General Discussion

moondust

(21,257 posts)

60. But that only leads to guilt by association.

Reply to Are_grits_groceries (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 06:07 PM

Jun 2013

The content is what is potentially incriminating/exonerating.

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:

METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! REPEAT: METADATA IS MORE INTRUSIVE! [View all] Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 OP

Maybe not more intrusive, but certainly potentially more revealing Duer 157099 Jun 2013 #1

If they had the actual conversations, they would also have the metadata. randome Jun 2013 #2

They don't need to waste time, space or money on conversations. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #7

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

One more time. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #40

Winner! BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #32

To decide intents and how to react. nineteen50 Jun 2013 #54

DING DING! BrotherIvan Jun 2013 #62

Sorting through the conversations would be too time and labor JDPriestly Jun 2013 #46

People should be more worried about their spouses or children finding out about their phone calls kelliekat44 Jun 2013 #3

Is that a confession of some sort? randome Jun 2013 #5

Absolutely. Jackpine Radical Jun 2013 #4

some very astute DU'er posted this probably impacts our 1st Amendment Rights > Privacy. KittyWampus Jun 2013 #6

"the possibilities are endless"... marions ghost Jun 2013 #11

And if they are keeping all of the phone call and other raw content, metadata serves as an "index" cascadiance Jun 2013 #8

The public doesnt understand--she is right about that! marions ghost Jun 2013 #9

The goal posts are moving! The goal posts at moving! BenzoDia Jun 2013 #10

How can they know who *you* call if no names are linked to the numbers they have? baldguy Jun 2013 #12

Reverse directory Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #14

But they don't do that unless the number is communicating with someone they have a warrant to watch. baldguy Jun 2013 #17

He said they weren't listening to phone calls. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #25

So, basically you're admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about. baldguy Jun 2013 #29

What are you talking about? Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #37

Who says they don't have that info? backscatter712 Jun 2013 #16

Just pointing out a method used for decades. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #18

They certainly do. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #26

you're right. interesting how fb has been pushing for members to add their phone numbers desertduck Jun 2013 #68

Glenn Greenwald says. baldguy Jun 2013 #20

I said the contents are not as useful as the data. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #28

But Greenwald said that all calls are also stored not just metadata and they can go back 7 years neohippie Jun 2013 #57

Read the article *you* linked to. Who is actually storing "all that stuff"? baldguy Jun 2013 #58

K&R. If you think letting the NSA have your metadata is OK... backscatter712 Jun 2013 #15

Traitors? That's not bombastic, not at all... demwing Jun 2013 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author backscatter712 Jun 2013 #59

So knowing who I spoke to is more intrusive than what was said Progressive dog Jun 2013 #19

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

Read the OP and the article it is linked to. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #34

The explanation is funny, kind of less is more, Progressive dog Jun 2013 #43

Ummm.... Maedhros Jun 2013 #38

Explaning it? no she didn't Progressive dog Jun 2013 #39

*PLONK* backscatter712 Jun 2013 #41

my feelings are hurt but I'll live with it Progressive dog Jun 2013 #44

This is an explanation: Maedhros Jun 2013 #64

That is not an explanation of metadata being more intrusive Progressive dog Jun 2013 #66

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jun 2013 #21

There's a helluva lot of room for guilt by assosiation. "Have you ever been a member...?" Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #23

Joe McCarthy would've loved MetaData. Uncle Joe Jun 2013 #31

Exactly! They're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except Kevin Bacon is Osama bin Laden. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #48

I think the location tracking thing is one of the biggest issues to me. Xithras Jun 2013 #30

location technotwit Jun 2013 #47

Bullshit! But I understand why the goalposts must be moved. MjolnirTime Jun 2013 #33

Then you argue with Jane Mayer Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #35

Yes, ProSense Jun 2013 #45

Ironic, isn't it. For example, here you are on DU, generating income from metadata, presenting ads jtuck004 Jun 2013 #49

You can mock it all you want. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #50

OK, ProSense Jun 2013 #55

You are ignoring experts in mathematics, probability, and many other fields. Are_grits_groceries Jun 2013 #67

k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Jun 2013 #36

K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #42

Huh? The metadata is a subset Recursion Jun 2013 #51

Can one imagine if Politicalboi Jun 2013 #52

K&R. lob1 Jun 2013 #53

But that only leads to guilt by association. moondust Jun 2013 #60

Very true. The feds want us to fear guilt by association. n/t backscatter712 Jun 2013 #61

Now you got it! reusrename Jun 2013 #63

that was the point treestar Jun 2013 #65