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

[parminder]

On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:04 PM, michael gurstein 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.

The problem is: for non US persons they are not even reassuring that.. 
They are simply saying nothing. Non USians are fair game for anything 
and everything.... That bugs me most in the present context. Although it 
shouldnt, this is nothing compared to admitting collateral damage and 
killing without warrant or declared war through drones, and then 
persuading Apple to take off the Drone attack news aggregator service as 
hurting (US) Apple cousumers/ users sentiment. I think user rights are 
basically USer rights now!!

I only hope that the relatively vast constituency of middle class 
support base from developing countries for US's political leadership of 
emergent global social structure takes note. At least now!

parminder
>
> 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>
>
>   
>
>


-------------- 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