Topher on metadata

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Topher on metadata

  1. Pete of Perth

    Hackers are going to love this BIG FAT PIE.

  2. C.L.

    ♬ Aus-tral-ia, fuck yeah!

  3. Tal

    That should be our new anthem Lad

  4. Luke

    What a cash cow for hackers. Essentially this is like a major Keynesian project to fuel the blackmail industry.

    Every one has something to hide about their internet and phone activity, and if not you, then a family member will. And even if you don’t have something to hide; 1 just knowing all this stuff about you arms someone all the better to know how to influence you. That’s why google and facebook collect so much of the stuff; and 2 It can be made to look like you do. e.g. you never visit 99% of the stores or places next to where you travel to and from, but just looking at your travel history as presented by metadata won’t make that clear at all. All someone has to do is create the undesirable narrative, produce some weakly correlative metadata and suddenly you have a major PR problem on your hands.

    Oh the fun that elections will be

  5. blogstrop

    We are now treating the symptoms, and not the basic disease – which is the PC and multiculty delusion that you can go on importing trouble without having more trouble.

  6. Mater

    I’ll go out on a limb and say that the ability to access historical ‘Metadata’, in arrears, is an effective means to identify and target terrorist networks. It works.
    Take for example the London bombings. Would it not have been beneficial to look back at the communication history of the ‘cleanskins’ who perpetrated this atrocity? It would have assisted in scooping up associates and, perhaps, prevent further activity.
    Being effective, and being appropriate, are two different issues. Given some of the alleged behaviour of the US Government, and the erratic nature of our government here, I do have serious concerns about the concept.
    I’ll end with a quote…sort of.

    A vote Metadata is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
    Theodore Roosevelt Mater

  7. johanna

    According to the Bureau of Statistics, in 2012 there were 81 ISPs with more than 1,000 subscribers in Australia. These range from minnows to whales like Telstra. They start up, go broke, merge all the time. Their staff could be absolutely anyone. Yet, the government wants to make them responsible for collecting and holding our personal information for national security purposes?

    They are about as secure as a lemonade stand 50k outside Bagdad.

    It seems that there is no liberty that this government is not prepared to sacrifice for what it perceives as winning the approval of a few voters and apparachiks.

  8. Craig Mc

    “Telstra found divulging web browsing histories to law-enforcement agencies without a warrant”

    Yes. That’s because the real world doesn’t exist inside an American police drama. It always comes as a shock to dozy types that the government has been checking Australians’ overseas communication, well, probably since they sent mail back to the UK with George III’s mug on the stamps.

    There is no right to privacy for overseas communications, and maybe 90%+ of web traffic goes overseas. If they don’t collect it here, they’ll just collect it there and bring it back.

  9. Viva

    I notice a lot of commentators in the US media are complaining about the militarisation of the police in the wake of the Ferguson riots – even the esteemed Mark Steyn. What do they expect when the country is bristling with guns and ammo? The constabulary have to keep one step ahead at least.

  10. I’ve liked Topher’s videos in the past, but this one was incredibly lame.

  11. Metadata is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
    Mater

    How apt. You just shot yourself in the foot.

  12. Speedbox

    Yeah, I can imagine that the assorted terrorists have never heard of TOR or the 3rd party add-on Whonix. Not to mention a few similar programs on offer. /sarc off

    That any person who deliberately engages in nefarious activities on the internet, and uses their own internet “address”, is just bizarre. To be clear, I am not talking about the casual viewing of porn. I am talking about the pedophiles, home bomb makers, terrorists and the like. Sure, those people are not necessarily known for their intellectual capacity……

    We should not loose sight of the probability that even the dumbist terrorist is likely being guided by smarter superiors who will be fully conversant with methods to frustrate monitoring of their internet activities and communications.

    Therefore, given that only the most stupid terrorist is likely to be caught by metadata review (and would be caught otherwise), the issue for me becomes one of the creeping erosion of my privacy. Trite responses about the “world we live in” don’t cut it. And frankly, I don’t trust the Government with the information.

    Today’s excuse is that terrorists are the target. Ok, what about next time? Which group will sufficiently arouse interest and warrant monitoring of their internet activities “in the national interest”?

    Cats, we live in a rapidly changing world. Guard your privacy because once lost, it will not be returned.

  13. Mater

    Metadata is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
    Mater

    How apt. You just shot yourself in the foot.

    How so?
    I said that, as a tool, it works, but I have severe reservations about the governments misusing it if available.

  14. A happy little debunker

    Sorry,
    Topher is looking more and more like Benedict Cumberbatch, a bit less of Khan Singh & a bit more of Julian Assange .
    In both cases I felt totally ripped off!

  15. .

    Mater
    #1423324, posted on August 20, 2014 at 8:17 am
    I’ll go out on a limb and say that the ability to access historical ‘Metadata’, in arrears, is an effective means to identify and target terrorist networks. It works.

    So what, you can look at someone’s record two years after they blow something up?

  16. Mater

    So what, you can look at someone’s record two years after they blow something up?

    No. You can look at their activity for the two years prior to blowing something up. If you can’t see the potential benefit for an investigation into a terrorist network, I’m not going to waste my time explaining it.

Comments are closed.