Comment by r3d0c
2 years ago
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.
1 reply →