Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I can't think for myself, so I'm glad we have another firm member of the political class here to tell us rights lost in the Patriot Act were mythical.

They're certainly more mythical than the "political class". How would you define the "political class"? Are they just those who disagree with you?

Politicians and those that make a living off them that are primarily concerned with expanding their own power/influence.

And how do you know when people belong to this class?

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

 

[Slapdash]

I can't think for myself, so I'm glad we have another firm member of the political class here to tell us rights lost in the Patriot Act were mythical.

They're certainly more mythical than the "political class". How would you define the "political class"? Are they just those who disagree with you?

Politicians and those that make a living off them that are primarily concerned with expanding their own power/influence.

And how do you know when people belong to this class?

Data mining their emails imo

 

[Slapdash]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

 

[Nikki2200]

A great many lives are potentially at stake … and our national security is more important than any marginal — indeed, mythical — rights that we may have conceded in the Patriot Act legislation.

Holy wow.

 

[jonessed]

we've already seen the IRS tamp down on the Tea party groups and other conservative groups from 2011-2012, which was a coordinated attack on democracy going into a presidential election season, IMO. What's to make you think whomever has the levers of power won't use the massive amount of data mining as a way to control or influence future elections, or even votes in congress>? so i'll take off the tinfoil hat now and return to just plain common sense. we have constitutional rights, if we give them away like little #####es willing to get slapped around we deserve the country we end up with. A lot of people died to retain those rights for us. And i'm not about to sit around and let some ####### lawyer in washington DC take them away from me.

Can you imagine what a political party could do with the ability to collect data like that?

 

[Nikki2200]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

So if you had to list out all the different things that are detrimental to the welfare of the United States, where exactly would terrorism rank and for the items listed above it, presuming there are some, how many of our rights do you think we should forego to fix those problems?

Without making a list, terrorism would probably fall somewhere in the mid-20s to 30s for me.

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

I believe you're a naive, cowardly person who is glad to trade our rights and freedom for the illusion of security from trumped up threats. Let me totally derail the thread now...

Goring: ...But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives...

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

You're being played for a sucker Tim.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

Misery loves company.

 

[Slapdash]

Maybe we can go ahead and put Obama up on Mt. Rushmore since he is such a great American patriot.

We can take off Jefferson and Washington since they were too concerned with giving people rights that were far too dangerous. Not true patriots imo.

ETA: Looks like there is room for W now too!

 

[tommyboy]

we should start a new thread on where exactly to put Obama on Mt Rushmore? This is important stuff

 

[Politician Spock]

Maybe we can go ahead and put Obama up on Mt. Rushmore since he is such a great American patriot. We can take off Jefferson and Washington since they were too concerned with giving people rights that were far too dangerous. Not true patriots imo. ETA: Looks like there is room for W now too!

Maybe we should put the image of a terrorist up there too.After all, how would we have learned without the fear of terrorists that the bet way to protect our liberties from those who want to take away our liberties is to give up our liberties. We should be thanking them for showing us this wisdom.

 

[Nikki2200]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html

I remember reading this a few years ago. I really like this guy. And if you want to read something "dead on" Tim, you may want to look at this.

 

[Nikki2200]

Maybe we can go ahead and put Obama up on Mt. Rushmore since he is such a great American patriot.

We can take off Jefferson and Washington since they were too concerned with giving people mythical rights that were far too dangerous. Not true patriots imo.

ETA: Looks like there is room for W now too!

Fixed.

 

[tommyboy]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This would have been a one pager if not for Tim.

 

[Slapdash]

Maybe we can go ahead and put Obama up on Mt. Rushmore since he is such a great American patriot. We can take off Jefferson and Washington since they were too concerned with giving people rights that were far too dangerous. Not true patriots imo. ETA: Looks like there is room for W now too!

Maybe we should put the image of a terrorist up there too.After all, how would we have learned without the fear of terrorists that the bet way to protect our liberties from those who want to take away our liberties is to give up our liberties. We should be thanking them for showing us this wisdom.

Man. Osama really knew what he was doing there.

 

[[icon]]

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html

I remember reading this a few years ago. I really like this guy. And if you want to read something "dead on" Tim, you may want to look at this.

Amazes me how many fools are just itching to hand the terrorists what they most desperately covet... while foolishly thinking they've beaten them.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

we've already seen the IRS tamp down on the Tea party groups and other conservative groups from 2011-2012, which was a coordinated attack on democracy going into a presidential election season, IMO.

I thought we were already past this? No?

 

[Mr. Cross]

They haven't been just looking for trends, they have been listening to calls. For years now.

This is sickening.

 

[RCon]

Joe Klein's take:

http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/10/the-civil-liberties-freakout/

Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Marc Thiessen, hell has frozen over and he’s on the right track about the National Security Agency–leaks nonscandal.

