Understanding Metadata

[Ombudsman]

Here's the metadata for a photo posted on-line:

Camera: SAMSUNG SPH-L710
Taken on 2012/10/28 17:29:08
Exposure: 0.001s (1/904)
Focal Length: 3.70mm
F/Stop: f/2.600
ISO Speed: ISO80
Exposure Bias: 0.00 EV
No flash

Who can tell me the following additional info:
Who's the photographer?
Where was it taken?
What's it an image of?

This should take no more than ten seconds to locate and post.

[Wneglia]

Here's the metadata for a photo posted on-line:

Camera: SAMSUNG SPH-L710
Taken on 2012/10/28 17:29:08
Exposure: 0.001s (1/904)
Focal Length: 3.70mm
F/Stop: f/2.600
ISO Speed: ISO80
Exposure Bias: 0.00 EV
No flash

Who can tell me the following additional info:
Who's the photographer?
Where was it taken?
What's it an image of?

This should take no more than ten seconds to locate and post.

Ray Candie
Hendersonville
Hurricane Sandy clouds in NC

[bannination]

Here's the metadata for a photo posted on-line:

Camera: SAMSUNG SPH-L710
Taken on 2012/10/28 17:29:08
Exposure: 0.001s (1/904)
Focal Length: 3.70mm
F/Stop: f/2.600
ISO Speed: ISO80
Exposure Bias: 0.00 EV
No flash

Who can tell me the following additional info:
Who's the photographer?
Where was it taken?
What's it an image of?

This should take no more than ten seconds to locate and post.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/81317857

That's why you *always* clear metadata on photographs before you upload them. Unless you're a photographer which in this case you want your work found.

[bannination]

//The Doc beat me to it.

A lot of internet services remove that metadata for you automatically.... because get this, PRIVACY!

[Wneglia]

//The Doc beat me to it.

And the Doc is computer illiterate compared to most everyone else on this forum.

[Ombudsman]

Easy enough even without GPS coordinates, which a lot of cameras include as well. But it was easy because it had been posted on-line.

Imagine a scenario such as the Boston marathon bombing where authorities have access to every photo, video, cell phone call, etc made near the bombing, not just those posted on-line. Very quickly a collage of photos and videos could be pieced together near the scene to assist in apprehending the suspect. Even if the bomber had taken all precautions at encryption in all communications, everyone else would have valuable information that could be used.

So why wouldn't we want our government collecting this info?

[bannination]

Easy enough even without GPS coordinates, which a lot of cameras include as well. But it was easy because it had been posted on-line.

Imagine a scenario such as the Boston marathon bombing where authorities have access to every photo, video, cell phone call, etc made near the bombing, not just those posted on-line. Very quickly a collage of photos and videos could be pieced together near the scene to assist in apprehending the suspect. Even if the bomber had taken all precautions at encryption in all communications, everyone else would have valuable information that could be used.

So why wouldn't we want our government collecting this info?

The first thing Boston did was shut off cell phone service. (Which makes perfect sense.) It's unusable in these situations, so why does the government need access to it?

oops.

[Ombudsman]

That was a myth. The authorities didn't shut down cell phone service in Boston.

But I think you must have misunderstood my question anyway.

[bannination]

That was a myth. The authorities didn't shut down cell phone service in Boston.

But I think you must have misunderstood my question anyway.

Ok, not shut down just useless.

http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... t-cut-off/

I understood your question, but you're making government snooping sound more effective than it ever would (or was) in real life.

Should I give up my privacy just because there's a one in a billion chance that I'll be at a terrorist attack. NOPE. However if the government would like to provide a place I can send such information as citizen I'd be glad to help out in that situation!

[Ombudsman]

Are you under the impression that our defense department has not already thwarted terrorist attacks?

[bannination]

Are you under the impression that our defense department has not already thwarted terrorist attacks?

Nope

[Ombudsman]

But you'd prefer they have fewer tools to do so since they've reduced the odds of you being attacked?

[Ombudsman]

Are you under the impression that you're getting the truth about anything our War Department has done?

..."facts" all ultimately rest on what the government, known to have lied all along about the snooping, tells us it's doing now. Speaking of which:

Spinning Surveillance via Discredited NSA Talking Points

I'd prefer the War Department have fewer tools to attack innocent citizens and the Constitution. The odds of my being attacked by a foreign terrorist are already pretty damn low.

And the odds of the entire Dept of the Defense, run by American citizens, turning on you are so enormous you'd rather ignore real threats from foreign and domestic terrorists. Fucking brilliant.

