Bulk phone data reveals 'startling insights,' Princeton professor tells US Senate

October 4, 2013
Princeton University Professor Edward Felten is sworn in to testify at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Oct. 1 in Washington, D.C., along with Laura Donohue (left), a professor at the Georgetown University law school, and Carrie Cordero, an adjunct professor at Georgetown. Credit: Eva Russo/Momenta Creative

Seemingly minor bits of information collected by the National Security Agency, such as the phone numbers that citizens dial, can reveal far more personal information than is commonly believed, Princeton University Professor Edward Felten told a U.S. Senate committee in Washington, D.C.

Testifying before a hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Oct. 1, Felten said that searching for patterns in large collections of , called metadata, "can now reveal startling insights about the behavior of individuals or groups."

Felten, a professor of computer science and public affairs and director of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy, said that merely by combining their analysis of phone records with call times and durations, investigators can learn about people's work, social habits, religion and political affiliations.

In calling the hearing to order, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D.-Vt., said the United States needs to strike a careful balance in using surveillance to protect its citizens while also preserving their liberty. Leahy, the committee chair, has raised concerns over the government's collections of bulk phone records and what that might entail for privacy.

The Judiciary Committee is one of several bodies examining recent revelations about surveillance conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies. At the hearing, the senators echoed the greater national debate, with committee members raising concerns about the transparency of the intelligence collection, and its impact on citizens' privacy, while also expressing a desire not to hobble efforts to maintain .

The hearing opened with testimony by James Clapper, director of national intelligence, and Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency.  After they testified, Felten was one of three expert witnesses to appear before the committee. The others, Laura Donohue, a professor at the Georgetown University law school, and Carrie Cordero, an adjunct professor at Georgetown, testified about the legal implications of the surveillance program, while Felten offered his views of the technical issues.

Felten told the members that it was critical for legislators who make the laws and judges who review them to have a firm grasp of the technical implications of their decisions. He urged them to take advantage of the nation's technological experts when grappling with the policy implications of advancing technology.

In some ways, technological shifts have led to sweeping changes in capabilities that legal decisions can have difficulty following. In recent history, for example, records of telephone calls revealed that was considered far more limited, and less protected, than the contents of the call itself.

"It is no longer safe to assume that this 'summary' or 'non-content' information is less revealing or less sensitive than the contents it describes," Felten said. "Just by using new technologies such as smart phones and social media, we leave rich and revealing trails of metadata as we move through daily life. Many details of our lives can be gleaned by examining those trails."

In prepared testimony, Felten explained that the data that can be collected under federal orders is vast. By one estimate, he said, the collection of phone records would result in the equivalent of 25 billion pages of records each year. Although the amount seems staggering, the data is easy to analyze because it is standardized in a structured numerical format.

"The structured nature of metadata makes it easy to analyze massive data sets using sophisticated data-mining and link-analysis programs," Felten said. "That analysis is greatly facilitated by technological advances over the past decades in computing, electronic data storage, and digital data mining. Those advances have radically increased our ability to collect, store, and analyze personal communications, including metadata."

Felten, who served as the first chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, noted that he was not offering a legal opinion or advice on how to balance security and privacy. He recognized both the potential danger and value of data collection.

"When focused on intelligence targets, metadata collection can be a valuable tool," Felten said. "At the same time, unfocused collection of on the American population gives government access to many of the same sensitive facts about the lives of ordinary Americans that have traditionally been protected by limits on content collection. Metadata might once have seemed much less informative than content, but this gap has narrowed dramatically and will continue to close."

Explore further: US intelligence chief sorry for 'erroneous' answer (Update)

Related Stories

US intelligence chief sorry for 'erroneous' answer (Update)

July 2, 2013

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper apologized for telling Congress earlier this year that the National Security Agency does not collect data on millions of Americans, a response he now says was "clearly erroneous."

US official admits testing US cellphone tracking

October 2, 2013

National Security Agency chief Gen. Keith Alexander revealed Wednesday that his spy agency once tested whether it could track Americans' cell phone locations, in addition to its practice of sweeping broad information about ...

US declassifies surveillance order amid snooping debate

July 31, 2013

The Obama administration on Wednesday declassified a court order authorizing collection of millions of US phone records, even as it faced new disclosures about the reach of its secret electronic surveillance programs.

Oversight board urges updated surveillance rules

August 24, 2013

An independent oversight board reviewing secret U.S. government surveillance programs warned the Obama administration that national security agencies' rules governing surveillance are outdated and need to be revised to reflect ...

Secret court OKs continued US phone surveillance

July 21, 2013

(AP)—A secret U.S. intelligence court renewed an order Friday to continue forcing Verizon Communications to turn over hundreds of millions of telephone records to the government each day in its search for foreign terror ...

Recommended for you

Enhancing solar power with diatoms

October 20, 2017

Diatoms, a kind of algae that reproduces prodigiously, have been called "the jewels of the sea" for their ability to manipulate light. Now, researchers hope to harness that property to boost solar technology.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2013
In 1990 we got a lecture on information privacy. The lecturer asked a seemingly innocent question: "Is it OK to have the name of someone in electronic form on a debit card for getting your company lunch?"
Answer is: No way.

- This enables loging of times (do you always go to lunch early? Not a dedicated worker. No promotion for you)
- By structuring prices one can identify whether someone buys alcohol (possible alcoholic? No promotion for you)
- Are the same people always in front/behind you in line? (Are these known trouble makers? Union? No promotion for you. Possibly a reason to try and find a way to fire you)

...the list goes on and on

That is when I realized information security isn't just for shits and giggles. It's vitally important. ANY data you give out that can be linked to you can (and will) be used against you to profile you in ways you can't even imagine.
1 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2013
And it's important why?

And this is valuable to know why?

Because the Truth of a cause or issue is what is actually important why?

Could it be because it is the Truth itself that encourages and protects that which is factually Most Important in Life: Life?

Reading your words reminds me of Rachel Maddow.

Someone who promotes gay rights because of the very Truth that people are indeed, Equal. Then in the next breath calls/identifies people as labels and as unequal, completely ignoring the exact same Truth she is saying is important.

Life is Most Important in Life. I agree with you that anything which is not in the best logical interest of Life should be avoided. We don't need to look too far to see that some people do try to take advantage of others (Life). So, privacy is logically prudent in protecting that which is factually Most Important in Life.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.