NationStates Jolt Archive

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm

That's a shedload of data, much of which I just can't see Viacom having any reasonable right to get hold of.

Is this just another example of the courts being unable to understand modern technology?

How much of your information has this judge just ordered be handed over to a corporation who you may or may not have done business with in the past?

:eek:



No, seriously, :eek:


Well, that's one way to make me stop watching anything on Youtube. What I watch where is no business of the US government.

I'd like to see them process all of that data...How long would it take to process so much data?!

But Cabra West, the supercomputers of the NSA already know all the putrid little details of your websurfing habits. All of them. Privacy on the Internet is an illusion.

:eek:



No, seriously, :eek:

Hehe, yeah.

I can't decide whether to laugh or rant, tbh.

The hard drives that get handed over if this doesn't get successfully appealed are a data miner's wet dream though :p

But Cabra West, the supercomputers of the NSA already know all the putrid little details of your websurfing habits. All of them. Privacy on the Internet is an illusion.

I doubt it. I don't make a habit of visiting sites on US servers much.

That's cute. You really think that those NSA machines magically stop scanning the Internet once servers are located outside the USA?

That's cute. You really think that those NSA machines magically stop scanning the Internet once servers are located outside the USA?

It's called ECHELON. Internet, cell phone, radio on all frequencies, etc.

That's cute. You really think that those NSA machines magically stop scanning the Internet once servers are located outside the USA?

Please tell me how they would scan servers outside their jurisdiction, on networks outside their jurisdiction, used by people outside their jurisdiction?

Please tell me how they would scan servers outside their jurisdiction, on networks outside their jurisdiction, used by people outside their jurisdiction?

It's called ECHELON. The UK (and everyone in the Commonwealth) participates. Other countries may be participating as well, you would have to check.

surely this is a breach of privacy and civil rights that not kl

It's called ECHELON. The UK (and everyone in the Commonwealth) participates. Other countries may be participating as well, you would have to check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Organization

Ireland isn't.

It's called ECHELON. The UK (and everyone in the Commonwealth) participates. Other countries may be participating as well, you would have to check.

its my understanding that it is officially a UK enterprise and that we just ..... help out unoficially in order to avoid US privacy laws.

It's called ECHELON. The UK (and everyone in the Commonwealth) participates. Other countries may be participating as well, you would have to check.
The NSA cant do bugger all to me ive jst got to worry about MI5

Well, that's one way to make me stop watching anything on Youtube. What I watch where is no business of the US government.
Or Viacom, who will be looking at the data. This has little to do with the US government, for once.

It's all part of Viacom's whining about copyright infringement on the internet.

EDIT> While we're talking about inane copyright 'enforcement', the RIAA have announced that they shouldn't have to provide proof (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/riaa-making-ava.html) of transferring copyrighted data to convict people of transferring copyrighted data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Organization

Ireland isn't.

But Northern Ireland is. And the UK has enough control over the Atlantic cables, and antennae to listen to anything on the airwaves in Ireland. That, and I doubt that any of the major communication satellites are under the sole control of Ireland - the UK and US have most of the ones that Ireland uses.

Or Viacom, who will be looking at the data. This has little to do with the US government, for once.
Indeed. It's the fact that the data may be handed over to a corporation en masse, i.e. all the data, rather than just those items that directly pertain to Viacom, that makes this case stand out for me.

Call me old-fashioned, but I still differentiate between national (governmental) agencies gathering data and private corporations doing the same, which is why I see this as somehow 'worse' than the whole Echelon thing being talked about further up the thread. Perhaps that makes me silly :)

Indeed. It's the fact that the data may be handed over to a corporation en masse, i.e. all the data, rather than just those items that directly pertain to Viacom, that makes this case stand out for me.
Looks like (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html) Google is (unsurprisingly) fighting the decision.

Indeed. It's the fact that the data may be handed over to a corporation en masse, i.e. all the data, rather than just those items that directly pertain to Viacom, that makes this case stand out for me.

