Hacker News Reader

Comment by omginternets | Hacker News Reader

An interesting point in Glenn Greenwald’s book is that metadata is often more informative than the “real” data.

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.

View on HN

Exactly. Metadata is how you go from pwning the phone of one dissenter to learning about their whole group.

how will actual data not be more informative? you can easily infer what the appointment was because the phone call will mention the name of the doctor or office and you can look that up plus all the details they discuss

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 can easily infer what the appointment was because the phone call will mention the name of the doctor or office and you can look that up plus all the details they discuss

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".

> 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 it does.. just look up who dr jones is; is the metadata going to say "this lady is getting an abortion" ?

I think you're nit-picking and failing to address the broader point.

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.

> inherently contains such information.

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

This is tangential to a comment I read (probably on HN) perhaps a decade ago, when scandals were being reported that laptop webcams could (surprise!) be activated remotely and people/kids being spied on (I think the article was a school-issued laptop disciplining a child from evidence gathered by the webcam at the child's home).

Someone pointed out that, while being watched is creepy, the real damning information on people actually comes from being listened to.

Which is why my devices have hardware kill switches for microphone.

God forbid if you are just going on a date with someone who works at an abortion clinic.

Or applying for a job, or surveying local businesses for a story, or transposed the numbers, or…

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?

Yeah, false positives are a doozy, and I don't see many guardrails in place to prevent the intelligence community from acting upon them :/

> doozy

They’re not just a “doozy” they’re downright fascist authoritarian. Even the positive positives are infringements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com