Been Watching Gay You-Tube Videos?

There's some pretty creepy shit coming out of America these days.

From: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/03/ST2008070304015.html


YouTube Ordered To Release User Data
Viacom Had Sought Access to Database In Copyright Battle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 4, 2008; Page D01


A federal judge in New York this week ordered the video-sharing site YouTube, the world's third-most-visited Web site, to release data on the viewing habits of its tens of millions of worldwide viewers.

...

Further the requirement IS for username/IP data, which could be matched to ISP records anywhere ...


The database contains the unique login ID of the viewer, the time he began watching, the Internet Protocol, or IP, address of the user's computer and the identification of the video. That database is the only existing record of how often each video has been viewed during various time periods, the opinion said. Its data can recreate the number of views of a video for any particular day.

In ordering the data release, Stanton said that YouTube's privacy concerns were "speculative,"

If Viacom corporation can get Google IP records then why not from ISP records from any ISP including those from countries outside Europe that don't even have the privacy laws the west has?

I see nothing definitely specifying the uses of these data.

This is pretty bad news. It is simple matters with supercomputers these day to search, compile information from numerous sources and easily identify YOU as gay from all your previous viewing habits. The lesson may soon be: DON'T USE THE INTERNET.

It's like so much other news these days. Sensational, probably inaccurate.

It's contrary to principle. If true it indicates the degradation of basic civil principle in the US court system. Google is an ISP service and not specifically responsible for the actions of it's users so then WHY is Viacom allowed to demand these data as data to prove they are violating copyright laws? And IS user/to/user sharing of already broadcast materials and products inferior to properly/published material copyright infringement when the individual users are not gaining any notoriety, cash or other remuneration? There are certainly a LOT of unanswered/undecided questions and a court action like this is quite unwarranted. And there seem to be absolutely no restrictions on what all these data can be used by Viacom for.

In fact it is so awful a decision that it must be mis-reported news AGAIN.

The article mentions "laws designed to protect privacy". I really don't know what these laws are if they exist.

Viacom should be made to BUY these data from Google if they think it will be useful and based on what Google will provide.

Interesting: July 4th.

[Bob]

While viewer privacy concerns are involved, perhaps this isn't the case to cry wolf just yet. This case is a copyright case, Viacom claiming that its copyrighted material is shown millions of times a day and that YouTube is making money assisting and enabling those violations (i.e., aiding and abetting the copyright violations). If I started publishing on my website the works of any artist (e.g., committed to print the Harry Potter books so a lot of people could avoid buying the book), I'd expect the authors to go after me to for copyright violations. I don't see much difference with copyrighted movies or television shows.
And there's more to the story:
(1) As was noted in the arguments presented and the judge's opinion, the data being released could not in almost any case indentify any user.
(2) Viacom (the Plaintiff in the case) said specifically ""Even if they uploaded pirated clips, we're not going to use the data to find them. We're not going to use it to sue them. We're not going to use it to look at who they are." [Viacom is supposedly using the data just to see how many times their copyrighted materials was viewed.]
(3) Additionally, the Defendant (Google as owner of YouTube) said it would request that data turned over not include (or mask) the IP numbers and usernames of viewers and uploaders and the Plaintiff' attorney said they were open to that.
(4) And, finally, there's a protective order already entered by the Court that limits how the data can be used or disclosed.

So, I wouldn't get out the protest banners just yet.

While viewer privacy concerns are involved, perhaps this isn't the case to cry wolf just yet. This case is a copyright case, Viacom claiming that its copyrighted material is shown millions of times a day and that YouTube is making money assisting and enabling those violations (i.e., aiding and abetting the copyright violations). If I started publishing on my website the works of any artist (e.g., committed to print the Harry Potter books so a lot of people could avoid buying the book), I'd expect the authors to go after me to for copyright violations. I don't see much difference with copyrighted movies or television shows.
And there's more to the story:
(1) As was noted in the arguments presented and the judge's opinion, the data being released could not in almost any case indentify any user.
(2) Viacom (the Plaintiff in the case) said specifically ""Even if they uploaded pirated clips, we're not going to use the data to find them. We're not going to use it to sue them. We're not going to use it to look at who they are." [Viacom is supposedly using the data just to see how many times their copyrighted materials was viewed.]
(3) Additionally, the Defendant (Google as owner of YouTube) said it would request that data turned over not include (or mask) the IP numbers and usernames of viewers and uploaders and the Plaintiff' attorney said they were open to that.
(4) And, finally, there's a protective order already entered by the Court that limits how the data can be used or disclosed.

So, I wouldn't get out the protest banners just yet.

Well, YOU shouldn't do that on YOUR website, but technically here it's the users doing it not Google, sorry. And ARE they violating somethimg? It's a bunch of hids sharing their experiences (and ooooohh some of those experiences ;-) ).

I did say "I see nothing definitely specifying the uses of these data.", and though I am sure after further investigation that I will find what you say, I will note that as Google "would request that data turned over not include (or mask) the IP numbers and usernames of viewers and uploaders" then, guess what, the "protective order already entered by the Court" must already be pretty lame and unspecific as to such a very important point.

You CAN sometimes come pretty close with just an IP address at least knowing companies, cities, small towns, libraries ... . Are those critical videos of a company coming from behind the company firewall?

Credit card corporations aren't allowed to trade, give or sell personal information to other corporations, websites shouldn't either and websites should not give any other company personal data even on court order unless it's properly packaged and sanitized passed review as to [all of that] and paid for. Furthermore Google should not be ALLOWED to give out data that COULD be personally identifiable and that includes user names and IP addresses. How many other excuses are going to come up to force very good service providers to "hand over the data"?

What they say and what they do can be pretty different in the absence of practical privacy laws.

These companies have a history of trolling children on the net and sending their parents threatening letters (which THAT should be illegal).

Don't think that any employee in a corporate back office is properly surpervised and nonprone to violating personal privacy if they want. It's been known that wives have gotten emails to use in their divorce cases by just calling AOL.

I will be very disappointed if Google doesn't just refuse to do this. They successfully refused the government. There's no public review of what a company holding personal data is doing with it, but government is subject to laws and review. The data should be turned over to proper law enforcement officials (and come about as a consequence of PROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT investigations?) in the government, NOT a corporation. Your privacy is at stake here. Someone needs to tear this one to shreds.