[Ombudsman]

Ragin Rebel, is that you?

What does that have to do with collection of metadata? Breathe deeply before responding. Let's see if we can get a logical response out of you.

[bannination]

But you'd prefer they have fewer tools to do so since they've reduced the odds of you being attacked?

1. I think these tools are useless. - As they were in Boston if the network was inaccessible.

2. There are better places to put our money that would save MILLIONS/BILLIONS of lives instead of the statistically unlikelihood of a terrorist attack that doesn't involve 4th amendment violations.



I maintain this is NOT about the government protecting us from harm.

Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

Ohio State University political scientist John Mueller and Mark Stewart, an engineering professor at University of Newcastle in Australia recently estimated that the U.S. has spent $1 trillion on anti-terrorism security measures since 2001 (this figure does not include the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Assuming that 2,300 Americans might have been killed by terrorists inside the United States, this implies a cost of more that $400 million dollars per life saved. Typically when evaluating the costs of protective regulations, federal government agencies set the value of a life at about $9 million.

Come on, THIS IS A JOKE! How much do you worry about being struck by lightning? Worry about terrorism four times less than that.

[Ombudsman]

Ragin Rebel griped mostly about wingnuttery. Every single one of my examples is well documented and well known to everyone but you. Try, really try, to be logical.

But they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Like Rebel and other simpletons, you've simply created a broad category called "government" and lumped a whole lot of unrelated things under that heading. This is known as the Fallacy of Composition.

[Ombudsman]

1. I think these tools are useless. - As they were in Boston if the network was inaccessible.

It was only inaccessible due to over usage. It wouldn't happen every time. Regardless, it wouldn't matter if they are already collecting the metadata prior to the event.

2. There are better places to put our money that would save MILLIONS/BILLIONS of lives instead of the statistically unlikelihood of a terrorist attack that doesn't involve 4th amendment violations.

Well I guess that's one opinion.

Come on, THIS IS A JOKE! How much do you worry about being struck by lightning? Worry about terrorism four times less than that.

I worry about it enough that when I'm backpacking on a ridge, or fly fishing in the middle of a river and a lightning storm arises, I seek a place less likely to make me the target. Using your logic I shouldn't bother since so few people get struck by lightening each year.

[Ombudsman]

1. I think these tools are useless. - As they were in Boston if the network was inaccessible.

2. There are better places to put our money that would save MILLIONS/BILLIONS of lives instead of the statistically unlikelihood of a terrorist attack that doesn't involve 4th amendment violations.

I maintain this is NOT about the government protecting us from harm.

Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million...

Come on, THIS IS A JOKE! How much do you worry about being struck by lightning? Worry about terrorism four times less than that.

US Iraq war military deaths - 4486
US Afghan war military deaths - 2246
Total - 6732

Over the last 12 years an American's odds of being killed by US military policy is about one in 47,000. Higher, actually, because we have to add in the hundreds of US mercenary deaths, noncombat deaths above what an average young male (mostly) risks, the high suicide and domestic violence rates, the terrorism attributable to US military policy, the deaths caused by the largest non-state polluter on the planet, and the needless deaths from wasting so much money rather than spending it on human needs.

This is akin to the gun nut argument that since people die in car accidents we shouldn't have restrictions on firearms.

[bannination]

1. I think these tools are useless. - As they were in Boston if the network was inaccessible.

It was only inaccessible due to over usage. It wouldn't happen every time. Regardless, it wouldn't matter if they are already collecting the metadata prior to the event.

2. There are better places to put our money that would save MILLIONS/BILLIONS of lives instead of the statistically unlikelihood of a terrorist attack that doesn't involve 4th amendment violations.

Well I guess that's one opinion.

Come on, THIS IS A JOKE! How much do you worry about being struck by lightning? Worry about terrorism four times less than that.

I worry about it enough that when I'm backpacking on a ridge, or fly fishing in the middle of a river and a lightning storm arises, I seek a place less likely to make me the target. Using your logic I shouldn't bother since so few people get struck by lightening each year.

Except in your version it wouldn't be a personal decision to avoid high ridges or fly fishing in the middle of the river. We'd have to bulldoze the high ridges down and drain all water from rivers and lakes to make sure not a single person could ever be affected. Maybe we could just build high voltage fences with 24/7 video, audio and military surveillance. Perhaps we could even give you a personal watcher that follows you every where listening to everything you say to make sure you plan to leave in the event of a storm because you just might decide to weather it out.

[Ombudsman]

Your false analogy doesn't support your argument.