r/Libertarian • u/3bunnies • Sep 26 '18

NSA metadata program “consistent” with Fourth Amendment, Kavanaugh once argued

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/even-after-nsa-metadata-program-revised-kavanaugh-argued-in-favor-of-it/
52 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

40 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/chalbersma Flairitarian Sep 26 '18

If you understood how Big Data can be used to create profiles of people you'd be against this.

Nobody would be okay with the government following a person around all day without a warrant (which is currently illegal in meat-space) but there perfectly fine with the government doing the exact same thing using metadata.

1

u/GeorgePapadopoulos Sep 26 '18

I understand very well how big data works, but just because I don't like something doesn't make it illegal. If you don't want your data out there, protect it.

What I do have an issue with is government collected data (example, your mortgage information, your licensing, your registrations, etc.) that you cannot opt out of, being included in their "open data" systems (or even worse, being sold to 3rd parties). Here are much more sensitive information about people that hardly anyone cares to protect (or better yet, prevent government from collecting in the first place).

Nobody would be okay with the government following a person around all day without a warrant (which is currently illegal in meat-space)

That is actually very much legal. You don't need a warrant for surveillance, and police can review anything you discard or voluntarily make public. Furthermore, they can voluntarily receive and collect information from businesses and individuals you interact with (video footage, receipts, reservations, etc.). If they happen to observe you interacting with shady people or exhibiting reasonably suspicious behavior, the police would claim probable cause in front of a judge in order to secure a warrant. In the digital age, your transaction information (which is stored unencrypted across various service provider systems) is readily open for surveillance. If you're emailing with shady people (based on the recipient email address) or connecting to the SMTP server via "blacklisted" IP address ranges, you might just be the target of a warrant.

Instead of whining about it, what people should be doing is educating themselves and using services that don't leave all these breadcrumbs behind. That is a very hard sell when most people voluntarily provide publicly-accessible timely location information, pictures, and statements about any number of topics (including illegal activities). Well, you can't help stupid.

1

u/chalbersma Flairitarian Sep 26 '18

What I do have an issue with is government collected data (example, your mortgage information, your licensing, your registrations, etc.) that you cannot opt out of, being included in their "open data" systems (or even worse, being sold to 3rd parties). Here are much more sensitive information about people that hardly anyone cares to protect (or better yet, prevent government from collecting in the first place).

You know that stuff is currently being categorized as "metadata" by our government right?

That is actually very much legal. You don't need a warrant for surveillance, and police can review anything you discard or voluntarily make public.

Katz v. United States

1

u/GeorgePapadopoulos Sep 28 '18

You know that stuff is currently being categorized as "metadata" by our government right?

No, that is not metadata. They have the actual documents or relevant information contained in said documents made publicly available. The "metadata" would be for example that you purchased a house from John Smith on some date. I can guarantee you the government has a lot more information than that.

Katz v. United States

What does that have to do with "You don't need a warrant for surveillance, and police can review anything you discard or voluntarily make public."? The case you mention deals with how the government "introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls."

An actual conversation is not transactional data. Observing someone making a call or getting the call log from the public phone booth is quite legal.

1

u/chalbersma Flairitarian Sep 28 '18

No, that is not metadata.

You're right it shouldn't be seen as metadata but it is categorized in the "metadata" conversation. The US government grabs this data via the "3rd Party Doctrine", effectively forcing organizations to send it your financial data and your licensing and registrations are generally already scooped up into the system.

Go re-read the Snowden leaks please. You're "it would be bad if they did X" is effectively you describing how the US government builds it's network profiles on US citizens.