Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

This Jacket Is Me posted:

I'd like to request that we stop using "metadata" as if it's somehow different from "data" in any meaningful way. It lets the pro-surveilence side off by diminishing the severity of intrusion (like, who cares about "metadata" what even is that anyway?). It's also a functionally meaningless difference. If the NSA has a list of all the people that I've emailed, they call it "metadata", but if I write down the names of everyone that I've called this month on a Post-It and the NSA gets a hold of it, it suddenly becomes "data". There's no legal or technical basis for what is "metadata" vs "data", except for author-asserted circumstances (i.e., circumstances that don't apply in this case).

What? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no legal or technical distinction between metadata and data? Do you understand what a pen register is and why it is legal?

There is an enormous functional difference between collecting the metadata of "this guy called this guy at this time" and recording the call itself. You can make qualitative arguments as to why you think placing a pen register on everyone in the US is not rational or moral. But at the end of the day it's pretty much impossible to argue that a pen register is not a less severe intrusion than actual eavesdropping, and straight up false to assert that there isn't a bright line between data and metadata.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 17:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 00:28

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Powercrazy posted:

He is correct that it is functionally a meaningless difference. People get put on lists for metadata even if the ACTUAL data was harmless. If I had called Osama Bin Laden the day before the SEAL raid, and said "oops sorry wrong number" then hung up, I'd probably be on a no-fly list at very the least. Either way the data is immaterial as far as investigation and trial evidence is concerned, if they have already pegged you as a person of interest, which again is based on metadata.

So, you're arguing we shouldn't investigate people who call Osama bin Laden because some of those calls might be accidental?

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 18:58

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Powercrazy posted:

Transparency is all I'm asking for, but ideally no, we shouldn't be criminalizing someone for who they associate with.

Calling Osama bin Laden shouldn't automatically make you a criminal, no, but you're insane if you think it shouldn't make you a criminal suspect.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 19:29

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Paul MaudDib posted:

It really shouldn't, given that the NSA tracks these things out to three hops (Bin Laden calls Person C, Person C calls Person B, Person B calls Person A, therefore Person A is a criminal suspect for communication with a terrorist). Almost every single person in the world is connected by less than six hops, so you're talking about treating a significant percentage of the world population as criminal suspects. That's inherently counter to the idea of fourth amendment protections, you shouldn't be able to declare half the world as criminal suspects in one go.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/17/nsa-surveillance-house-hearing

The ability to perform a query is not the same thing as making someone a criminal suspect.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 19:44

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Because certain poo poo needs to be kept secret in order to prevent Americans from getting murdered?

I'm all for reforming the clearance process. Far fewer low-level clearances should be getting handed out, and related background investigations ought to be far more thorough. But lets keep the "NO GOVT SECRETS!!!!" bullshit out of this thread.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 23:28

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Tezzor posted:

^ This is what passes for reform in the American consciousness. Leaked documents show government wrongdoing? Clearly the problem here is insufficient protection of those documents.

Sweet strawman, bro. I was only explaining to Farecoal why it would be bad policy to give all of the same information that, say, the CIA and FBI have, to random schmucks. I said nothing about the (admittedly egregious) wrongdoing on the part of the NSA as of late. That doesn't mean I'm philosophically against surveillance in the interest of counterterrorism, just unnecessarily broad surveillance.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2013 00:18

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

This Jacket Is Me posted:

Consider my previous example, and this one: Let's say that I call 99 people and talk about whatever with them. Then, I call 1 person and only say that I've called these other 99 people before hanging up. What's the metadata here? The practical definition used throughout these discussions is, the list of all 100 people that I've called. If the CONTENTS of my last call are surveiled, though, the government has a reasonable expectation that it could use the CONTENTS of the call in one of these cases. At the very least, they could use it as corraborative evidence. All while ignoring the line in the sand that they drew when originally laying out the differences between "metadata" and "data". And further, this is how the government actually goes about collecting this so-called "metadata".

