[Chapter-delegates] ISOC position on NSA Spying

Christian de Larrinaga cdel at firsthand.net
Thu Jun 13 12:32:02 PDT 2013


Alejandro,

The use of the term "meta data" rather than "traffic data" should raise
a red flag. Well said.

Traffic data is defined in legislation and refers to the signalling data
excluding content.

Meta data could refer to almost any data that is descriptive of the
underlying data whether the data is content payload or signalling.

Therefore a debate that describes the retention of metadata is
potentially hugely more intrusive than for signalling data itself.

This is further complicated by Internet traffic where traffic data is
also embedded inside the payload of IP datagrams by several applications.

For instance applications that use XML, JSON data formats to describe in
application signal data is data held inside IP packets as payload. The
assumption that signalling and content are readily separated in IP
surveillance is not safe.



best



Christian



Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
> Christian, all,
> 
> couple of quick points here:
> 
> 1. what is being called "metadata" in press bulletins and other communications is actually "traffic data." If I am reading well, this data is phone numbers for initiation and termination (caller and called parties), call durations, possibly locations, IP addresses (again maybe locations) (could also include protocol, size, port, etc. in packet headers.) Again (please correct me if wrong): this is not metadata. It is data.
> 
> 2. as such, this data would be under Personal Data Protection laws in most countries which have one. In Europe the Data Retention Directive gives countries the choice to keep this kind of data for up to 18 months (or more specifically, to mandate by law that operators keep this kind of data) and mandates as well what parties (law enforcement) can have access to this data, and under which circumstances (judge's orders, for example.) (thanks, Veni, for useful reminders at ungodly hours.) 
> 
> 3. we in ISOC chapters must also turn our attention to the national implications of the published interventions. What are our governments and our telcos, ISPs, and OSPs authorizing? The "didn't know" excuse expired last Thursday and they should be diligently investigating. And, what similar programs, with related software - think FinFisher - are they executing locally? can we help each other share tools, good practice, methods, etc.? For reference see among maaaaany examples see "You Only Click Twice" by the CitizenLab at the University of Toronto, https://citizenlab.org/2013/03/you-only-click-twice-finfishers-global-proliferation-2/ - we should also ask whether or to what extent we'd be sure to stay within ISOC guidelines without consulting HQ, who must also be forthcoming on this aspect soon.
> 
> 4. re HQ communications: I think we can all understand that ISOC should not race to express itself but something like "we find reasons for concern, we will investigate whether A, B, C, consider the possibilities that D, E, F, engage with our own Advisory Council, org members, individual members, and Chapters, and then come up with a statement" and this may not be a public, official communication but at least delivered to the mentioned parties.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> 
> 
> 
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> 
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> ________________________________________
> Desde: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org [chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Christian de Larrinaga [cdel at firsthand.net]
> Enviado el: martes, 11 de junio de 2013 18:04
> Hasta: David Solomonoff
> CC: Chapter Delegates; ISOCNY BOD
> Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ISOC position on NSA Spying
> 
> David,
> 
> The one light at the end of this tunnel for us outside US is to hear the
> outrage of our friends in the US.
> 
> However the US domestic emphasis of is small beer to the consequences of
> US treatment of non US sourced data and IPR traversing US entities.
> 
> 
> best
> 
> 
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Solomonoff wrote:
>> The revelations about the National Security Agency's surveillance
>> apparatus, if true, are a stunning abuse of our basic rights to freedom
>> and privacy.
>>
>> A coalition has formed to demand that the U.S. Congress reveal the full
>> extent of the NSA's domestic spying programs. I'm personally joining the
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, Free Press, Fight for the
>> Future, Access and many more consumer activist groups as part of that
>> coalition.
>>
>> I believe that the Internet Society should sign their petition as well.
>>
>> http://www.stopwatching.us
>>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> 
> 



More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list