Judge orders Google to hand over YouTube usernames, viewing data

And frightened.  Big brother is here.  It's like when google starts sending you certain ads based on key words that show up in your email. 

I wholeheartedly agree with Nancy's take on Media consolidation.  It feels like rights are being eroded.  Some of us of a certain age realize what we're losing, other people think that this is the way it's always been.

Another layer of oil on the slippery slope of erosion of privacy.  Wh do these companies needs to keep so much information on us?

blog.candelariasilva.com

Good and plenty!

...and while the July 4 weekend is working in YouTube's favor on the official front (very little on the biggest law blogs, no day two stories in newspapers), I found the following posts courtesy of TechMeme ( http://www.techmeme.com/ ).

First, YouTube posted an official notice:

The Law and Your Privacy ( http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=Gh2N9xyKK8k ) The YouTube Team talks about the case and their data collection: "Why do we keep this information in the first place? It helps us personalize the YouTube experience, getting you closer to the videos you most want to watch..."

Users responded. And let's just say that most users I'm reading agree with you all -- just in saltier language:

"I have an idea, STOP LOGGING IPs. It bothers me that you guys are keeping track of viewing histories by IP for such a long time...You have a staff of friggin geniuses at your disposal, why not get them to come up with a way to REALLY PROTECT our privacy..." ~ User Esotereo on The Law and Your Privacy ( http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=Gh2N9xyKK8k )

The [unofficial] UTube Blog asks YouTube's privacy mess - will users revolt ( http://theutubeblog.com/2008/07/05/youtubes-privac... )? I found an interesting answer on NewTeeVee:

"Wanna hit Viacom hard where it hurts? Call up your cable/satellite TV provider and DISCONNECT....Television is a 20th century dinosaur. (Unless you have complete control of what is on, the TV is your enemy)" ~ User Juggarnaut on Chris Albrecht's post ( http://newteevee.com/2008/07/04/youtube-responds-t... ) on NewTeeVee

Finally, I should point out a point about the case that I missed yesterday, courtesy of Wired's blog:

Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema.

Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons.

I have to AMEN vigorously when Maria says "Go EFF!" Has anyone else found more posts?

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://blogher.org/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

I'm mourning the loss of the USA I love as the constitution and individual liberty have been trampled and shredded.   It makes my heart ache.  Our forefathers and foremothers would be sickened by what we have devolved into.

Nancy 

Build Peace ( http://buildpeace.blogspot.com )
Virtuality ( http://www.virtualknowledgegroup.com )
My Life As An Avatar ( http://www.blogher.com/http/secondana.blogspot.com )

( http://buildpeace.blogspot.com )

If Viacom is "working with Google" to protect the privacy of those who viewed these clips, then why even ask for that information? Why does Viacom need to know, if they're going to do nothing with it? Because, after all, any prosecutions resulting from obtaining that information will be public record. Kind of hard to keep someone anonymous while prosecuting them for copyright infringement, no?

Stephanie

http://quirkyblogger.com

Virginia - good point.

Now if only that amendment assured the unconstitutionality of the original and the renewal of the USA Patriot Act a few years ago (and surely the upcoming extension to it in about a year).

www.eyefulofcanon.com ( http://www.eyefulofcanon.com )

would seem to make the whole idea illegal. But these days, who knows . . .

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

Yes. that's awful. I can understand wanting to somehow make sure that people do no infringe on copyrights, but wanting to know which videos we are watching? I am going to say some prayers for this country. Yep. Maybe Utube needs to stop logging IPs.

I wish that people would disconnect cable to protest, but come on now! Live without cable? LOL. We have a better chance of telling people to give up their cars. I'm not just talking about in New York, either. I don't have cable; I'm just a crazy, going against the grain kind of gal.

Claudine Williams

Travel Editor

www.vacation-tip.com ( http://www.vacation-tip.com/ )

Follow me at www.twitter.com/claudinew ( http://www.twitter.com/claudinew )

( http://www.theatlantatraveler.com/ )

Sumner Redstone - the person who controls Viacom - is a liberal Democrat, or at least that is how he self identifies.

