Why Won't NSA Defenders Publish Their Phone Records?
from the no-expectation-of-privacy dept
As various defenders of the NSA program keep insisting that there’s nothing wrong with the data they’re collecting because it’s “just metadata,” and “the Supreme Court has said there’s no expectation of privacy in such metadata,” it seems curious that none of those defenders seems willing to release their own such metadata. Former NSA and CIA boss, Michael Hayden (who led the warrantless wiretapping program) has written yet another less than honest op-ed piece for CNN arguing that the data collected is “like what is on an envelope.” Of course, that’s not even remotely true. Your phone (and email) metadata reveal a lot more info than what’s on the outside of a mail envelope, in part because the usage is quite different. People make a lot more phone calls and send a lot more emails than postal mail — and those calls and emails tend to be a lot more specific about their friends, lovers, family, interests and whatnot than any postal mail. Furthermore, the issue isn’t just “one” envelope, but the fact that when you “collect it all,” you can paint quite a picture of someone’s life, including all sorts of private things.
Then you get people like Rep. Mike Rogers misleadingly claiming that the Supreme Court has said there’s “no expectation of privacy in phone records.” This is the same thing that former Bush speechwriter (and defender of jailing journalists and blatant censorship) Marc Thiessen argued on Twitter.
In response, we’ve got a simple question: if there’s no expectation of privacy in metadata, and it’s just like what’s on the outside of envelope, when will Michael Hayden, Mike Rogers, Marc Thiessen and other defenders of the NSA program (James Clapper? Keith Alexander?) share their phone records for us to look through?
It’s a simple request. Clearly they have no privacy interest (the Supreme Court said so!), so I don’t see why they should refuse such a request. After all, it’s “just metadata.” And, yet, after asking both Thiessen and Rogers, neither seems inclined to share their phone records. It’s almost like it’s something that they (gasp!) might want to keep private.
Filed Under: metadata, michael hayden, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, phone records, privacy
Comments on “Why Won't NSA Defenders Publish Their Phone Records?”
Metadata
The metadata might explain why the NSA can command their support.
Re: Metadata
Maybe we should all be demanding to see the metadata of the politicians , seeing that it is not secret and does not reveal much info. I mean if we could see Boners records we might see 100 calls to big oil ceo’s before a vote is due….could be really interesting.
If they have nothing to hide…
Ok, envelopes it is
So how do I have completely anonymous phone and email meta-data. Because I CAN send an envelope without any return address on it. Drop it in a random P.O Box and you simply don’t have any way to tie it to me without opening it.
Doesn’t work for electronic communications unless you’re saying we’re allowed to encrypt everything…which apparently allows the NSA to store your data indefinitely.
Oh and caller-id spoofing is technically illegal isn’t it? According to the blank envelope concept though, it should be completely legal, no?
Re: Ok, envelopes it is
Email is much easier than phone. There are many anonymous remailers that let you send untraceable email.
Re: Re: Ok, envelopes it is
Re: Ok, envelopes it is.... paranoia version
You are anonymous only so long as their are no finger prints or DNA traces on the outside of the envelope. Further you would have to make sure that the envelope cannot be opened enough to extract the contents, or insert a scanner without leaving signs of it being tampered with.
Re: Ok, envelopes it is
No, it’s not, depending on how you use it.
But the thing about caller ID is that there really two different caller ID systems, the one that consumers use and the real one (ANI) that the phone company uses to identify numbers for billing purposes, for calling 911, etc. The former is not considered mission critical for anybody and can be spoofed. The latter cannot.
Like an envelope
Aside from having a lot more information than what’s on an envelope, there’s another difference: opt-in. When you send a letter, you don’t have to put any information at all on the outside aside from the destination address and stamp, so it’s possible to send anonymous mail regardless of mail covers.
Such an option is not available for phone calls.
It is all about accessibility.
Like – sticking your photo in your big family photo album on your shelf vs. putting it on Facebook. The accessibility is much different.
Same with the envelope analogy – since when does one need to put the sender address on it? The data accessibility again – of course, one can infer the sender; with e-mail and phone it is already there.
It's simple...
Why won’t these hypocritical overlords publish their phone records?
“Because shut up.”
Has anyone asked?
Has anyone asked, say, Verizon for the metadata on their congresscritter’s phone?
well. this is a really hard question to answer! you dont think that just for a change, they may be lying, do you? perhaps there is more to this ‘metadata’ than they are letting on?? what do you reckon??
Why isn't there a political paparazzi?
I think the politicians need to be treated just like movie stars – then we can see what they really think about “privacy.”
Re: Why isn't there a political paparazzi?
Because no on wants to see an upskirt shot or a nip slip pic of Nancy Pelosi!
Re: Re: Why isn't there a political paparazzi?
Dude I am not going to sleep for the next week with that picture in my head …
Even if...