Call me old-fashioned, but I still differentiate between national (governmental) agencies gathering data and private corporations doing the same, which is why I see this as somehow 'worse' than the whole Echelon thing being talked about further up the thread. Perhaps that makes me silly :)

Let's see - Viacom owns a lot of intellectual property. They want to see if any pirated video is on Youtube. They'll sue anyone who watched any pirated video...

Probably comb through the data, and send each person a bill...

Viacom owns a lot of intellectual property. They want to see if any pirated video is on Youtube. They'll sue anyone who watched any pirated video...
Yet they won't pay their writers for online material because it's merely 'promotional data'...

Ahh, the hypocrisy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w).

Looks like (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html) Google is (unsurprisingly) fighting the decision.
Yeah, and they should be able to afford a decent lawyer or two to handle their case, I'd think :)

Also unsurprisingly, a lot of tech blogs have gone a bit ballistic over the last couple of hours. One recurring theme is the idea that Google should put together a package of statistics showing a break down of the Youtube use from IPs that can be linked to Viacom, its subsidiaries or the court and judge that made the ruling. I confess that I would find it extremely amusing if that sort of info was suddenly made public :p

Let's see - Viacom owns a lot of intellectual property. They want to see if any pirated video is on Youtube. They'll sue anyone who watched any pirated video...

Probably comb through the data, and send each person a bill...
Yeah, I get that. What's your point?

Are you suggesting that because a company owns some IP rights they should be allowed to access the details of everything that anyone on the planet has ever watched or listened to, just in case it was something of theirs?

Yet they won't pay their writers for online material because it's merely 'promotional data'...

Ahh, the hypocrisy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzRHlpEmr0w).

I didn't say they weren't assholes. I think this strategy is "ask for way more than you really need, so when the courts trim you back, you get what you really wanted".

surely this is a breach of privacy and civil rights that not kl

What Viacom gets - the IP and username of every viewer of videos on YouTube is no doubt a violation of privacy and any judge who would give that to them should be removed from the bench. Viacom has no interest or need to know the usernames and especially not the IPs of every person viewing a video on YouTube. This will no doubt culminate in a witchhunt by the likes of the MPAA to fine people for watching YouTube videos with any amount of copyrighted video in it.

Viacom has no interest or need to know the usernames and especially not the IPs of every person viewing a video on YouTube.
They've certainly got an interest; they want to prove that people watch more copyrighted material than uncopyrighted material on YouTube.

That interest may be unreasonable, but they certainly have an interest (to the tune of around $1 billion).

Wow, I hope they have an interest in Mean Kitty videos.

They've certainly got an interest; they want to prove that people watch more copyrighted material than uncopyrighted material on YouTube.

That interest may be unreasonable, but they certainly have an interest (to the tune of around $1 billion).

Umm how does the average net head know which material isn't copyrighted?

You know, all that data, just terrabytes of it. Something malicious could easily be lost inside it... and inside RIAA computer networks.

Umm how does the average net head know which material isn't copyrighted?
A better question is "how does anyone clicking on a link on, for example, NSG know that it's not going to lead them to a Youtube video that represents copyrighted material?"

Also, if (when) it does, who gets the nice letter from the lawyers? The person who clicks on the link? The referring website? The person who posted the link in the first place?

It's good to see that our court systems are keeping up with the way things work, it really is :p

This sounds like the beginning of another effort by a large corporation to begin suing individuals. With the IP Address all Viacom has to do, is contact the ISP, find out whom that IP belongs to, and then they can sue that person.

This is the video equivalent of the RIAAs efforts to stop online music downloads.


Why can't these companies and organizations learn to accept technology and use it to their advantage, instead of working against it?

Umm how does the average net head know which material isn't copyrighted?
Apart from the obvious (material taken off of TV, music videos and the like), I imagine most probably don't.

But, from my understanding, Viacom 'merely' want to prove that Google isn't being diligent enough and allowing more copyrighted material on YouTube than copyrighted material. They're not (directly) going after individual users, but Google.

http://1984comic.com/files/images/1984-Big-Brother-Poster-Orwell_2.png

This sounds like the beginning of another effort by a large corporation to begin suing individuals. With the IP Address all Viacom has to do, is contact the ISP, find out whom that IP belongs to, and then they can sue that person.

This is the video equivalent of the RIAAs efforts to stop online music downloads.


Why can't these companies and organizations learn to accept technology and use it to their advantage, instead of working against it?


The thing about that is how can they proove who was using the 'puter at the time

A better question is "how does anyone clicking on a link on, for example, NSG know that it's not going to lead them to a Youtube video that represents copyrighted material?"

Also, if (when) it does, who gets the nice letter from the lawyers? The person who clicks on the link? The referring website? The person who posted the link in the first place?

It's good to see that our court systems are keeping up with the way things work, it really is :p
You realize how much money they would make from RickRolling alone?

You realize how much money they would make from RickRolling alone?

That's what their lawyers said at the meeting where they decided to do this.

That's what their lawyers said at the meeting where they decided to do this.
The company would probably RickRoll its employees.
"Haha, got you got RickRoll'd. You pay us $100."

So.. a US court has ruled this.

So what will viacom do with the terrabytes of data of non-US viewers ? My countries laws have not authorised such an invasion of privacy, and in addition has different copyright laws.

Can I demand monetary compensation for every time my data occurs in the set ? I will consider $ 350 million per occurance reasonable.

Google should comply.

All they need to do is hand over the print out instead of the files. The information has been provided and Viacom gets to spend the next 2 decades reading through a couple of warehouses worth of paper.

Aside from my horror, I'd like to see how they tailor their advertising to target someone who watches videos of the West Wing, hockey fights, and boys making out.

oh god I don't even want to know what they will be finding on my account :eek:

So what will viacom do with the terrabytes of data of non-US viewers ? My countries laws have not authorised such an invasion of privacy, and in addition has different copyright laws.

crazy wabbit, do you still think the US listens to silly things like international law?

So.. a US court has ruled this.

So what will viacom do with the terrabytes of data of non-US viewers ? My countries laws have not authorised such an invasion of privacy, and in addition has different copyright laws.

Can I demand monetary compensation for every time my data occurs in the set ? I will consider $ 350 million per occurance reasonable.

Haha..haha....ha...thats cute you think we care about other countries laws...

Man, thats rich, lol....

Well, since I did not 'knowlingly' watch stuff that was not mine it is therefore not my problem, though the ones who submit vids will have a problem, yet it is quite illegal and against the most commonly know laws of our nation, the Bill of Rights, thus have fun you arrogant bastards who want my info. Tecnhnically, as long as they were not directly profiting off of it the only thing Youtube, thus Google, can really face is a legal injunction for failing to actively police their websites.

Well, since I did not 'knowlingly' watch stuff that was not mine it is therefore not my problem, though the ones who submit vids will have a problem, yet it is quite illegal and against the most commonly know laws of our nation, the Bill of Rights, thus have fun you arrogant bastards who want my info. Tecnhnically, as long as they were not directly profiting off of it the only thing Youtube, thus Google, can really face is a legal injunction for failing to actively police their websites.

Which results in what has happened to Torrent host sites. And they arn't even hosting the content. But Google is big and can afford expensive lawyers.

The thing about that is how can they proove who was using the 'puter at the time

The same way the RIAA did. They got username, and were sueing children because they had that username.

The same way the RIAA did. They got username, and were sueing children because they had that username.

Ah yes, the Rational thing to do...When are the politicians gonna learn that the Internet is unlegislatable...

Google should comply.

All they need to do is hand over the print out instead of the files. The information has been provided and Viacom gets to spend the next 2 decades reading through a couple of warehouses worth of paper.

That's a whole lot of ink on a whole lot of paper, all of which google would have to pay for.




But they totally should because that would be fucking awesome.

That's a whole lot of ink on a whole lot of paper, all of which google would have to pay for.