It is an enormous, John Yoo-esque stretch to say that the contents of a call discussing pen-register type data about other calls renders it metadata not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I have never heard of this creative interpretation being used by the NSA, or anyone else for that matter, and if you're going to boldly assert that this is the status quo, you should provide evidence for this extraordinary claim.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

The government, itself, doesn't pen register peoples' phones. They ask the provider, a third party, for that information. Effectively, in all cases, the government is surveiling the CONTENTS of that last call in my example.

First, the fact that government agencies now simply go to the phone company for the pen register rather than doing it themselves has absolutely no bearing on anyone's points in this discussion. A pen register is a pen register is a pen register, and getting it from a third party doesn't make it protected content. In fact, in the original SCOTUS case declaring them legal, the pen register was placed by the phone company at police request. Second, you're begging the question. "Metadata" is indeed a term that comes from "programming the computer science," it just means "data about data." The contents of a phone call are data, the pen register is the metadata. The act of stating that there is no distinction between metadata and data doesn't make it true, technically or legally.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

The difference also has a problem in that it ONLY applies to certain types of communications, when in fact we can be sure that the government is surveiling a much larger pool of communications. Sure, telephone and email is the common example, but how does this regime play out in, say, handwritten communications? Will the government only collect the addresses on the outside of envelopes?

Yep. This is referred to as a "mail cover," and is constitutional because it only collects metadata.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

If they use the side of a pencil on a notepad to determine what was written on the previous note, is that "metadata"?

No. That's the contents of the letter, and an unconstitutional search if it is performed without a warrant.

This Jacket Is Me posted:

If they ask the Post Office to carry out their surveilence for them, is everything they gather "metadata" by mere virtue of being handed to them from a third party?

What? No. See above.

Seriously though, do some more research before you proclaim a term with a long and storied legal and technical history to be a nefarious invention of the government surveillance conspiracy.

Thanqol posted:

That's fine right up until the point where the intelligence agency feels comfortable about lying to Congress. If any government agency cannot demonstrate the basic act of not lying to America's democratically elected government it starts being less an intelligence agency and more a taxpayer subsidized crime syndicate.

I wanted to write a bit on this because reading my other posts, you might get the false impression that I'm an apologist for the NSA. I'm not. I have a degree of respect for DNI Clapper, but he did some serious bullshitting when he answered Wyden's question before the Senate panel. To say that the IC does not "wittingly" collect domestic call information on Americans may technically be true if you stretch logical reasoning into a strand of near nothingness. He should have just said that it was classified, asked for a closed session, and then told the whole truth.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 24, 2013

# ¿ Oct 24, 2013 16:42

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Powercrazy posted:

Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it?

Give me the metadata of what the NSA is collecting.

NSA spying actually has a history going back to 2002 when President Bush signed an order creating the Terrorist Surveillance Program. After Mark Klein's disclosures came out in 2006, if you were someone who paid attention, you pretty much knew this was going on.

It probably would have been a good idea to declassify the general premises of the program a decade ago, so that it could be calibrated to better represent citizen's interests. Unfortunately, American politics doesn't work that way.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2013 17:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 00:28

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:

You don't understand the argument. The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is extremely dubious because, when you pick up a phone receiver, you are sending data to the phone company. A pen register actually does include content - the content is the number you dial to the phone company, with whom you are communicating. His argument is that the phone company isn't a third party and that Smith v. Maryland is bad law.

It's not that I don't understand the argument, it's that it's a bad argument. You're essentially arguing that the distinction between metadata and data is meaningless. You can argue all you want about Smith v. Maryland being bad law, and I might actually agree with you, but this whole "let's stick our fingers in our ears and pretend metadata doesn't meaningfully exist" thing is laughable.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2013 23:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Surveillance in the 21st Century: Press CTRL-C to Copy the Internet (NSA Thread)