METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE!

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
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 it’s worse than many might think.

“The public doesn’t understand,” she told me, speaking about so-called metadata. “It’s 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 happening—you don’t need the content.”

For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.” And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. “You can see the sources,” she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.

Metadata, Landau noted, can also reveal sensitive political information, showing, for instance, if opposition leaders are meeting, who is involved, where they gather, and for how long. Such data can reveal, too, who is romantically involved with whom, by tracking the locations of cell phones at night.
<snip>
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/06/verizon-nsa-metadata-surveillance-problem.html

They don't want to listen to them. They get more info from just the numbers.

[Duer 157099]

1. Maybe not more intrusive, but certainly potentially more revealing

An excellent point that many are missing

[randome]

2. If they had the actual conversations, they would also have the metadata.

So...no.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Are_grits_groceries]

7. They don't need to waste time, space or money on conversations.

Weeding through those takes much more computer time with less results.
Mathematicians pointed out years ago that using algorithms to look for patterns is much faster and yields more useful results.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. If meta-data was benign and meaningless they wouldn't be collecting it.

[randome]

24. No, I'm saying if they had the actual contents, they would also have the metadata.

So how can the metadata by itself be less intrusive than having the metadata PLUS call contents?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Are_grits_groceries]

40. One more time.

They do not want to sift through content. It is cumbersome and time consuming even with computers.
The patterns they can follow from metadata will tell them more. The OP explains why.
They want you to glom on to content as the Holy Grail. They will make out like bandits because you ignore the rest.

[BrotherIvan]

32. Winner!

And now they are sharing (or selling it to) with other countries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2985752

HT: Prosense!

[nineteen50]

54. To decide intents and how to react.

Occupy ring a bell?

[BrotherIvan]

62. DING DING!

Another winner!

[JDPriestly]

46. Sorting through the conversations would be too time and labor

consuming. It would even be more expensive than the current program is. They get the phone numbers, link them like an org chart and then get more information on numbers and the people who have the numbers with a proper subpoena. It's tricky.

I think they are skirting legality and probably violating the Constitution. A scheme like that will freeze freedom of the press and association and chill speech and other rights.

Watergate could not have been reported had this system existed at that time. Of course, back then there were pay phones that permitted people to make anonymous calls.

Maybe the solution is to bring back pay phones. But then they could put cameras up and photograph everyone who goes into the pay phone booth. After all, pay phones are in public places usually.

[kelliekat44]

3. People should be more worried about their spouses or children finding out about their phone calls

than about what the government can find out about them and use against them.

[randome]

5. Is that a confession of some sort?

Have you been making some of those 2.99 per minute calls?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Absolutely.

And they can do pattern searches to identify people who are likely to have connections with all sorts of groups that they don't like.

Sierra Club? Ecoterrorist.

Been hanging out on Occupy-related websites? Following Occupy on Twitter? They take it to some Reagan-appointed judge & get a warrant.

Routinely call a couple of friends with pot busts on their records? Probable cause to break down your door as a big-time dealer.

The possibilities are endless.

[KittyWampus]

6. some very astute DU'er posted this probably impacts our 1st Amendment Rights > Privacy.

Reading that person's post really made an impact.

[marions ghost]

11. "the possibilities are endless"...

you are absolutely right.

[cascadiance]

8. And if they are keeping all of the phone call and other raw content, metadata serves as an "index"

... to it. I'm guessing that we still haven't heard yet, but wouldn't be surprised that it exists, that the raw data is being aggregated someplace. Why else is the absolutely huge amount of data space being built in Utah to house data. A lot of space to hide this stuff. And this sort of index allows them all kinds of means to do fishing expeditions on data and then go in to detailed lookups of the raw data secretly if they find something they want to use for their agenda. And they claim that the publicly visible fact that they are using just the "meta data" as a rationalization that they aren't doing anything illegal.

[marions ghost]

9. The public doesnt understand--she is right about that!

"Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint."

--This is a good point about the negative effect on media news gathering.

[BenzoDia]

10. The goal posts are moving! The goal posts at moving!

As more and more people understand what metadata is, expect their arguments to change accordingly.

[baldguy]

12. How can they know who *you* call if no names are linked to the numbers they have?

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. Reverse directory

Used by police in hard copy forever.
As data, much easier to correlate.

[baldguy]

17. But they don't do that unless the number is communicating with someone they have a warrant to watch.

If you're not calling a terrorist, they're just looking at numbers.

Unless you believe that Obama is lying?

[Are_grits_groceries]

25. He said they weren't listening to phone calls.

They don't need to with the numbers.
And if you believe anything they say without a huge grain of salt, you are too trusting.
Obama may be playing games of semantics. Everything he says about this is probably carefully scripted to be technically correct.

As far as lying, all of the elected "representatives" will lie in a heartbeat if they have to.
Give them a top secret security briefing, they will lie because revealing any of it means big trouble for them.

As far as legal actions, "legal" has become a very fungible term. I don't believe we know half of what is being collected, who has access to it or what it it is being used for.

