There are certainly cases where incidental USP collection relates strongly to the privacy of the USP. But bulk of them (by volume) don't.
-
-
Replying to @pwnallthethings @senjudiciary
I don't know how you can make that assertion about quantity, and even if it's *only* hundreds of thousands that's still highly problematic
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque @senjudiciary
Prob is that "incidental collection" covers very broad categories of collection contexts, many of which have exactly zero privacy relevance.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
But that's not why they're not coming up with a number. Both [US Actor 1] and [US corporation 1] are really easy to ID as US persons.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The hard one is working out whether email addresses / social media handles or proper names are USPs at scale across all collection.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Except that "at scale across all collection" is handled with sampling.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sampling doesn't solve how to work out whether joe.awesome476@hotmail.com on the cc-line of an email is a USP or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No. But NSA has plenty of ways to try to figure that out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
How?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pwnallthethings @emptywheel and
If nothing else, Hotmail (and Google and Yahoo) have a pretty good idea where their users routinely connect from.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
My gosh, you're not suggesting that providers have geolocation data?!?!?!
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @normative and
Yea - you know .... it's only
#metadata
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.