Skip to main content

View Diary: Not your granddaddy's metadata: don't believe the PRISM anti-hype (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sorry, but this post makes me angry. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GrumpyOldGeek
    The thing that's burning me up is the misinformation being promulgated by President Obama, Senator Feinstein, the Wall Street Journal, and others asserting that mere data mining of "metadata" is minor and unimportant and non-invasive. This is a lie.
    But you didn't explain why it's a lie.  

    You can be upset that the government stole your diary.  But stealing your diary is not the same thing as reading your diary.  Do you actually see the difference?  Now imagine that they didn't just steal your diary. but ten million diaries where it's a certainty that some of them contain important information for the protection of our national security.  They need a warrant based on probable cause to read any one of them.  Now explain what you are upset about?

    A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

    by legalarray on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 10:41:25 AM PDT

    •  Did you read the part (5+ / 0-)

      ... below the fold about the information-richness of "metadata"? Or the comments on SIGINT, traffic monitoring, and call records?

      I believe I did explain, and so did many of the commenters.

      •  Rhetorical, but yes. But . . . (0+ / 0-)

        They can't read your email or listen to your phone call or analyze your data for your behavior patterns without a warrant.  I didn't read that part because it wasn't there.

        A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

        by legalarray on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 12:03:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here is Obama's non-truth on this point (6+ / 0-)

        I'll say "non-truth " because people get excited when you say "lie".

        Obama talking point: We (the govt) are not Voyeurs. No one is listening to the content of your phone calls or reading your emails.

        The truth: Computer programs are listening and reading. They are looking for keywords and patterns. If your communication fits the pattern, it gets red flagged for a human to check it out.

        This was confirmed by William Binney, NSA Whistleblower.

        No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

        by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 12:39:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was a good video (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CitizenOfEarth

          Thanks for sharing it.

          •  Yup. That's the one that opened my eyes n/t (1+ / 0-)

            No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

            by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 12:50:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Listen carefully to that video. (0+ / 0-)

            One speaker talked about the meaning of the term "intercept" as opposed to "reading."  To some, there is no difference in principle.  I'm not arguing with anyone about what the government ought to be able to do.  I'm arguing with those who don't see the issue clearly or who are mischaracterizing the issue.

            There is a difference between me having your personal information in a box in my vault and me opening that box and reading and interpreting that data and using it against you.  For some, it's the "same thing."  In other words, my putting myself in a position harm you is the same thing as harming you.  We could make them both crimes.  We could even make them the "same" crime.  But nobody can make them the "same thing."

            There has never been a law against gathering the mass data, and it's always been done with impunity.  Since 1973 there have been laws against mining that mass data or targeting individuals' data without a warrant.  Since 2002 there have been significant relaxation of the warrant requirements.

            Now somebody is yelling "Hey!  Everybody!  They are collecting mass data!  Sky is falling!!!"  Ho hum.

            A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

            by legalarray on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 03:19:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's illegal to wiretap without a warrant (0+ / 0-)

              Two words -- 4th Amendment. Look it up.

              No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

              by CitizenOfEarth on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 03:48:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Wiretap?!!" Did you say "wiretap?!!!" (0+ / 0-)

                A wiretap is a term that generally describes the activity of listening in on someone's phone conversation. Nobody. Nobody, thinks you don't need a warrant for a "wiretap." You could go blind arguing with yourself like that.  

                I'm a lawyer.  I have read the Fourth Amendment.  I know what it says.  I have also read all of the important court decisions interpreting it.  I have litigated may cases involving it's application over 43 years. Sometimes I win and sometimes the judge says "That's not a wiretap you idiot."

                If the government wants raw data to find out how many telephone calls were made from the U.S to Indonesia on January 15, I say they don't need a warrant to get it --  or a warrant should be issued on fairly general principles.

                If the government wants to mine that data to find out if Joe in Los Angeles called Hussein in Jakarta, I think they need a warrant.

                Neither one of them is a "wiretap."  

                Is there a problem with a rogue or overzealous government mining the data without a warrant?  Absolutely. But we want the cop to walk his beat and observe what's going on.  
                 

                A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

                by legalarray on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  software reading and listening to content (0+ / 0-)

            not humans...they get called to get a warrant if the Soft Machine says so, then the human, the body listens, legally...besides, to much content for slow humans to get thru...

            so 'no-body listening/reading' is strictly accurate..

            .......it doesn't say 'no machine is reading/listening'....

            Any bets on whether a Patriot Act or FISA secret court ruling says law agencies/LEOs can break these rules if terrists?

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 10:20:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site