
Metadata Equals Surveillance - antsar
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/metadata_equals.html
======
rayiner
Schneier sets up and knocks down a strawman:

"Back in June, when the contents of Edward Snowden's cache of NSA documents
were just starting to be revealed and we learned about the NSA collecting
phone metadata of every American, many people -- including President Obama --
discounted the seriousness of the NSA's actions by saying that it's just
metadata."

The NSA and Obama aren't "discounting" the NSA's actions because it's " _just_
metadata." They're defending the _legality_ of the NSA's actions by saying
that it's "just _metadata_."

The legally relevant distinction isn't how informative data versus metadata
is, but who generated and controls the information that's the subject of
surveillance. AT&T's metadata _about_ your calls is generated by AT&T's
equipment, stored on its servers, and is generally not even accessible to you.
That not only puts it squarely within the domain of the third party doctrine,
but makes it very hard to argue that it fits within even a common sense lay
person's reading of the 4th amendment (which guarantees "right of the people
to be secure in _their_ persons, houses, papers, and effects."). Arguing that
AT&T's data is _your_ data is an uphill battle to say the least.

Now, maybe third party doctrine is obsolete in a world where people
voluntarily give over to third parties every detail about their lives.[1] But
it doesn't contribute to that debate for Schneier to totally mischaracterize
what Obama is saying.

[1] In my opinion, _privacy_ is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily
give over to third parties every detail about their lives, but reasonable
minds can differ on that point.

~~~
asgard1024
> In my opinion, privacy is obsolete in a world where people voluntarily give
> over to third parties every detail about their lives, but reasonable minds
> can differ on that point.

This seems wrong. People have been giving details about their lives to their
doctors, lawyers and priests for centuries, relying on convention that they
keep it private. Why we cannot continue with the same convention in Facebook
age?

~~~
dfxm12
Doctors, lawyers and priests have legal, financial & spiritual repercussions
for not keeping these details private.

Giving your details to Facebook is the pre-Facebook equivalent of putting an
ad in the paper with your details. You're not just giving your details to
Facebook, you're giving them to everyone who has access to your page.

~~~
devx
Then we should "fix" that. Instead, we've been letting the government give
these companies _immunities_ for letting them gather the data in bulk from
them.

I think people just want to communicate with each other, and the Internet is
the best way to do that right now. If we can build an Internet where we can
easily do that _without_ giving all this data to 3rd parties, people would use
that, but until then they don't have much choice.

As Schneier says, advising people to "quit Google" or Facebook, is not really
a choice in today's Internet. But if developers and the architects of the
Internet realize what a _problem_ this is, then maybe we can come up with
other more secure alternative solutions.

~~~
chris_mahan
it would have to be one where the NSA armed goons can't walk into a room full
of servers and tell the admin: "Do what we tell you or else."

Essentially, we're going back to computers in the house doing everything,
since the network can't be trusted, and encryption can't be trusted.

------
ijk
Part of the problem, I think, is that our concept of privacy is tightly linked
with our physical embodiment. But our concept of self is no longer limited to
our bodies. We conceive of our online avatars as ourselves. But our instincts
about privacy haven't kept pace.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
Right. Once upon a time, the physical control over our bodies and our personal
property was an adequate definition of privacy. Yes, there were many corner
cases, even two centuries ago, but it was "good enough" approximately always.
Why make messy legislation over small problems? The Constitution never even
tried to touch these issues.

Over time the importance of all those corner cases has expanded, and the
increased rate of growth of that importance is downright dizzying in the last
decade or two.

In today's world we have our old fashioned physical privacy (for the most
part), and HIPAA to cover some narrow issues. That is it.

In our brave new world, we do not really own our financial transaction
records. For the most part those are privately owned records in the hands of
various profit-driven corporations, and some of them happen to send us a copy
of a subset of those records every month.

rayiner (above) discusses this topic rather well. But I want to emphasize a
different point: we can have privacy but we need to recognize we are basically
starting from scratch. Trying to bemoan that the laws have been broken is
_counterproductive_ \-- the spies have good lawyers and they have _correctly_
identified gigantic legal loopholes. Even if privacy advocates win a few
battles, the spies are still going to win the war, until we change the basic
rules of the game with new legislation.

------
ck2
Remember when Nixon said "when the President does it, it's legal" ?

Well we've reached the point where the government is arguing whatever it wants
to do is legal.

Of course metadata is surveillance, it is pretty darn obvious it is. It is
just easier to spin.

------
optymizer
I don't know about _all_ cases, but in some cases, that's spot on. The
Government doesn't need to know WHAT you discussed with Saddam Hussein, they
just need to know that you were there at some time talking to Saddam to place
you under the radar. In other words, 'information about information'.

~~~
devx
And that's exactly how they're picking some of their drone targets, too. If
you've talked to the leader of al qaeda, it doesn't really matter what you
discussed (maybe he was just quering about the neighborhood or whatever),
you'll probably end up dead.

So yes, metadata is very much "content", and can be very, very dangerous in
the wrong hands.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
That is the most ominous scenario, which is likely complete fiction (so far).

Finding the high value targets requires good detective work. Blowing up
acquaintances is destroying good leads. The metadata creates leads, and helps
narrow them down to a more promising and manageable subset.

------
TomasSedovic
I found Cory Doctorow's recent short screenplay on the topic quite fitting:

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/05/metadata-w...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/05/metadata-
wartime-drama-privacy)

(features Winston Churchill, Alan Turing and Theresa May)

------
ChrisAntaki
The NSA has the actual data as well. The metadata is there to serve as an
index, for easy searching.

Ref:
[http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944](http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70944)

------
sh1989
"Metadata in aggregate is content" \- Jacob Appelbaum

~~~
bediger4000
Quantity has a quality all its own. - Stalin.

~~~
jensgk
Everything counts in large amounts - Depeche Mode

~~~
tsaoutourpants
My cat's breath smells like cat food! - Ralph Wiggam

~~~
contingencies
_Welcome to the United Snakes

Land of the thief home of the slave

Grand imperial guard where the dollar is sacred and proud_

...

 _The Cold Continent latch key child

Ran away one day and started acting foul

King of where the wild things are daddy's proud

cos the Roman Empire done passed it down

Imported and tortured a work force

and never healed the wounds or shook the curse off

Now the grown up Goliath nation

Holdin' open auditions for the part of David_

...

 _Only approved questions get answered

Now stand your ass up for that national anthem_

\- Brother Ali, Uncle Sam Goddamn

... I usually never listen to rap, but if you think the US is screwed up, you
have to listen to this: it's gold!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO18F4aKGzQ)

~~~
WickyNilliams
Don't usually expect to see Brother Ali lyrics on HN! It is a great song. If
you're not a big hip hop head but wish to find more similar stuff, hit me up
on twitter (@WickyNilliams), happy to recommend!

------
scrrr
Somebody should start selling bumper-stickers with catchy phrases like this.
I'd get one for my car.

~~~
state
How about a t-shirt?

[http://teespring.com/metadataequalssurveilance](http://teespring.com/metadataequalssurveilance)

------
Mordor
Everyone assumes metadata doesn't include the source data.

Even a compressed copy of your telephone conversation isn't the actual call,
just the 'metadata' describing how it is compressed...

------
coldcode
The government does not care what we think it is.

------
cowboy_coder
How can we hide or encrypt Metadata?

