It's Trivially Easy To Identify You Based On Records of Your Calls and Texts (dailydot.com) 37
Reader erier2003 shares an article on Daily Dot: Contrary to the claims of America's top spies, the details of your phone calls and text messages -- including when they took place and whom they involved -- are no less revealing than the actual contents of those communications. In a study published online Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Stanford University researchers demonstrated how they used publicly available sources -- like Google searches and the paid background-check service Intelius -- to identify "the overwhelming majority" of their 823 volunteers based only on their anonymized call and SMS metadata. The results cast doubt on claims by senior intelligence officials that telephone and Internet "metadata" -- information about communications, but not the content of those communications -- should be subjected to a lower privacy threshold because it is less sensitive. Contrary to those claims, the researchers wrote, "telephone metadata is densely interconnected, susceptible to reidentification, and enables highly sensitive inferences."IEEE has more details.
Re: (Score:2)
Sophistry (Score:5, Insightful)
With thousands of agents with warrantless access, it will be trivial for a plant to track who a political opponent calls to flesh out their supporter network.
This will allow for mysterious IRS audits, in the worst case, or just rhetorical games to discredit people.
This is the reason government spy powers on citizens are supposed to be limited to warrants -- the goal was stopping those in power from harassing opponents.
The King of England would have traced phone call networks. And so the founding fathers would have banned it sans warrant.
The modern "metadata" concept is a complete unconstitutional fraud designed to pretend to honor this by asserting only the content of the call is private. Yet the connecting the dots is precisely and arguably more important.
Just get a damned warrant so it is all tracked and reviewed by elected officials.
Re:Sophistry (Score:4, Insightful)
Using Metadata to find Paul Revere [kieranhealy.org]
His NAME is HARRY BUTTLE! (Score:2)
Re: Sophistry (Score:1)
The problem isn't metadata. Metadata (at least, for phones) is regulated by the "pen register" part of the ECPA. And it does require a warrant! At least, from regular cops.
The difference here is that the NSA got this data under a national security exception.
If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who chanted "USA USA USA REMEMBER 9/11!!@!". What did they expect?
Here's the answer you requested. (Score:2)
Sorry - I don't answer A/C's. Incidentally, that's how you end up at minus one. TL;DR.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Challenge accepted, and not because I don't think you're an AC troll.
The founding fathers experienced what life was like when general warrants was law, and purposely limited the scope of how the government could collect information on citizens as well as provide oversight and justification when they do. History has shown us what happens when supposedly democratic governments are left unchecked in their abuse of surveillance powers and secret police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
Or p
Joke's on them... (Score:1)
The joke's on them, I never call or text anyone! No one wants to talk to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Old news is old, but still scary (Score:1)
https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
We've known that the "b but it's just harmless metadata" lie is a lie for a long time.
Contrary? (Score:2, Informative)
"We kill people based on metadata" -- Michael Hayden, former NSA chief, April 2014.
Doubtful (Score:2)
Contrary to the claims of America's top spies, the details of your phone calls and text messages -- including when they took place and whom they involved -- are no less revealing than the actual contents of those communications.
No less revealing? Really?
I might text a friend at 5pm to ask if he can help me move house. Or I might text him to ask if he can help me move a body.
I'd say content'd be pretty revealing in those cases.
Re: (Score:1)
Umm...as the great Asimov explained via Harry Seldon & Psychohistory its NOT about 'single events' its about the 'totality of the events'...
Sure, if you killed 1 person & had to move the body, the metadata about your phone call to a friend may be of little use. BUT if you're a serial killer, the metadata on your movements, purchasing habits, calls made etc. etc. may be usable to 'sus out' that you're in fact a serial killer...something that someone might claim is a 'good end result justifying the me
Hyperbole doesn't help our cause (Score:2)
the details of your phone calls and text messages -- including when they took place and whom they involved -- are no less revealing than the actual contents of those communications
is plainly not true.
Make people aware that metadata is proven to *not* be anonymous; let them know they can be identified without ever looking at the contents of their communications.
But don't try to equate knowing who someone is and who they've talked to with knowing what they said.
No kidding (Score:2)
But yeah - if you do shady stuff, you are best off to not assume your postings can't identify you
Of course it should be a lower privacy threshold (Score:2)
The metadata may be somewhat revealing, but not as much as the metadata AND the content of those communications.
When you make it just as difficult to get only the metadata, people will stop making a distinction and always get the more invasive option.