But they totally should because that would be fucking awesome.

Google can afford it and it would a fantastic up yours to the people trying to enforce archaic laws on the internet.

Google can afford it and it would a fantastic up yours to the people trying to enforce archaic laws on the internet.

It'd no doubt take months, if not years, for google to print all that stuff, and even longer for viacom to find the information they're looking for.

It'd no doubt take monthgs, if not years, for google to print all that stuff, and even longer for viacom to find the information they're looking for.

Exactly. ;)

I used to work for Viacom (actually it was Blockbusters but they're owned by Viacom so they count) and I'd love them to just fuck off and leave me alone now. What right do they have to get the Youtube viewing history of a British citizen through an American court ruling?

Hmm, Viacom will be able to make a shed-load more money when they start licensing this list out to other copyright holders...

Hmm, Viacom will be able to make a shed-load more money when they start licensing this list out to other copyright holders...

Wouldn't that breach the DPA?

Wouldn't that breach the DPA?

With a Court that has rulings like these...Does it matter?

Wouldn't that breach the DPA?

This ruling already does. At least, for British citizens, as the ruling is in the US.

What kind of senile judges do they have in the states is what I want to know :headbang:

What kind of senile judges do they have in the states is what I want to know :headbang:

The same kind they have in Australia?

http://news.smh.com.au/national/appeal-launched-against-ferguson-release-20080702-306v.html

And what are they planning to do once they get a list of everyone who has illegally watched a movie? Put them in jail? Really there are too many. It is socially acceptable. I know all my friends have done it and with the exception of one we really are not a burden on society. Businesses would also be shooting themselves in the foot by prosecuting. All thats needed is a jury backlash as half the people there have done the same thing
The best they could do is prosecute the people who upload the videos

:eek:



No, seriously, :eek:


Well, that's one way to make me stop watching anything on Youtube. What I watch where is no business of the US government.

All your YouTube viewings are belong to us.

Google can afford it and it would a fantastic up yours to the people trying to enforce archaic laws on the internet.

Would be more interesting if Google decided to uproot itself and moved to Sweden. There's a legal precedent against the kind of stuff Viacom wants.

Let's see - Viacom owns a lot of intellectual property. They want to see if any pirated video is on Youtube. They'll sue anyone who watched any pirated video...

Probably comb through the data, and send each person a bill...

I'm not sure it's illegal to watch copy-written material. It's certainly illegal to distribute copy-written material, so Viacom is certainly well within its rights to sue the pants off of anyone uploading copy-written material. And I'm sure they can sue people for downloading material. But simply watching? I think any half-decent lawyer could get you out of that bill.

When ever you visit a web site your computer leaves its ip adress (almost like a footprint that never goes away). It is very easy to see what people have been looking at.

When ever you visit a web site your computer leaves its ip adress (almost like a footprint that never goes away). It is very easy to see what people have been looking at.

Yeah, but thats easily changed...and once it does the aforementioned address is no longer connected to you...

does this include the Youtube sites from other countries too?

crazy wabbit, do you still think the US listens to silly things like international law?

Oh no. But Viacom, as an international company, should. Unless of course it wishes to not be able to trade anywhere except within US borders.

So.. where is is my $ 350 million x a few thousand ? The value of the dollar is not increasing you know ! Time is money !

Ah yes, the Rational thing to do...When are the politicians gonna learn that the Internet is unlegislatable...When the internet has orbital space lasers to shoot them with.

When the internet has orbital space lasers to shoot them with.

Shush, you're giving Anon ideas. :p

You know, all that data, just terrabytes of it. Something malicious could easily be lost inside it... and inside RIAA computer networks.

I like the way you think...

I also like orbital space lasers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm

That's a shedload of data, much of which I just can't see Viacom having any reasonable right to get hold of.

Is this just another example of the courts being unable to understand modern technology?

How much of your information has this judge just ordered be handed over to a corporation who you may or may not have done business with in the past?

Bastards. That's just really, really, stupid. No other way to describe it.

