[Vision2020] A quick rant about the term "metadata"
Darrell Keim
keim153 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 5 11:17:06 PDT 2013
I believe Pink Floyd may have some pertinent thoughts on trusting the gov't.
http://youtu.be/qO3FLWKwzpk
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> The more we learn about what the government is doing, the more reason we
> find not to trust them. Secret letters to corporations they can't even
> talk about forcing them to give us so much data, secret courts to determine
> if secret gathering of data is legitimate. Secret documents describing
> their secret justifications for these secret data grabs.
>
> Do you trust our government? Are you OK with the sweeping gathering of
> data that we have recently heard about in the news?
>
> Do you trust corporations? Are you OK with them selling our data to
> advertisers and who knows who else?
>
> In my opinion, it's better to be distrustful of a group of people who hide
> behind secrecy even now than it is to be blissfully naive.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 07/04/2013 07:22 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>
> “To the man who is afraid everything rustles.” - Sophocles
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> It does bug me. And it's pointless for them anyway, since I run AdBlock
> Plus and NoScript on Firefox and hence never see the ads anyway. I also
> mitigate it by popping my email to my home machine. I'm sure they scan it
> coming in, but I doubt they keep a copy of every email that I delete for
> very long. It wouldn't make business sense to have to have that amount of
> extra storage on hand. I've been aware of these kinds of things for a long
> time, and have in the past brought things like this up on the list. I
> figure it's not gotten so bad that I need to go to the trouble of setting
> up a mail server and changing every account I've opened on the net over to
> it. Not yet, anyway. I'm sure it will get there someday.
>
> The fact that corporations do sell my data in certain cases doesn't mean I
> approve of it in the slightest.
>
> Paul
>
> On 07/04/2013 03:12 PM, Scott Dredge wrote:
>
> Companies having been selling data for eons to anyone willing to pay for
> it. And lots of times these companies will allow you to pay a premium to
> keep your data more secure. For instance, for $5 per month, you can get
> an unlisted Verizon phone number:
>
> http://hothardware.com/News/Verizon-Claims-5-Monthly-Fee-Necessary-For-Unlisted-Number/
>
> One question I have for you is that since Yahoo a full month ago started
> scanning & analyzing emails for ad targeting, why aren't you bugged by
> that? Is it because it's a free service and if you were concerned about
> them rooting through your emails, you'd switch and pay for a premium
> account that doesn't do that sort of thing?
>
> I'll concede that ad targeting is less disconcerting than the thought of
> the big, bad, dangerous almighty government tracking you and the lines for
> limiting their power are (or will be) drawn for them by lawmakers and the
> Constitution (or whatever tatters are left of it as Sunil points out).
>
> -Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:33:20 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A quick rant about the term "metadata"
>
>
> It's OK if they pay for it, but not if they force them to give it over?
> Are you OK with all the companies we do business with selling all our data
> to the government, or do you draw a line somewhere?
>
> Paul
>
> On 07/04/2013 10:08 AM, Scott Dredge wrote:
>
> The term 'metadata' bugs you. What bugs me is that this 'valuable data' is being sucked
> up by the NSA 'wholesale' instead of the telcos charging them a pretty penny for it.
> The whole mess seems to be creating a lot of bugging.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> As a computer science guy, this bugs me.
>
> I've seen the term "metadata" abused in the news media and online often
> in relation to phone data the NSA is sucking up wholesale.
>
> "Metadata", as the media is using the term, *is* data. Things like
> phone numbers, dates, times, duration of calls, cell phone tower
> identifiers, etc *is* data.
>
> The term "metadata" has a specific meaning, it's data about data. For
> example, metadata on the data that Verizon was forced to give over would
> look something like this:
>
> Field Data Type Size Comment
> Originating Phone Number NUMBER 10
> Called Number NUMBER 10
> Call Duration NUMBER 4 Length of call in seconds
> Date of Call CHAR 10 Date format: MM/DD/YYYY
> Time of Call CHAR 12 Time format: HH24:MI:SS.nnn
> ...
>
> And so on. I couldn't care less if they grabbed the metadata from all
> the phone carriers. It would be a bunch of database table descriptions.
>
> Don't kid yourself, what they grabbed from the telcos was actual data,
> and valuable data at that.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130705/96ba0f96/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list