Metadata
A year ago today, the US government revoked Edward Snowden’s passport as he attempted to flee the country. Snowden, as we all know, had just leaked thousands of classified documents detailing the existence of global surveillance programs far more intrusive than previously thought.
As writers of poetry and fiction, how do we address current events without sounding too heavy-handed? Without losing our claims to art?
Daniel Hornsby’s short story “Metadata,” is one example of a successful crossover. Published in issue 54 of Hayden’s Ferry Review, the piece comments on global surveillance, even as it aestheticizes it.
And so, in honor of Snowden’s quest for asylum, one year ago, we’ve decided to publish Hornsby's piece again—this time online.
NSA be damned.
METADATA
by Daniel Hornsby
At
20:03.55 on 13 April, A. places a call to B. lasting a total of two minutes and
twelve seconds (00:02.12). This call is shortly followed at 20:07.02 by a
similar such call, the contents of which may not be disclosed, but can be said
to have clarified certain ambiguous aspects of the information conveyed within
the previous call. This call, the second, lasts a mere fifteen seconds, ending
at 20:07.17.
***
C.
calls D. at 20:41.19 on 26 May, but the call itself last no longer than four
(0:00.04) seconds, a duration which, given the time necessary for a phone such
as D.’s (Class P, V0000582) to receive the signal and, subsequently, ring,
makes such a response on D.’s part impossible. Minutes later, D., likely seeing
the missed call from C., again attempts to contact C., but this call, too, ends
in a matter of seconds, terminated by C.
***
On
17 June at 23:54.01, E. exchanges a series of messages with F. from a device
located at 40.18120128N, -85.38917542W, at an address associated with G. Later
that same day, from 40.18500454N, -85.37072182W, at an address associated with
F., E. exchanges a series of messages approximating the same length (some 122
bytes) as those shared with F. earlier, but in this instance directed to G. On
the following day, E., at 40.17992255N -85.37557125W, alternately messages both
F. (40.18500454N, -85.37072182W) and G. (40.18120128N,
-85.38917542W), as well as one H., located at 40.18125431 N, -85.38967843W.
***
I.
calls J. who, shortly thereafter, calls K. and, minutes later, L. The following
day, at 11:49.33, L. calls M., who, immediately following the conversation,
places a call to I, which lasts only ten minutes and twelve seconds, but is
itself quickly followed by another call from I. to J. lasting some two hours. For
several months to follow (7 July to 15 September), no such calls from I. to J.
are made.
***
N.
calls O. at 22:53.12. N. calls O. at 00:01.23. N. calls O. at 00:12.45. N.
calls O. again at 00:33.59. In this
final instance, O. answers, and the subsequent conversation lasts a mere
eighteen seconds (00:00.18). Minutes later, N. calls O. at 00:45.02 and
receives no answer. The next morning, N. receives an email from O., sent in
response to a series of previously unanswered emails sent from N. to O. in the
past week (02 March to 09 of the same month). An hour later, N. calls O. and
again receives no answer. The next day, N. calls O. only to find the number has
been blocked. A year later, N. calls O., but it is P. who answers, and N. hangs
up.
***
Q.
places a call to R., which, at 19:43.11 on 4 January, goes unanswered. S., from
the same location as Q., also places a call to R. shortly thereafter, which R.,
does, in fact, answer, and which lasts from 19:51.06 to 20:47.59. At 20:49.22,
Q. again calls R., but R. does not answer.
***
T.
places a collect call to U. at 22:15.06, 19 October, a call which U. accepts
and lasts, after repeated payments, a total of fifty-seven minutes and fourteen
seconds (00:57.14). Exactly two months later, from 40.18120128N, -85.38917542W,
T. places another collect call, which U. again excepts, though this call lasts
a mere two minutes, this time without renewal of payment by U. allowing for
continued conversation. Three months and twelve days later (21 March), T. again
places a call to U., also collect, which U. answers but, after a brief exchange
with the operator, does choose to accept.
***
V.
and W. both call X. in quick succession from the same approximate location, but
X. makes no response. Y. and Z. make similar entreaties via email, and these
too go unanswered, as do a series of text messages from A., B., and C. Days later, the University of M. library
messages X. informing him that books 838 R573O J12, 838 R573O A58ri, and 838
R573O R585 have yet to be returned and will now be considered late. Three days
later, a similar message is sent, this one informing X. that the books
previously described are now considered late. Later that day, X. receives
another message from I., as well as an anonymous email sent from a server
located at 14.102.156.0/22—all of which go unopened. That evening Z. calls, but
is quickly informed that the number he has dialed has been disconnected, please
hang up or dial your operator.