First of all, we pretty much knew everything that has “broken” in the past week. The NSA has been involved in a legal data-mining operation for almost a decade. Its legality was clarified in the renewal of the Patriot Act, which I supported. It has been described, incorrectly, as electronic eavesdropping. What is really happening is that phone and Internet records are being scanned for patterns that might illuminate terrorist networks. If there is a need to actually eavesdrop, the government has to go to the FISA court for permission.

Those who see the federal government as a vast corporate conspiracy or a criminal enterprise — in other words, paranoids of the left and right — are concerned about this. More moderate sorts should also have cause for concern — especially if a rogue government, like Nixon’s, were in power. We have to remain vigilant that the snooping stays within reasonable bounds; that’s why we have congressional oversight committees. And that’s where the paranoid tinge comes in: the FISA court, the congressional committees, the President and journalists like me are obviously incompetent or caught up in the conspiracy. Of course, there has been absolutely no evidence presented that the current parameters are unreasonable. Yes, I expect that some of my phone and e-mail traffic has been picked up in the data trawling. I travel fairly frequently to places like Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, the West Bank and the rest of the region; part of my job is to talk to partisans on all sides — and also to talk to sources in the U.S. military and intelligence communities. I have no problem with the government knowing that I’m doing my job.

I do have a problem with individuals like Bradley Manning divulging secrets that may well put lives in danger; his reckless actions require criminal sanction. I also have a problem with sources within the government who leak news that endangers the lives of U.S. intelligence assets overseas — the leaker or leakers who gave the Associated Press the story about the second undie bomber, for example. That leak compromised a highly sensitive operation that involved the Saudi bombmaker our government considers the most dangerous man in the world. (I think that the Department of Justice hounding the Fox News reporter, or any other journalist, was well over the line, though.)

This is a difficult issue and will become even more difficult in the future as technology becomes more sophisticated. I applaud civil libertarians like Glenn Greenwald who draw our attention to it. But it is important to keep it in perspective. Far too many people get their notions of what our government is all about from Hollywood; the paranoid thriller is a wonderful form of entertainment, but it’s a fantasy. The idea that our government is some sort of conspiracy, that it’s a somehow foreign body intent on robbing us of our freedoms, is corrosive and dangerous to our democracy. This remains, and always will be, an extremely libertarian country; it’s encoded in our DNA. We now face a constant, low-level terrorist threat that needs to be monitored. A great many lives are potentially at stake … and our national security is more important than any marginal — indeed, mythical — rights that we may have conceded in the Patriot Act legislation. In the end, the slippery-slope, all-or-nothing arguments advanced by extreme civil libertarians bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the slippery-slope, all-or-nothing arguments advanced by the National Rifle Association.



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Wow! Does this guy get it right! He is so dead on that it's remarkable; I feel like I could have written this (if only I were a better writer. I love love love his comment on libertarianism- he gets what it's really about, and not the pseudo-libertarianism that people like Rand Paul talk about. Best piece on this issue yet written!

Yet again, another opinion piece with no facts or actual legal analysis whatsoever. No matter how many opinion pieces you quote that say nothing more than "this isn't a big deal", they will still be wrong.

 

[Doug B]

They haven't been just looking for trends, they have been listening to calls. For years now.

This is sickening.

Broken link?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

They haven't been just looking for trends, they have been listening to calls. For years now.

This is sickening.

Broken link?

Here it is

 

[Fennis]

This would have been a one pager if not for Tim.

new here?

 

[Fennis]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I like how Tim admits he doesn't have the answers, yet has posted 200 times in this thread. Awesome stuff.

 

[Slapdash]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

Really wish I could find some metadata for this system I am looking at right now...everyone who had it has been sacked.

 

[Politician Spock]

I like how Tim admits he doesn't have the answers, yet has posted 200 times in this thread. Awesome stuff.

'Cause I've got to have faithI've got to have faithBecause I've got to have faithFaithFaithI've got to have faithFaithFaith

 

[timschochet]

I like how Tim admits he doesn't have the answers, yet has posted 200 times in this thread. Awesome stuff.

Let's just say I have more of the answers (than you do.)

 

[tommyboy]

we've already seen the IRS tamp down on the Tea party groups and other conservative groups from 2011-2012, which was a coordinated attack on democracy going into a presidential election season, IMO.

I thought we were already past this? No?

i said it was my opinion. I don't think it was accidental, put it that way. could be wrong we'll see

 

[Politician Spock]

I like how Tim admits he doesn't have the answers, yet has posted 200 times in this thread. Awesome stuff.

Let's just say I have more of the answers (than you do.)

So you are admittting that you work for PRISM?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

 

[Fennis]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

 

[wazoo11]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe that Barack Obama, George Will, Jeffrey Toobin, Alan Dershowitz, Diane Feinstein, or Joe Klein are interested primarily in extending their own power. I think all of these people are great American patriots, and their primary interest in regard to this issue is the welfare of the United States.

Bet you're glad I didn't take your advice, huh?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

 

[Fennis]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation.

Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

 

[jonessed]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

It's both. What you are referring to as data I would refer to as content, but I don't think it really matters much. It's all data.Metadata has a lot of value and, with regard to communications, holds information that many would consider private and/or personal. To what extent is up for debate obviously, but either way metadata isn't trivial.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation. Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

What is your definition of metadata?

 

[jonessed]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation. Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

I think if you were describing the information about a single call you might be able to get away with calling it metadata. That's what I am assuming they are trying to do. It wouldn't be metadata if you were describing a database of logged calls. It would be considered data in that case.I suppose it's open to interpretation.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

Guess this guy was a chump. Obama and Feinstein? True patriots compared to this weirdo.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation. Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

I think if you were describing the information about a single call you might be able to get away with calling it metadata. That's what I am assuming they are trying to do. It wouldn't be metadata if you were describing a database of logged calls. It would be considered data in that case.I suppose it's open to interpretation.

I don't think the definition of metadata changes if you are talking about 1 record or multiple.Here's a decent example of metadata:http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/ds/report-metadata.htmlLike I said the attributes of the "message" without divulging the message contents.

 

[The Commish]

Ugh... Trying to make sense of timsochelogic is painful.

Your head hurt too?

 

[Slapdash]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation. Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

I think if you were describing the information about a single call you might be able to get away with calling it metadata. That's what I am assuming they are trying to do. It wouldn't be metadata if you were describing a database of logged calls. It would be considered data in that case.I suppose it's open to interpretation.

I don't think the definition of metadata changes if you are talking about 1 record or multiple.Here's a decent example of metadata:http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/ds/report-metadata.htmlLike I said the attributes of the "message" without divulging the message contents.

Logging information about telephone calls doesn't count as metadata to me. It is data about content not data about other data.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation. Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

I think if you were describing the information about a single call you might be able to get away with calling it metadata. That's what I am assuming they are trying to do. It wouldn't be metadata if you were describing a database of logged calls. It would be considered data in that case.I suppose it's open to interpretation.

I don't think the definition of metadata changes if you are talking about 1 record or multiple.Here's a decent example of metadata:http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/ds/report-metadata.htmlLike I said the attributes of the "message" without divulging the message contents.

Logging information about telephone calls doesn't count as metadata to me. It is data about content not data about other data.

can't content be considered data? I posted an example of an interpretation of metadata, I assume you disagree with that usage?Regardless, I think we're getting derailed here.

 

[shader]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-11/27-edward-snowden-quotes-about-us-government-spying-should-send-chill-your-spine

 

[Politician Spock]

by the way, i don't believe for one minute that its just "data mining" of "metadata". But we still have 36 more powerpoint slides to go so maybe all will be revealed soon.

the data that we know they are collecting (to/from, length. location, etc) isn't metadata. it is data.

I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference.

if you say so.

DD is right, metadata is typically the attributes of the "data". If a piece of mail (physical) is sent from Joe to Bob on 5/1/13 from San Francisco, CA and it weighed 2.1 ounces. That's all metadata. The content of the mail would be the data.NSA originally said they are only collecting metadata, but I believe they also included subjects of email messages which I think crosses the line into data. If they are archiving the full contents of the email messages as well as any attachments that obviously is crossing the line from metadata into data.

No that is not metadata. You are mixing different types of data and confusing FISMA and other regulatory guidelines in what can be collected and what can't by regulation. Even if the NSA was collecting content of the phone calls (which they say they don't), plus the phone # of the person who dialed, the phone # of the person who received and the time the call was made, the last 3 items is not metadata. I can't think of a single instance when it would be referred to as metadata other than by someone trying to put a spin on the data being collected.

I think if you were describing the information about a single call you might be able to get away with calling it metadata. That's what I am assuming they are trying to do. It wouldn't be metadata if you were describing a database of logged calls. It would be considered data in that case.I suppose it's open to interpretation.

I don't think the definition of metadata changes if you are talking about 1 record or multiple.Here's a decent example of metadata:http://www.washington.edu/uwit/im/ds/report-metadata.htmlLike I said the attributes of the "message" without divulging the message contents.

Logging information about telephone calls doesn't count as metadata to me. It is data about content not data about other data.

can't content be considered data? I posted an example of an interpretation of metadata, I assume you disagree with that usage?Regardless, I think we're getting derailed here.

Metadata is data that describes other data.For example, a header row in a spreadsheet that labels the columns would be metadata.If the first row says "To: | From: | Date: | Time: | Subject: | Body:", then what is in quotes to the left is your metadata.The second row (and third row, fourth row, fifth row, etc, est...) that actually has an email with to, from, date, time, subject, and body content, is all data.To suggest that in an email the to, from, date, and time are metadata, and the subject and body are data is a loose use of what metadata means.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think audio content is data, no.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

1789 requests for further surveillance based on the metadata were taken to the courts, all of them were granted. I need to take my alimony case to those judges.

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-11/27-edward-snowden-quotes-about-us-government-spying-should-send-chill-your-spine

"...I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents."