The release of yet more of Edward Snowden's leaked files reveals the still-astonishing scale and breadth of government surveillance after more than a year of revelations. These recent papers revealed by Wikileaks discuss a programme within Britain's GCHQ known as "Karma Police", in which the intelligence agency gathered more than 1.1 trillion pieces of information on UK citizens between August 2007 and March 2009.
Spurred on by the expansion of intercept warrants under the Terrorism Act 2006, this information is users' internet metadata – details of phone calls, email messages and browser connections that includes passwords, contacts, phone numbers, email addresses, and folders used to organise emails, but not the actual content of messages or emails.
Metadata can help identify people of interest, build profiles, and assist with decisions to start or escalate surveillance of individuals. All this information can be collected often at a fraction of the cost of doing this through traditional methods. In other words, metadata is not insignificant – and this is precisely why governments are so committed to collecting and processing it. However, bulk metadata collection – where information is collected from everyone whether a "person of interest" or not – is rightly a source of deep anxiety from both security and human rights perspectives.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:55PM
Why do people keep calling this 'meta-data'? (I'll tell you: because it makes it sound like it's all right)
But it's not meta-data. It's data! Stop spreading newspeak!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:48PM
Because it is technically right.
Meta is information about information. For example I call someone. The meta is the timestamp of the call and who I called. The data is the payload, the conversation I had with them. In computer terms we call it 'the header'. Even that is not necessarily correct.
If 30 guys call 1 girl and she is a known prostitute. You can assume that maybe they are johns...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:51PM
But metadata is still just data. They prefer the term "metadata" because for some reason people seem to see it as less of a privacy violation, even though that is not the case.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:57PM
I don't think they are 'technically' correct. The info they are interested in is what is 'meta-data' to telco's, but to them, it is their primary objective, making it data.
Secondarily, it's is information about you, not information about information about you. Hence, to you too, it is data.
Even to telco's it is not meta-data. They use this data to bill you.
None of this is meta-data at all.
The payload of the conversations you have is *also* data. Just not something that they have admitted to collecting yet (you just wait a couple more months for that to come out)...
(Score: 1) by VanderDecken on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:29PM
Actually, it's all correct. The term "metadata" is correct in its usage and is a technical term. That doesn't mean that spin-masters aren't using the term to make it sound like the collection less invasive.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:34PM
In the context of wiretaps, this is metadata. In the context of mass surveillance, it is data.
Law enforcement has a long history with wiretaps, so that paradigm has roots. The same can be said of military style intelligence gathering, although the methods and equipment were different. Overall, one could say, mass surveillance is new enough that the language about it lagged behind. But it didn't take long to see through the lie that is implicit in the language of metadata.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:27PM
The entire point of surveillance is collecting meta-data. You do know that, right? Who you talk to, where you go, how long you spend at a location, etc - that's whats learned when somebody is put under surveillance. When they call it "meta-data" (which it is), they're admitting that they've put everyone under surveillance without the legal authority to do so.
(Score: 2) by BananaPhone on Wednesday October 07 2015, @01:58PM
It was about creating fear and making the populace subjugate to "Authority".
Rights, freedom and fairness were never part of the equation.
(BTW: I don't spell the T word on purpose)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:06PM
So it worked on you then, ey?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:14PM
The thing is, "terrorists" make a much better Evil Enemy to justify an oppressive government than, say, "International Communism" or "Imperialist Capitalism".
- If there's no evidence whatsoever that they exist, then that's just because they're really good at hiding. So a lack of evidence of terrorism is now a pretext for increasing surveillance rather than saying "Yay, we won, let's dismantle the national security state!"
- They could be anybody, anywhere. Your best friend, your next door neighbor, the guy who just delivered your pizza. So citizens should not trust each other, and thus not be talking too much to random strangers, and thus not realize that the entire police state is unnecessary.
- The evidence against terrorists most be kept super-secret or the terrorists will learn how we catch them. Which conveniently means that it can be used as a charge against anybody the government wants to get rid without a public outcry, because they can say "This one's a terrorist, because of reasons we can't tell you".
- Critically, the battle against terrorists can never be completely won. The US military-industrial complex was really thrashing around a lot in the 1990's because Mikhail Gorbachev had screwed up the whole game by saying "I'm not playing anymore", and were probably relieved on Sept 11, 2001 because they had a new gravy train that couldn't end.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:52PM
Agreed. The "terrorists" have won - our countries and cultures have been destroyed.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:27PM
The US military-industrial complex knew Russia was going to quit playing (due to lack of funds or interest) quite some time back, so they spent the 70s and 80s equipping and training the next round of 'enemies'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:31PM
I don't believe that (or most conspiracy theories) because it implies that they have way more competence and foresight than they actually do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:43PM
They're so incompetent that they couldn't predict actual outcome would be better than they even dreamt of.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:02PM
Yep. Himmler said something similar at the Nuremberg Trials:
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
It is fear and hate of the "Other", i.e. people not like me, and it is fairly trivial to manipulate because most people are pretty fearful that tomorrow won't be just like today.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:12PM
Yes, this works in school PTA meetings, at work in meetings, and Trump on twitter.
