[governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

That somewhat specious article still means the government knows less than metadata + actual content of the conversation.

Consider, you might work for the suicide hotline and have called your supervisor there to tell her you were stuck in traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge. Or your mother might be a gynecologist while your next door neighbor works for the local planned parenthood office.

As for my social networking contacts, they include known homosexuals, polyamorists, at least one person that has had a sex change and is now a woman .. and I'm heterosexual, and monogamous.

Some logic does help, if you're not to put one and one together and occasionally get eleven.

--srs (iPad)

On 13-Jun-2013, at 17:04, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf
> Of Dewayne Hendricks
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:48 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You
> Than the Content of Your Phonecalls
> 
> [Note:  This item comes from friend Steve Schear.  DLH]
> 
> "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your
> Phonecalls June 12 2013
> <http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-06-12/"metadata"-can-tell-governm
> ent-more-about-you-content-your-phonecalls>
> 
> The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking
> "metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the actual
> content of the calls.
> 
> But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than the
> content of your actual phone calls.
> 
> For example, the ACLU notes:
> 
> A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study a few years back foundthat
> reviewing people's social networking contacts alone was sufficient to
> determine their sexual orientation. Consider, metadata from email
> communications was sufficient to identify the mistress of then-CIA Director
> David Petraeus and then  drive him out of office.
> 
> The "who," "when" and "how frequently" of communications are oftenmore
> revealing than what is said or written. Calls between a reporter and a
> government whistleblower, for example, may reveal a relationship that can be
> incriminating all on its own.
> 
> Repeated calls to Alcoholics Anonymous, hotlines for gay teens, abortion
> clinics or a gambling bookie may tell you all you need to know about a
> person's problems. If a politician were revealed to have repeatedly called a
> phone sex hotline after 2:00 a.m., no one would need to know what was said
> on the call before drawing conclusions. In addition sophisticated
> data-mining technologies have compounded the privacy implications by
> allowing the government to analyze terabytes of metadata and reveal far more
> details about a person's life than ever before.
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out:
> 
> What [government officials] are trying to say is that disclosure of
> metadata-the details about phone calls, without the actual voice-isn't a big
> deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government
> knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
> 
>    . They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18
> minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
>    . They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the
> Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
>    . They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor,
> then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know
> what was discussed.
>    . They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it
> was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators
> and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of
> those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
>    . They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and
> then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody
> knows what you spoke about.
> 
> Sorry, your phone records-oops, "so-called metadata"-can reveal a lot more
> about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata
> provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your
> lives.  And the government has given no assurances that this data will never
> be correlated with other easily obtained data.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t