

The academic paper that predicted the NSA scandal - Cynddl
http://ideas.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/11/the_academic_paper_that_predicted_the_nsa_scandal

======
WestCoastJustin
UPDATE: looks like this is being discussed in a similar thread linking to
nature.com. See:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5871269)

    
    
      --
    

Very cool paper, but the title is wrong on this link, and here is why, it [the
paper - 1] did not predict the scandal. It predicted the method by which the
NSA can uniquely identify persons from four points of metadata. It also
predicted this in 2012, but the NSA has been doing this since ~2007 or
earlier.

[1]
[http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/pdf/srep013...](http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/pdf/srep01376.pdf)

------
marshray
This idea that the NSA must resort to statistical inference techniques in
order to associate call metadata with individual Americans is ludicrous.

Has Foreign Policy never heard of Caller ID?

Why are people going to such mental contortions to avoid the plain facts?:
They. Are. Spying. On. Americans.

~~~
jthol
I think the point is that they are trying to claim "it's only metadata!" Well
that's more than enough to identify you.

------
anigbrowl
I find it ironic how many tracking cookies are on that page and that it wants
me to sign up before it will let me read the article.

~~~
p4bl0
[meta]

I wonder if this is a good enough reason to flag the link here on HN. I really
want to, because I think this kind of websites where I must create an account
_just to read_ the article shouldn't be linked here.

What do the HN community think about this?

~~~
Makkhdyn
I don't know what's the opinion of everyone on that, but to me it's just as
bad as a paywall.

