One man's meta is another mans data. The classification of 'data' and 'metadata' into discrete bins makes it sound like metadata is somehow not also just 'data'.
If every morning I got in my car and left for work and my neighbor followed me, writing down every place I went, what time I got there, how long I stayed, and the name of everyone I called, it would be incredibly intrusive surveillance data, and I'd probably be somewhat freaked out.
If that neighbor were my cell phone provider, it would be Monday.
What we allow companies and governments to do (and not do) with this data isn't something we can solve in the technical realm. We have to decide how we want our data handled, and then make laws respecting that.
And with that, thanks to you, today I am a bit smarter than yesterday.
Thank you very much for that phrase, the rest of your post is a very good example for the layman, but that phrase should be the subtitle of a best selling privacy book.
> If every morning I got in my car and left for work and my neighbor followed me, writing down every place I went, what time I got there, how long I stayed, and the name of everyone I called, it would be incredibly intrusive surveillance data, and I'd probably be somewhat freaked out.
It's not "surveillance data," you are in a public place and have no expectation of privacy. It's only through such neighbourhood watch and open-source intelligence initiatives that our communities can be kept safe from criminals and terrorists.
Why are you so protective of your goings-on and the names of everyone you call? Are you calling terrorists or engaging in illicit activity at the places you visit? What is it that you have to hide?
I would actually take the premise of (national) security even further and extend collection to not only metadata, but data as well. Further, these capabilities should be open-sourced and made available to all private citizens. Our current law enforcement systems are not powerful enough, nor do they move quickly enough to catch criminals - by the time sufficient information has been gathered on a suspect, it may already be too late.
An argument so cliche, it has its own Wikipedia page[1]. In the US, we currently have a presidential candidate from a major party threatening harm to people based on their political, social, and biological qualities, which outsiders often determine by inference from data such as who people are in contact with and where they travel. Further, I would argue the need for individual privacy is innate in humans; as every child matures they find a need to do things without their parents over their shoulder, even without their peers, no matter how innocent the activity and it is a need that does not vanish in adulthood. We generally agree that things like removing bedroom doors as punishment is abusive because it robs the person of privacy. The same goes for installing monitoring software on your partner's phone, or a GPS tracker on their car. Privacy means we are able to be ourselves without our lives being scrutinized, criticized, judged, rated, shamed, blamed, or defamed by every person on the street. I close the door when I defecate, I draw the blinds when I copulate, I don't tell people my passwords, and I don't scan my grocery receipt to earn points because there are some things other people don't need to know.
Lol. So who does "deserve" privacy your highness? I'm guessing you do at the very least since you seem so judgemental on those with an "incessant, insatiable need to broadcast their lives 24/7" - which you presumably do not.
You're pretty judgy and seem incapable of even conceptualising a nuanced position on this topic. And your take on Assange, Snowden and Appelbaum is clearly first order trolling.
Unless you forgot the /s at the end of your whole comment.
Observing someone by chance in public is protected. Stalking them is generally a crime, although jurisdictions differ in their inclusion of surveillance (without contact or purpose) only as a form of stalking. Generally speaking, if someone is following you around everywhere, a reasonable person will start to fear for their safety and criminal codes seek to protect people from that.
While not as immediately threatening, realizing that a company is maintaining a large dossier about you may cause some concern about how they will utilize that (obviously against your undisturbed behavior). It is reasonable to be concerned about that usage and intent.
Imagine you are a baker in the end of 1930's Germany. You deliver bread every day to a synagogue. Imagine cell phones and apps existed. The Nazi government could now with little effort see you went to a synagogue everyday for the last couple of years so they decide to send you to a camp, although you are not a jew. Meta data is not dangerous you think?
There's no need for theoreticals - we know very well that Nazis used census data which recorded a person's religion to find and kill Jews(and others). At the time I imagine giving this data to the state felt like not a big deal, but how could they know it would lead to their deaths?
> Why are you so protective of your goings-on and the names of everyone you call? Are you calling terrorists or engaging in illicit activity at the places you visit? What is it that you have to hide?
Basic political associations can become problematic when people get riled up. See “the red scare”.
We’re not far from that again with people cutting out major relationships based on support or disdain of Trump.
If every morning I got in my car and left for work and my neighbor followed me, writing down every place I went, what time I got there, how long I stayed, and the name of everyone I called, it would be incredibly intrusive surveillance data, and I'd probably be somewhat freaked out.
If that neighbor were my cell phone provider, it would be Monday.
What we allow companies and governments to do (and not do) with this data isn't something we can solve in the technical realm. We have to decide how we want our data handled, and then make laws respecting that.