ARGHHHH!!!


I FEEL SO PARANOID!!!!:eek:

*looks behind himself*

They could be watching me type thi message....right...now!!!! :eek:

*faints*

WHY OH WHY WAS I CURSED WITH BEING BORN IN THE US???? *cries*

When ever you visit a web site your computer leaves its ip adress (almost like a footprint that never goes away). It is very easy to see what people have been looking at.

Unless you are remotely computer savy or have a firewall that constantly changes your IP adress like I do...

I probably shouldn't have watched all those videos of animals mating.

In Soviet Russia, Youtube watches you!
...and hands over the information to the Viacommissars

Unless you are remotely computer savy or have a firewall that constantly changes your IP adress like I do...
You're still traceable, technically. Even if you set up your connection to start with a spoofed IP and then route itself through half a dozen proxies scattered across the globe it can still be done. Besides, regardless of how you choose to mask the appearance of your IP to remote sites, your ISP still has to know where you are, else they can't route any requested traffic to you, and it's return traffic (i.e. the stuff you've been watching) that they're after.

It would take a hell of a lot of leg work to backtrace you though, not to mention the cooperation of the operators of the proxies (and let's face it, some of the proxies are fully automated and have been deliberately configured to use very small logs to hamper precisely this sort of investigation), and I just can't see it ever being followed through since the only companies with the server and bandwidth capacity to even attempt to track what is being asked for (i.e. the complete viewing history of "every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube") have better things to do.

I suspect that Google will win their appeal, if only to spare the blushes of the court.

You're still traceable, technically. Even if you set up your connection to start with a spoofed IP and then route itself through half a dozen proxies scattered across the globe it can still be done. Besides, regardless of how you choose to mask the appearance of your IP to remote sites, your ISP still has to know where you are, else they can't route any requested traffic to you, and it's return traffic (i.e. the stuff you've been watching) that they're after.

It would take a hell of a lot of leg work to backtrace you though, not to mention the cooperation of the operators of the proxies (and let's face it, some of the proxies are fully automated and have been deliberately configured to use very small logs to hamper precisely this sort of investigation), and I just can't see it ever being followed through since the only companies with the server and bandwidth capacity to even attempt to track what is being asked for (i.e. the complete viewing history of "every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube") have better things to do.

I suspect that Google will win their appeal, if only to spare the blushes of the court.

So should we start watching YouTube videos en masse just to make things even harder for them, or is just like pouring water in the Ocean at this point?

Unless you are remotely computer savy or have a firewall that constantly changes your IP adress like I do...

You'd still be traceable, but I doubt Viacom would bother. I figure they'll go after easy wins and try and scare everyone else into quitting.

So should we start watching YouTube videos en masse just to make things even harder for them, or is just like pouring water in the Ocean at this point?
Hehe, I've always just assumed (based on my own subjective evaluation of the performance of Youtube's servers) that it runs pretty close to capacity anyway, so I'm not sure it'll make any difference.

The more I read about this case, though, the more it reinforces my belief that our legal systems, and indeed our governments, simply cannot deal with what the Internet has become.

Yeah, but thats easily changed...and once it does the aforementioned address is no longer connected to you...

How?

Yeah, but thats easily changed...and once it does the aforementioned address is no longer connected to you...How?
It is possible to connect to a server elsewhere on the Internet (a proxy) and route all of your traffic through it. If you request a web page via such a proxy, the IP address that will be recorded on the server that hosts the page you have requested will be the IP of the proxy, as opposed to the IP of your machine.

To back trace such a connection the operators of the target machine would have to get hold of the server logs for the proxy and then match the traffic to determine the actual IP of your machine. As noted above, this process gets even more convoluted when there are multiple proxies being used at the same time, and may be impossible since some of the proxies may not be keeping full logs.

(I planned to make that as simple as possible, but I may have failed :()

So should we start watching YouTube videos en masse just to make things even harder for them, or is just like pouring water in the Ocean at this point?

Adding water to the ocean with a pipette.