and authority of the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th amendment forbids this. Telecommunications laws based on the 4th amendment forbid this. Even the most basic analysis of privacy [wordpress.com] forbids this.
Just because something may be of benefit to the government does not mean the government has permission to do it. There are oth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you're right. we should have some kind of place we can come together, present evidence, interpret the law, argue for both sides, and come up with a decision. presided over by someone deemed impartial , with alot of experience in the law.
Re: (Score:1)
The only communications the government listened in on were calls FROM this country TO other countries. IF the call was routine, then it was dropped. IF the call was about terrorism, then your asses were protected from it. Got it?
Read the articles. The NSA program covers internal calls within the United States without a warrant.
Who ran roughshod over FISA? (Score:1)
What bullshit (Score:1)
There IS no debate in the context cited. The Bill of Rights lays to rest any questions about what the .gov should be able to do. The fact that they are doing things that go AGAINST the Bill of Rights is something nobody disputes. The only debate should be about HOW to prosecute those officials who have enabled and participated in crimes against the our rights as American citizens.
Unfortunately we can't even get to the plateau where everyone agrees something needs to be done. This country IMO is done; it