Fear and hate of the other is what truly gets out the vote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:32PM
It only works so long as xenophobia and bigotry are majority views. Sadly, they always have been since the dawn of time.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:34PM
The thing is, "terrorists" make a much better Evil Enemy to justify an oppressive government than, say, "International Communism" or "Imperialist Capitalism".
Not really. They're the exact same basically non-existent enemy. It's just that they need to freshen up the marketing every 20 years which requires a re-branding.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:20PM
Give me a break. This makes it sound like we've gone a year by where things like policies could have changed, but haven't, and these are "new" revelations. It has been a year simply because Greenwald and others refuse to release things in a timely manner. Assange did the same thing, and admitted to it during the Bradley stuff, that it is more important to release it slowly so that one revelation doesn't squash another. In other words, it isn't about the info and getting it out, it is to appease the egos of Greenwald, Assange, etc. to keep themselves in the news. Otherwise a year would have gone by and that would have been a year that they weren't in the news.
So many whiners and bitchers here complain about agendas being pushed by the media, but give free passes to megalomaniacs like Assange. You don't think he and others have agendas that are shaped by the stuff they release? Please. You trust them because you like what they say and you don't trust the media when they don't tell you what you want to hear. Trustworthiness shouldn't depend upon whether what you hear matches your predisposed beliefs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:30PM
Assange is under house arrest (essentially) for releasing the information he has and does. Snowden is in exile in Russia for having released the information he has. Greenwald moved to Brazil because the US and its European lapdogs were harassing him and his partner for releasing the information they have. So it seems that they have all paid a significant price for this ego joyride you're claiming they're on.
It undermines your credibility to assert they're doing what they're doing out of narcissism when the personal and professional price suffering they have invited strongly indicates they're after something larger than pride.
You could be another CoIntelPro drone working to undermine the credibility of Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, and all such whistleblowers, but let me be (probably not) the first (and certainly not the last) to tell you that that ship has long sailed, my friend--they have total credibility and the NSA and GCHQ have less than zilch. Or you could be a legitimate site user who is posting anonymously because you fear backlash for voicing an unpopular opinion, but if the behavior is the same and the words are on message with what the NSA and GCHQ CoIntelPro teams have been pushing for years, does the distinction really matter?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @05:35PM
To you, clearly not. Again, to you it is whether you like the message or not, not whether it is necessarily true. Particularly since anyone who dares hold a contrary opinion to you comes from the most evil of pathways. The people who go around shooting doctors or blowing up women's clinics are as self assured in their morality and certain of which side of righteousness they stand as you, but I don't particularly hold their views to be right and I question the sources of their arguments. Oddly enough, they are as quick to question my moral base and motivations as you do.
Also note that I did not include Snowden in my message - you did. Assange and Greenwald are the gatekeepers who want to keep their faces in the media and their versions of the message on point. Greenwald decided he had to take his ball and leave because his employer insisted he had to share his info with other reporters and not hog it all to himself, and thus share the spotlight. Better to take the stuff with him so only he gets to decide what and when stuff gets "revealed". Assange flat out said that he was only going to release info slowly over time. Let them pick and choose what to reveal because if too much was out there, the stories might get muddied. They can decide which way the stories will go and release only that which confirms it (we can't have any shades of grey messing up our nice, neat black/white story), or time their release to occur during some big event. Hey, what's wrong with that? I'm SURE they're not controlling the message too.
Greenwald didn't have to move anywhere. It is pretty sad that if you look at his career, he can work for Reynolds on covering the lies and deceit for the tobacco industry, but now that he has the Snowden stuff, he's our one and true champion of Truth. We can just write that other stuff off as "youthful indiscretions" because he's obviously an honest broker because he puts out a message that we like to hear. Now we get to see his opinions on all sorts of stuff get reposted from his blog because he is now an authority on everything. I didn't know all you need to do is have someone give you a thumbdrive to make you a polymath.
Assange's situation is of his own making. He was simply hiding from the Swedes. You can run off on a tangent, which most do, about sham cases and all that, but the reason he is in the embassy is to avoid the Swedes. The US doesn't have any more interest in him now than before that rape stuff because there is nothing to charge him with if all he did was "publish" the stuff.
