July 9, 2008
Google was recently mandated under court order to turn over records of activity on YouTube, such as the user names and IP addresses of video watchers, because Viacom claimed that YouTube users were guilty of copyright infringement. Viacom could technically use this information to sue individual YouTube users.
While individuals are protected from having information about the movies they rent, the TV channels the watch, and of course financial and medical information, given out, the same level of protection does not exist for most of their online activities.
Comments | 6 Total
July 9, 2008 at 10:34am by Wajid Khan
Ok well i agreed about this Youtube activity
July 9, 2008 at 1:12pm by Benjamin Wojcikiewicz
A similar question came up a few years ago when the Department of Homeland Security required libraries to turn over records of books checked out and other such things. The result, in the end, was that libraries were forced to comply; however many of them eliminated record keeping to protect their patrons. Of course libraries aren't trying to build databases of user activity for marketing purposes...
July 9, 2008 at 2:16pm by Rip Empson
It's hard to disagree with this statement, even if you're not a "privacy advocate." I'd like to hear one sound, logical (non-financially-motivated) reason Congress shouldn't protect your online activity. In the Viacom vs. Google case, both companies have sworn that they will do their best to protect our privacy. And considering that a federal judge has ordered Google to turn over a complete list of every YouTube video watched since the site's inception, IP addresses, etc., Google and Viacom MUST take measures to protect our privacy. Should they fail to do so, Viacom will have more to worry about than advertising.
July 9, 2008 at 7:27pm by Greg Palusa
I totally agree.
However it is a rather naive assessment.
Privacy does not exist. Just you need to check the Echelon system of the National Security Agency.
The NSA with Echelon - which is illegal according to the US Constitution - has the technology and the ability of eavesdropping your emails, you phone calls, your faxes, and every communication through every means - except pigeons.
Through your mobile phone and your credit cards payments the NSA knows where you are and where you have been in every minute of your life.
You may want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
but more detailed information can be found in the excellent book by James Bamford "Body of Secrets". With its satellites in orbit the NSA can read your newspaper while you are on the beach (since the mid 80's). With laser interferometry systems (you can’t call them microphones, they are not) the NSA can listen your conversations in your sitting room and your whispers in your bedroom (since the early 90's).
Still I wonder how is it possible that with all these systems and technology the NSA has not found Osama Bin Laden in 7 years. Actually I do not wonder, I do know why.
The NSA does not obey to the US laws, and neither to the US Constitution. The NSA does not respond to the US judicial system. The NSA does not report to the Pentagon, does not report to the Congress, neither to the President of the US. The President of the US has very limited powers, he rules just a small chicken courtyard. Since the 50’s the President of the US is not allowed to view certain files and documents, and he's not allowed to enter certain military bases. The President of the US has a limited Top Secret clearance, quite limited, by the way. You may ask to Jimmy Carter, or to Bill Clinton. You may not ask anymore to John F. Kennedy or to his brother. You may think the NSA is quite a secretive Intelligence Agency. Well, it is, but it is not the most secretive. Have you ever heard about the NRO or the ONI?
The reality is not what you think it is. But do not believe these words, do your own research.
This are the reasons why I find the sentence quite naive.
July 10, 2008 at 3:53am by Lisa A. Spencer
I agree. If not it's getting way too much like Big Brother is watching my every move and I would like to have some privacy.
July 10, 2008 at 3:48pm by Carel Two-Eagle
Takoszja, it's not about whether you 'would like' some privacy, it's about the fact that the U.S. Constitution "guarantees" that you do. Either the Constitution is "worth the paper it's printed on" - and then some - or "freedom" and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a lie. It IS that simple. I'm a dinosaur - I've been fighting this battle my entire life, and other dinosaurs fought it before me. Sad to have to say it, or even feel that I do, but Google should commit civil disobedience and refuse to hand over our data. If no one takes a stand, the rats win the race. It is fact that if a lot of those in office were not in office, they would be locked up as paranoid schizophrenics or some other kind of nut. Not to mention, anti-Constitutionalists. Upon entering office, EVERY office-holder I know of takes the same oath, which includes that s/h "promises on my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". The people in the "Justice" department aren't about 'justice' of late - they are about various kinds of nuttiness. And they are the people the oaths refer to. Freedom is NOT free. It only belongs to those who are willing to fight for it and to defend it. That is not something that only happens in some far-away country. It is something that happens in OUR yards, and IN OUR LAPS. We has met the enemy again, takoszja, and he is (still) us. Unless we refuse to knuckle under to wrongful "requests", like the latest one involving Google and who-knows-what-else.