[baldguy]

29. So, basically you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Are_grits_groceries]

37. What are you talking about?

I said that I believe metadata is more important than content. The article explains why.
The other ideas such as warrants, legal, and lying are caught up in semantics and a different issue than the basic idea I stated.

[backscatter712]

16. Who says they don't have that info?

Reverse number lookups are trivial.

[Are_grits_groceries]

18. Just pointing out a method used for decades.

They probably have a much more sophisticated system or there is a system in place to automatically attach such into.

[backscatter712]

26. They certainly do.

Their entire intelligence paradigm revolves around social circles, much like Google+ circles, which model how we network with each other socially.

[desertduck]

68. you're right. interesting how fb has been pushing for members to add their phone numbers

And not just fb. Google + too.

This data surveillance is bad news.

[baldguy]

20. Glenn Greenwald says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

"Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered."

Or haven't you been paying attention?

[Are_grits_groceries]

28. I said the contents are not as useful as the data.

They WANT those items. The public believes that the conversations are the important issue.
Read my OP again.

[neohippie]

57. But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years

I think you are not paying attention completely...
This article with an interview with a counterterrorism official says that the meta-data is collected in a blanket fashion and that all calls are also stored, but that they can only go back and listen the calls when a FISA warrant has been issued but there is no warrant for the blanket collection of all our calls, texts, emails, chats, etc...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".

On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored:

[baldguy]

58. Read the article *you* linked to. Who is actually storing "all that stuff"?

It's not the NSA, any of their contractors, or any other US govt entity, is it?

[backscatter712]

15. K&R. If you think letting the NSA have your metadata is OK...

Then you should be mailing your Facebook friends list to the feds, so they can verify you don't associate with undesirables.

Better send them your Google+ circles too.

And those you follow on Twitter.

Better send them your email contact list.

Better send them your phone's contact list, and your Rolodex too.

Ever talk to a protester in college? Better let them know.

Yeah, I know, the quislings are gonna mock us in 3...2...1... Bring it, traitors!

[demwing]

56. Traitors? That's not bombastic, not at all...

And doesn't make you appear as someone that should be taken seriously.

[Progressive dog]

19. So knowing who I spoke to is more intrusive than what was said

This might be an admission that only metadata is being collected, but that couldn't be the journalistic take.

I'm quoting this because it made me laugh.
"Such data can reveal, too, who is romantically involved with whom, by tracking the locations of cell phones at night."

[backscatter712]

22. You'd be surprised what spooks can learn about you from traffic analysis. n/t

[Progressive dog]

27. The claim is that metadata is more intrusive than actually eavesdropping

I want people who make this claim to explain it. You didn't even try.

[Are_grits_groceries]

34. Read the OP and the article it is linked to.

They explain it very well.
And laugh all you want. Read more about it or talk to a mathematicians who deal in probabilities and data mining and you will get an earful.

Your attitude is exactly the one they want. While you are busy trying to protect content, they are taking much more important info.
They will tell you and act like content is the Holy Grail. Not so.

[Progressive dog]

43. The explanation is funny, kind of less is more,

in fact exactly less information is more information. There is no way to explain it. It is silly, and the lovers at night part tops it.

[Maedhros]

38. Ummm....

The entire original post comprises mathematician and former Sun Microsystems engineer Susan Landau making the claim and explaining it.

Not following your logic.

[Progressive dog]

39. Explaning it? no she didn't

[backscatter712]

41. *PLONK*

[Progressive dog]

44. my feelings are hurt but I'll live with it

[Maedhros]

64. This is an explanation:

"For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.” And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. “You can see the sources,” she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied. "

You may not like the explanation, but it's right there.

[Progressive dog]

66. That is not an explanation of metadata being more intrusive

It is an explanation of being able to use metadata. So what?

[Uncle Joe]

21. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, grits.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. There's a helluva lot of room for guilt by assosiation. "Have you ever been a member...?"

[Uncle Joe]

31. Joe McCarthy would've loved MetaData.

He didn't need conversations to ruin someone's life or career, guilt by association was more than enough for him.

[backscatter712]

48. Exactly! They're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except Kevin Bacon is Osama bin Laden.

If you've got less than eight degrees of separation from Al Qaeda (or Occupy, or an anti-war group, or Communists, or people on Democratic Underground), you're a Security Risk, and the American Stasi are going to be stalking you like a psycho ex-boyfriend.

[Xithras]

30. I think the location tracking thing is one of the biggest issues to me.

Basically, the government has a log of your exact location every time you've made a phone call.

[technotwit]

47. location

Actually your phone location can be tracked by just being turned on. It's constantly pinging towers looking for a signal. Locations can be tracked by triangulation if multiple towers see your signal. And most smart phones now have a GPS built in.

[MjolnirTime]

33. Bullshit! But I understand why the goalposts must be moved.

[Are_grits_groceries]

35. Then you argue with Jane Mayer

who has researched national security issues for years. Also argue with the mathematicians who are telling you why it is more important.
Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. Wishful thinking.

