Yet Another Study Shows That Metadata Reveals A Hell Of A Lot
from the where's-dianne-feinstein's-metadata? dept
With the NSA and its defenders still defending the bulk phone (and other) records collection programs as being about "just metadata," we've already highlighted how metadata is incredibly revealing. Now there's yet another study demonstrating this quite clearly. Jonathan Mayer and Patrick Mutchler, over at Stanford, did a study in which they convinced a bunch of people to run an app called MetaPhone, in which users agree to give up the metadata on their phone, voluntarily, for the sake of research. What these researchers found, of course, is that the metadata reveals an awful lot of details about one's lives, often much more clearly than if the actual content had been collected. The researchers give a few examples where what someone is up to becomes quite obvious very, very quickly.There's a lot more in the research, showing how it's relatively easy to pick out fairly sensitive information from a bunch of participants. And, remember, these participants opted-in, knowing that the information would be shared.
- Participant A communicated with multiple local neurology groups, a specialty pharmacy, a rare condition management service, and a hotline for a pharmaceutical used solely to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis.
- Participant B spoke at length with cardiologists at a major medical center, talked briefly with a medical laboratory, received calls from a pharmacy, and placed short calls to a home reporting hotline for a medical device used to monitor cardiac arrhythmia.
- Participant C made a number of calls to a firearm store that specializes in the AR semiautomatic rifle platform. They also spoke at length with customer service for a firearm manufacturer that produces an AR line.
- In a span of three weeks, Participant D contacted a home improvement store, locksmiths, a hydroponics dealer, and a head shop.
- Participant E had a long, early morning call with her sister. Two days later, she placed a series of calls to the local Planned Parenthood location. She placed brief additional calls two weeks later, and made a final call a month after.
We were able to corroborate Participant B’s medical condition and Participant C’s firearm ownership using public information sources. Owing to the sensitivity of these matters, we elected to not contact Participants A, D, or E for confirmation.
Of course, as we've said from the beginning, there's a pretty easy way to prove that everyone inherently knows that metadata reveals all sorts of sensitive information. Just ask any of the biggest defenders of these programs to share the metadata from their phone. They insist there's nothing sensitive in metadata, and yet, oddly they're unwilling to reveal their own.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's a "head shop"? Because that must be the key to this; there's nothing particularly sensitive about the other elements AFAICS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given the list above, D is very likely to have converted a part of his home into a weed farm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really?
Even a 'secret no-knock' warrant would probably be stretching it, I mean, why would they bother with all that hassle when there's a house and people in dire need of shooting?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What about E? Is the caller pregnant? Is her sister pregnant? Or are them talking about a friend who got an unplanned pregnancy and are trying to help? What about if E herself is planning to start a family? What if it is just a school research she's helping her son/daughter with? What if the call to her sister had nothing to do with it?
The list goes on. Metadata is just like statistics. If you torture the data enough it will tell you whatever you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guessing will simply not do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick Should Reblog This
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/20/illinois-supreme-court-strik es-down-broad-ban-on-audiorecording-conversations/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick Should Reblog This
http://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pause for a moment and consider this ....
Dunno about the rest of you, but for me they've been correct in their calls for the last three-four years.
Metadata. Fear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pause for a moment and consider this ....
Last I checked, the NSA doesn't exactly go out of its way to ask permission from the US (and other nations') citizenry before spying them on them "for their protection".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pause for a moment and consider this ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We keep hearing from National Security Maximalists, that it's just "phone numbers" being collected.
For just being "phone numbers", the Stanford research group seems to have had no problems linking phone numbers to businesses and individuals.
Not bad for civilians. Now imagine what governments can cross reference. I'll give you a hint, everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call bullshit
"Participant B spoke at length with cardiologists at a major medical center" ...
BULLSHIT, how do they know he spoke to a cardiologist, and not someone else 'at a major medical center'??
Nor have you actually been able to draw any conclusions, but 'makes guesses', and it is clear these people were informed of this 'survey' and made calls appropriate.
As usual is this just another TD lie? and an attempt to get page hits.. I guess its not that hard to confuse the morons who hang off TD's every word, like it is the truth !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I call bullshit
If Mike was after clickbait, all he'd have to do is post an article that would have the trolls foaming in - anything about Kim Dotcom, the RIAA/MPAA, or anything partisan-sounding.
So where's YOUR evidence for your hate-filled bile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I call bullshit
Perhaps because they called the cardiologist's phone number. At major medical centers, every department (and usually every doctor) has their own phone number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I call bullshit
Reverse phone book.
Seriously, I can type any number into a search data base and get the answer with ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ya think!
Logic 101:
If metadata did NOT reveal a ton of information, NSA would NOT bother collecting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]