The original intent of the Wiretap Act was to place a distinction between content and metadata.
The problem now is that there is JUST SO MUCH metadata that it is losing that distinction. If someone calls a known pot dealer once a week, then it doesn't matter whether you hear the call or not, you can still infer that the caller picks up every week.
A DOJ lawyer once said to me that "when survellience is ubiquitous, the role of law enforcement becomes the role of a prison warden, where everyone is an infraction waiting to happen."
Yeah. Some anonymous web poster pointed out to me that changes in the law regarding marijuana & homosexuality would have been impossible with perfect surveillance.
Advancement in the social code is only possible because people can get away with violating it.
The court is really saying that the url isn't even metadata, and I agree with that finding. The url is itself content. It's a request for content. On static pages it exposes the entire content of the communication.
I don't think the court would have a problem with the police discovering you buy weed because you call a weed dealer every week.
But this URL isn't just telling them who you are "calling" / httping with, but what exactly it was about.
I think the internet equivalent to phone number is the IP address.
Frankly results like this are inevitable from either the courts, or congress if advertisement companies continue to refuse to self regulate in a reasonable way.
The only reason its not a bigger issue right now isn't because "nobody cares, privacy is dead!". It's because people for the most part do not understand the mechanism.
Explain exactly how ads track you to common people, just how many do you suppose will approve and be comfortable with the arrangement?
"In their ruling, the panel of three appellate judges found that Google and its co-defendants hadn’t violated the Wiretap Act because they were a “party” to the communications rather than a third-party eavesdropper—"
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|10 years ago|reply
The problem now is that there is JUST SO MUCH metadata that it is losing that distinction. If someone calls a known pot dealer once a week, then it doesn't matter whether you hear the call or not, you can still infer that the caller picks up every week.
A DOJ lawyer once said to me that "when survellience is ubiquitous, the role of law enforcement becomes the role of a prison warden, where everyone is an infraction waiting to happen."
[+] [-] hellbanner|10 years ago|reply
Advancement in the social code is only possible because people can get away with violating it.
[+] [-] rhino369|10 years ago|reply
I don't think the court would have a problem with the police discovering you buy weed because you call a weed dealer every week.
But this URL isn't just telling them who you are "calling" / httping with, but what exactly it was about.
I think the internet equivalent to phone number is the IP address.
[+] [-] x5n1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2048|10 years ago|reply
The only reason its not a bigger issue right now isn't because "nobody cares, privacy is dead!". It's because people for the most part do not understand the mechanism.
Explain exactly how ads track you to common people, just how many do you suppose will approve and be comfortable with the arrangement?
The entire industry is built on sand.
[+] [-] DannyBee|10 years ago|reply
"In their ruling, the panel of three appellate judges found that Google and its co-defendants hadn’t violated the Wiretap Act because they were a “party” to the communications rather than a third-party eavesdropper—"
This is consistent with the ruling, but buries the part that is important for most folks: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/134300p.pdf (page 35).
Because they were the intended party of the communication, they will never be liable under the wiretap act. Ever.
So yeah, if some third party you aren't communicating with grabs your cookies (cough cough), that may be an issue.
Otherwise, no.
[+] [-] irishcoffee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DannyBee|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] module17|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detaro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]