I would content that mega-billionaires canot be liberal Democrats... that perspective interferes with Feudal Lordship.

This is where media consolidation ( http://www.freepress.net/news/16168 ) leads.

If we want to converse intelligently on this issue we need to understand a few basics:

Basic media ownership - who controls what?
( http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications... )
How a comapny grows so large. ( http://cjrarchives.org/tools/owners/viacom-timelin... )
This guy controls Viacom. ( http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/0... )
How personal record privacy was trashed by the Patriot Act. ( http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm )
What set this in motion. ( http://mondediplo.com/2003/06/08halimi )
Basically there is nothing we can do to outmaneuver huge corporations as long as they are granted legall status as a corportate person ( http://www.corporatepersonhood.com/ ) with all the rights and none of the responsibilities or real persons while also enjoying laws that make them immortal. Humans and individual rights don't have a chance of survival let alone winning against such heinous monstrosities as corporations that are simply the economic arm of a few overlord families ( http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/we... ).

I've been blogging about this topic for a while. Here's one of my more p ( http://buildpeace.blogspot.com/2006/05/coupe-detat... )ointed and some might even say strident posts: Coupe d'etats, euthanizing corporations and reclaiming our voting rights. ( http://buildpeace.blogspot.com/2006/05/coupe-detat... )

Just so we don't get too seriously depressed, I also recommend that you read this satiric parody of Sumner Redstone and Viacom ( http://defamer.com/hollywood/business/sumner-redst... ) for a few dark laughs. As long as we can laugh they haven't won. :)

Nancy

Build Peace ( http://buildpeace.blogspot.com )
Virtuality ( http://www.virtualknowledgegroup.com )
My Life As An Avatar ( http://www.blogher.com/http/secondana.blogspot.com )

( http://buildpeace.blogspot.com )

From reading the NYT article it appears that Viacom wants this information in order to attempt to make a case that YouTube's business was built substantially on the basis of copyright violations (not Viacom's specifically but in general).

It's troubling on a somewhat abstract level given that the entertainment they "own" is built on borrowing, sharing and appropriation. But I digress... How Viacom needs the account and IP information in order to make their case that puzzles me. But beyond that, that they are being given the opportunity to violate the privacy of tens of millions of people in pursuit of profits is mind boggling.

So many people poo-poo the telecom immunity issue and don't see how it's related, or to the degree they are aware of it, view questions of whether or not judicial appointees see a right to privacy in the constitution as only a question of abortion rights. I fear we are giving away our privacy not only knowingly in exchange for some convenience but worse through ignorance and inaction.

Go EFF! And let's get this question to the Supreme Court and keep our fingers crossed for Kennedy to swing in our collective direction.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

 That's so insane!  Is someone going to come after me for watching all the little movie clips and excerpts I've watched over the years?  Or my kid for the things he loves to watch over and over on YouTube?

This could potentially get very ugly, not just with copyright issues, but with political issues as well. Think what happens when governments want to know who's watching politically controversial content?  We are setting dangerous precedents when our legal system orders web companies to turn over user viewing data.

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net ( http://badgermama.blogspot.com/ )
Composite ( http://liz-henry.blogspot.com/ ) - Tech & poetics
Badgermama ( http://badgermama.blogspot.com/ ) - perso

When I read your post, I immediately thought of the outrage sparked by the disclosure of Robert Bork's video rental records 20 years ago. I noticed that case is referred to in the NYT article for the precedent it set for the privacy of such records. It was ironic that Bork became the poster boy for this type or privacy law, since he famously said during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings that he didn't think Americans had a constitutional right to privacy.

 In any event, I can't imagine what value this information would have in law enforcement. Knowing who posted a video, yes, in cases of copyright violations and the posting of obscene content. But why does anyone need to know who watched it?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|