But it doesn't make two shits to me whether you think I'm a "CoIntelPro" or not. Maybe I'm a super secret NSA Turing machine set to troll the net. However, I think your statements say more about you than you think. Your posting history clearly shows you're never, ever wrong, but to think that when someone points out that they don't have their lips glued to Assange's ass, it must mean that they are part of some propaganda machine because only those who follow the One True Path want to kiss his ass. So yeah, go and admire the beautiful clothes Assange and Greenwald wear, with the magnificent train of the mantle and how gracefully the scarf hangs. But to me, they are looking a little naked.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 07 2015, @02:37PM
The problem with saying things like 'The security provided by mass surveillance hasn't been proved to be worth the cost to human rights.' is that it seems to suggest that if they found out a way to provide a significant amount of security with their mass surveillance, then it would be okay. But our fundamental liberties are far more important than any amount of security that mass surveillance can possibly bring. We mustn't compromise our liberties in exchange for such security. There are so many people who live in countries which supposedly strive to be free who appear to be willing to trade their freedoms for security, and for that they are nothing more than cowards. Someone who desires freedom would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
(Score: 2) by Ezber Bozmak on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:19PM
it seems to suggest that if they found out a way to provide a significant amount of security with their mass surveillance, then it would be okay.
No, it doesn't suggest that. It is a response to NSA apologists claiming that. It's called addressing the argument.
"It works" is the only argument that anyone makes for surveillence. If even that argument can be shown to be false then there is nothing left for surveillence supporters to fall back on.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 07 2015, @06:42PM
No, it doesn't suggest that.
But it also doesn't tell you whether or not someone would accept mass surveillance if it were truly effective. I've seen people say things like this: 'If mass surveillance keeps us safe, then I'm for it. If it doesn't, we should get rid of it.' I've even seen this from people who are opposed to mass surveillance, but only because they do not believe it increases our security enough for them.
It's called addressing the argument.
You can address the argument by saying that even if it does work, our freedoms are far more important.
Debunking their assertion that it works is fine, but you should always make known that freedom is most important to you. Whether it works or not is inconsequential at the end of the day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @08:40PM
> You can address the argument by saying that even if it does work, our freedoms are far more important.
No, that's actually avoiding the argument because the people who make that argument have already dismissed that "our freedoms are far more important."
> Debunking their assertion that it works is fine, but you should always make known that freedom is most important to you.
Can't be everything to everyone all of the time, that's a recipe for unfocused floundering.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 07 2015, @09:02PM
No, that's actually avoiding the argument because the people who make that argument have already dismissed that "our freedoms are far more important."
Then you would be responding to their dismissals.
Can't be everything to everyone all of the time, that's a recipe for unfocused floundering.
I propose we focus on the fact that our freedom is more important. Arguments about effectiveness are secondary.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:46AM
But our fundamental liberties are far more important than any amount of security that mass surveillance can possibly bring. We mustn't compromise our liberties in exchange for such security.
Absolutely. Freedom isn't safe. If you want safety, go build a bunker and hide. If you want to ensure liberty, it must be for everyone -- even those with nefarious motives.
We mustn't compromise our liberties in exchange for such security.
Sadly, that's a dollar short and a day late, friend.
In my mind, one of the many things which should come to any discussion like this is that "terrorism" isn't a group or a brotherhood or some sort of Legion of Doom [wikipedia.org]. Terrorism is a subset of a variety of tactics used in asymmetric warfare [wikipedia.org]. Asymmetric warfare tactics have long been used by both the "good guys" and the "bad guys." As such, railing against "the terrorist threat" is just a boogeyman to keep people in fear. And fear is known to limit the ability to think clearly and critically.
The thousands that died on 9/11, the almost two hundred killed in the 11-M attacks, or the dozens who died on 7/7 are a tragedy to be sure. And we should seek to identify, apprehend and punish those who use such tactics. In those atrocities and any others.
At the same time, we should do so in a proportionate way. There were 32,727 [statista.com] terrorism related fatalities worldwide in in 2014. During the same time period, about 17.4 million [heart.org] people died from cardiovascular disease. In 2013, there were more road traffic deaths in the just the US [who.int] than there were terrorism related fatalities worldwide. According to the WHO [endvawnow.org] 13% of murders are committed by intimate partners. Based on global estimates [wikipedia.org] that's almost 57,000 per year.
As such, why are we expending such enormous resources on a relatively minor threat? Note that the above figures are global numbers, not the US. The US alone spends more than $16 Billion per year [pewresearch.org] on anti-terrorism activities.
I wish I'd started with this round up [thinkbynumbers.org] but I guess it's a good one on which to end.
So. With all the data that's out there, why aren't we being more judicious with our money? Some will say, "It's those tax and spend commies from the Democratic Party!" Some will say, "It's those jack-booted fascist thugs from the Republican Party!"
The truth is that it's both the "tax and spend commies" and the "jack-booted fascist thugs". They love money and the Military/Intelligence/Industrial complex showers them with cash to keep the gravy train flowing. What's more, "fighting terrorism" and "keeping you safe is my priority" are great soundbites for a terrified public.
I'd love it if *someone* would hit political candidates with these statistics during election debates or even on the House and Senate floors. If I want that, I guess I better start smoking something, as I'll only see it in a pipe dream. Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 07 2015, @03:49PM
How would anyone assign a dollar value to human rights?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2015, @04:48PM
you mean like this [wikipedia.org]
The FDA, EPA and Department of Transport seems to value you at something between 7.9 and 9.4 million dollars. But I wouldn't spend a dime on you.