Comment by paulirotta
2 years ago
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.
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.
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".
3 replies →
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 :/
1 reply →
They already "kill people" based on metadata alone, at least since 2014.[0]
[0]: https://www.nybooks.com/online/2014/05/10/we-kill-people-bas...
This is a widely under-appreciated fact!
FCM messages are not encrypted end-to-end, that's up to the app backend/client to do themselves.