Even if it was just like the outside of an envelope, I wouldn’t let anyone flip through all my mail to see who I may be (or maybe be NOT) in contact with.
And my porn comes in discreet brown wrappings anyway.
Re: Even if...
Re: Re: Even if...
I usually get two or three packages a week, and only a small minority of them (I’m looking at you, Amazon) have supplier branding on the outside. Mostly, they’re just plain brown boxes or envelopes with a shipping label slapped on.
Re: Re: Re: Even if...
There are two ways to interpret this. One is that you are a major sex pervert. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Even if...
I just have hobbies that require regular parts and supplies. That I’m a sex pervert doesn’t affect my mail flow. I have the internet.
Re: Re: Re:3 Even if...
I sometimes get boxes of model airplane parts directly from China. This probably means I am on a watch list as a potential international terrrist. Ridiculous!
On the other hand, it is a good idea to watch me if you actually are a corrupt govt. Because I only respect authority that respects my rights.
So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
The easy counter is that publicly with millions is quite different from one entity, no matter how evil. It’s why I try to never state anything identifying here.
But as you ALSO have a valid point that entitites have no right to your personal information and it IS an invasion, it applies equally to your precious Google!
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
your “easy” counter doesn’t work. The Gov are trying to encourage data sharing, so once your data has been in the hands of the police, NSA and any other 3 letters you want we’re probably talking about millions anyway.
Also it’s a good job you never post anything personally identifiable, I’m sure many people would love to use those details to inflict a small measure of revenge for the headaches through face-desks your posts cause.
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
“It’s why I try to never state anything identifying here.”
…or useful, for that matter.
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
You leave plenty of identifying traces here, you’d just whine if anyone revealed they know it. Impotent ranting about a private entity that allows opt-out doesnt deflect from the real issue here – an issue you insist on avoiding because it doesn’t allow for idiotic attacks against someone you’re obsessed with. Instead of impotent whining and lying, maybe the truth is something you should address for once?
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
I’ve heard rumors that Mike has around 2,000 browser tabs open at any given time.
Maybe Mike should share his browser history with Blue and while he’s going through them all we can have a brief respite from Blue’s usual inane ramblings.
Re: Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
I’ve heard rumors that Mike has around 2,000 browser tabs open at any given time.
Eh, don’t think I’ve ever gotten it above 1,400. Right now have about 1,200.
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
Well Ok. Still a pretty crazy number.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had more than 50 open at the same time. You ever get freaked out by random audio from any of those tabs?
Re: Re: Re:2 So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
I’m not sure I’ve ever had more than 50 open at the same time. You ever get freaked out by random audio from any of those tabs?
Yes. As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday during a similar conversation, that’s when I know it’s time for a coffee break (or, well, a break of some sort, since I’m not a big coffee drinker).
Re: So, Mike, share with us your browsing history from Google!
metadata metadata metadata
I thought it was found out and subsequently admitted to that they capture and store a LOT more than metadata.
Any conversation where a government official says metadata is just to have the public thinking along the lines of “that’s all they have is metadata”.
File a FOIA request to publish their metadata.
File a FOIA for the Info and Publish it PLEASE!
But if the NSA has our data (meta or otherwise) and either uses or doesn’t use it, it’s still not public record. You are basically asking for these NSA defenders’ phone data to become public record by getting it and sharing it with the world.
Now, if we say that we are going to store the phone data on a server somewhere and not actually use it for anything *wink*, thereby not actually “collecting” the data, then we have a shot here.
This just in… When asked why their own metadata is deemed private, Congressmen uniformly pointed “down there” and shook their heads. Mr. Weiner’s weiner did not immediately respond to our request for comment though we all expect an issue in short order.
i'll fuckin tell ya why
cause a angry mob will find out the exact locations and go and pillage the joints these fucktards hail from
Keeping private, private
Encrypt message. Embed it in a photo using steganography. Post photo on facebook page. Nicely hidden in plain sight!
Fantastic
Just think of what we could do with our senators and representatives phones records. I’m just drooling with anticipation.
“…when will Michael Hayden, Mike Rogers, Marc Thiessen and other defenders of the NSA program (James Clapper? Keith Alexander?) share their phone records for us to look through?”
They don’t have to give up their phone records, because they are all exempt of the warrant-less, unconstitutional and illegal NSA spy drag-net. There’s an exemption written into the Spy Law for Congress and other federal agencies.
Re: Congress et al
Well, since the NSA is hoovering up all phone metadata, I suspect that our Congresstwerps are getting hoovered as well. I’m just waiting for someone to tap into that data trove and start showing just who our “representatives” are conspiring with!
Hypocrisy
I am surprised that this surprises you … It is no different than the 2nd amendment proponents not allowing firearms in Congressional chambers. It is the old adage: i am in charge, so do as I say, not as I do … As long as our fellow citizens keep voting them in, they are going to keep believing in a double standard.