Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
68 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! [View all]
Are_grits_groceries
Jun 2013
OP
If meta-data was benign and meaningless they wouldn't be collecting it.
Nuclear Unicorn
Jun 2013
#13
No, I'm saying if they had the actual contents, they would also have the metadata.
randome
Jun 2013
#24
People should be more worried about their spouses or children finding out about their phone calls
kelliekat44
Jun 2013
#3
some very astute DU'er posted this probably impacts our 1st Amendment Rights > Privacy.
KittyWampus
Jun 2013
#6
And if they are keeping all of the phone call and other raw content, metadata serves as an "index"
cascadiance
Jun 2013
#8
How can they know who *you* call if no names are linked to the numbers they have?
baldguy
Jun 2013
#12
But they don't do that unless the number is communicating with someone they have a warrant to watch.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#17
So, basically you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
baldguy
Jun 2013
#29
you're right. interesting how fb has been pushing for members to add their phone numbers
desertduck
Jun 2013
#68
But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years
neohippie
Jun 2013
#57
You'd be surprised what spooks can learn about you from traffic analysis. n/t
backscatter712
Jun 2013
#22
The claim is that metadata is more intrusive than actually eavesdropping
Progressive dog
Jun 2013
#27
There's a helluva lot of room for guilt by assosiation. "Have you ever been a member...?"
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#23
Exactly! They're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except Kevin Bacon is Osama bin Laden.
backscatter712
Jun 2013
#48
Ironic, isn't it. For example, here you are on DU, generating income from metadata, presenting ads
jtuck004
Jun 2013
#49
You are ignoring experts in mathematics, probability, and many other fields.
Are_grits_groceries
Jun 2013
#67