General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! [View all]
<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 its worse than many might think.
The public doesnt understand, she told me, speaking about so-called metadata. Its 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 happeningyou dont 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 callers 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, its 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.