Story on NPR the other day about what the recent whistle blower incident does to the confidence of the "national security leadership" in it's employees. Perhaps it should have been about why people feel a whistle needs blowing. Perhaps because the gubment is overstepping its authority? Maybe? Huh?
Known that for a long time. An employer can do this with comapny issued phones. We have seen schools do this with the laptops they have issued students.
Many people who wish to hold totally off the record conversations will collect everyone's cell phones and place them in another room in a box separate from the one where the conversation(s) will be held.
What cracks me up is people who have "smart" phones but are too unsmart to know what they are actually used by the government for.
My cell phone was made during the Fred Flintstone era and has no GPS or the ability to be cracked with a remote command. .
Oh wait. You do realize that the NSA can remotely access your cell phone and activate the microphone without your knowledge?They can monitor any private conversations in your own home without your knowledge.
Known that for a long time. An employer can do this with comapny issued phones. We have seen schools do this with the laptops they have issued students.
Many people who wish to hold totally off the record conversations will collect everyone's cell phones and place them in another room in a box separate from the one where the conversation(s) will be held.
Knowledge of how we are observed will have a chilling effect on the long held right to freely associate with anyone we choose for any reason we choose. Its conceivable that people will no longer contact each other for fear of certain conclusions being made. It can affect the nature of innocent relationships.
Cell phones have become GPS devices and the location of the phone will be known at all times. Travel will no longer be anonymous. I find it conceivable that with the search of coordinates and time references, one can be linked to a random event such as a robbery of a store. The example I try and make would be that you are getting gas at a station that is in the process of being robbed. You may or may not see anything. If you do, you might choose to split so as not to be caught up in possible violence or not be a witness with all the personal intrusion that follows, not to mention reprisals from the perps. If a querry is made as to what phones were there at the time of the robbery, you are found to be there and can be called in to explain your presence there which would be totally innocent, but you would have to explain your innocence.
And only to complete the above thought . . . let's say that this gas station is in a place that is far away from where you might ordinarily be. Were you there meeting a lover while the wife thought you were working late ? Or did you go there to score a bag of sumthin ? Maybe you were driving a buddy to a medical marijuana dispensary. While the transaction was cash to remain anonymous, you were noticed being at that location for 20 to 30 minutes. Explain your presence there sir and OBTW would you mind peeing in this cup while we have you here . . .
Bokey said
Oh wait. It's worse than that. You do realize that the NSA can remotely access your cell phone and activate the microphone without your knowledge? They can monitor any private conversations in your own home without your knowledge.
Knowledge of how we are observed will have a chilling effect on the long held right to freely associate with anyone we choose for any reason we choose. Its conceivable that people will no longer contact each other for fear of certain conclusions being made. It can affect the nature of innocent relationships.
Sorry but this is not new or unique to government observation. It is life.
What government officials are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata—the details about phone calls, without the actual voice—isn’t a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let’s take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don’t know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don’t know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood’s number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records—oops, “so-called metadata”—can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your lives. And the government has given no assurances that this data will never be correlated with other easily obtained data.
Knowledge of how we are observed will have a chilling effect on the long held right to freely associate with anyone we choose for any reason we choose. Its conceivable that people will no longer contact each other for fear of certain conclusions being made. It can affect the nature of innocent relationships.
Cell phones have become GPS devices and the location of the phone will be known at all times. Travel will no longer be anonymous. I find it conceivable that with the search of coordinates and time references, one can be linked to a random event such as a robbery of a store. The example I try and make would be that you are getting gas at a station that is in the process of being robbed. You may or may not see anything. If you do, you might choose to split so as not to be caught up in possible violence or not be a witness with all the personal intrusion that follows, not to mention reprisals from the perps. If a querry is made as to what phones were there at the time of the robbery, you are found to be there and can be called in to explain your presence there which would be totally innocent, but you would have to explain your innocence.
And only to complete the above thought ... let's say that this gas station is in a place that is far away from where you might ordinarily be. Were you there meeting a lover while the wife thought you were working late ? Or did you go there to score a bag of sumthin ? Maybe you were driving a buddy to a medical marijuana dispensary. While the transaction was cash to remain anonymous, you were noticed being at that location for 20 to 30 minutes. Explain your presence there sir and OBTW would you mind peeing in this cup while we have you here ...
What government officials are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata—the details about phone calls, without the actual voice—isn’t a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let’s take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don’t know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don’t know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood’s number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records—oops, “so-called metadata”—can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your lives. And the government has given no assurances that this data will never be correlated with other easily obtained data.
I'd been thinking I'd seen a good anti-NSA rant but forgot what movie it was in... 