[ProSense]

45. Yes,

For example, she said, in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers. Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.” And information from cell-phone towers can reveal the caller’s location. Metadata, she pointed out, can be so revelatory about whom reporters talk to in order to get sensitive stories that it can make more traditional tools in leak investigations, like search warrants and subpoenas, look quaint. “You can see the sources,” she said. When the F.B.I. obtains such records from news agencies, the Attorney General is required to sign off on each invasion of privacy. When the N.S.A. sweeps up millions of records a minute, it’s unclear if any such brakes are applied.

...the claim is simply absurd. I mean, actually spying on people, wiretapping their conversations is less intrusive than metadata?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971223#post2

[jtuck004]

49. Ironic, isn't it. For example, here you are on DU, generating income from metadata, presenting ads

at the top of the page, and on the left, and on the right. They don't know what you read on the pages you went to, they don't know if you posted or emailed the author, but they know enough to judge your interests, and then ads appear on the page based on that metadata. And DU gets a check (more likely several) because it works.

It is totally from the analysis of metadata that knows very little of what you actually did, but mostly where you connected from and to. That's just Internet traffic. Phone numbers are connected to users, or a business, and just from knowing the endpoints, time, and length of call analysis can give us information we need to market to you. Or target you.

Will it be successful all the time.No. But that is why we need big buildings with lots of computers and power to analyze vast amounts of data. And it has been so successful more capacity is being built all the time

NSA? Think Hadoop, on steroids.

[Are_grits_groceries]

50. You can mock it all you want.

You are ignoring the basic premise which has been used in many disciplines to find important patterns.
Google and read about metadata and try to get a clue. Read the book Surveillance or Security.

Simply stating that you think it is absurd does not make it so. You are ignoring mathematical data and new means of collecting data and relying on your view. It may seem counterintuitive, but it is a very valuable use of data.

I cannot explain it any more clearly.
You will simply post your innumerable threads over and over in different posts. Continue in that circle of denial. I don't want in.

[ProSense]

55. OK,

"You can mock it all you want."

...I will. Maybe we can scale back the more intrusive meta data program and bring back Bush's illegal wiretapping (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979)

Clearly, seeing phone data:

Personal phone calls can also reveal sensitive medical information: “You can see a call to a gynecologist, and then a call to an oncologist, and then a call to close family members.”

...is more intrusive than actually listen to each call.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

Absurd.

[Are_grits_groceries]

67. You are ignoring experts in mathematics, probability, and many other fields.

You take your approach which is based on your idea of what is a better method over people who have used this method for years. That is the height of hubris.

The method I have posted about is counterintuitive. That does not make it wrong. It is simply a different approach that yields useful information.

Your unwillingness to try to understand ANYTHING that does not bolsters your POLITICAL agenda is pathetic and dangerous. This attitude dismisses valid points and important ideas that need debate. You find any and every article no matter how minuscule and use them ad infinitum to try to shut down anybody who disagrees with you. All of you are like a swarm of locusts who try to "eat" every dissenting opinion by a concerted attack with every thread you can muster. You repeat them over and over.

You and those like you do not want ANY questions or criticism to be voiced because you believe it to be a threat to this administration. You equate dissent with a policy to an attempt to destroy someone. That is what the Republicans have done to President Obama for years. You have the unmitigated gall to act like many people on DU with valid questions are in that same category. They are not.

Many people with much more longevity and steadfast support of Democrats than me are being needlessly attacked. You are out to besmirch anybody that gets in your way. You act as if you are in charge of what is correct and what should be discussed.

I sincerely doubt that you will ever change or entertain any idea that is remotely out of line with your views. You will continue your unrelenting assault with your collection of links to your OPs that you repeatedly post over and over as if volume make you right.

You are doing a disservice to yourself, DU, and those you are trying to defend. Whatever valid points you have are lost in a blizzard of unremitting attacks.

[Laelth]

36. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[WillyT]

42. K & R !!!

[Recursion]

51. Huh? The metadata is a subset

It can't be "more" intrusive

[Politicalboi]

52. Can one imagine if

Climate change got this attention 40 years ago, or even now. We are so self centered. All that matters most to us is OUR rights. When we don't have clean water, or clean air, this will be nothing in comparison.

[lob1]

53. K&R.

[moondust]

60. But that only leads to guilt by association.

The content is what is potentially incriminating/exonerating.

[backscatter712]

61. Very true. The feds want us to fear guilt by association. n/t

[reusrename]

63. Now you got it!

Now think about it a little more.

Although it is possible for this information to be used for noble purposes, there is absolutely no evidence that this will ever happen. No crime fighting is being done with this information.

Instead, the information is being used to thwart the will of the people, to keep us from organizing in a natural fashion.

We (the ones who are trying to change things) are the insurgents in this war. It has nothing to do with terrorists.

[treestar]

65. that was the point

but they aren't going to care about the person calling the gynecologist then oncologist then family members. When in the last few years has the NSA done something to somebody based on something like that? They have no motive to look for anything but Al Qaeda ties. They aren't going to be congratulated for figuring out someone has cancer.

What nefarious use is this alleged spying being put to?