Metadata in this case apparently means Apple and Google are helping find “this real user connected to that real user at this time”. So governments may or may not be able to decrypt a push message payload, or data delivered because of that payload.
Consider:
1. A phone call in which Mrs. Smith talks to a receptionist to set an appointment with a doctor for 9:30 next Wednesday.
Vs.
2. Knowing that Mrs. Smith called an abortion clinic.
#2 seems like a bigger violation of privacy. Metadata is the real data.
you'd still have to look up who the doctor they called is from the metadata; it's still info but absolutely not more informative than the real data
so this line of thought makes no sense, and glenn greenwald should be looked at very skeptically in general, he sounds smart but when you look at his logic closer it breaks down
You're assuming these things are mentioned. "Hi, I'd like to book/confirm an appointment with Dr. Jones." doesn't leak information about "abortion".
Yes, these things obviously depend on what information is transmitted. The point, however, is that metadata more reliably transmits sensitive information than does "the data".
yes it does.. just look up who dr jones is; is the metadata going to say "this lady is getting an abortion" ?
1. The conversation may or may not contain information pertaining to an abortion.
2. The metadata (namely: "it's an abortion clinic") inherently contains such information.
The point is that metadata is usually the more interesting data.
no it doesn't, it'll contain a phone number to a clinic, then you'll have to look up what kind of clinic it is
you're telling me the receptionist answering the phone at the clinic won't mention the name of the clinic when someone calls?
and stick to objective points and don't fault me by calling it nitpicking because your argument falls apart when basic critical thinking is applied to it
It can simultaneously be true that metadata contains less information than real data and that metadata is still dangerous. But when one is known for breathless hyperbole, should we be surprised when that’s what we get?
They’re not just a “doozy” they’re downright fascist authoritarian. Even the positive positives are infringements.
Someone pointed out that, while being watched is creepy, the real damning information on people actually comes from being listened to.
[0]: https://www.nybooks.com/online/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-bas...