Kel says it's way too hot

post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :) (read all 119 entries…)
US court has ruled that Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube. 12 months ago

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

The database contains the unique login ID of the user who watched it, the time when the user watched it, the IP address (unique online identifier) of the computer used to watch the video and the identifier for the video.

The judge also ruled that Google should divulge the details of every video that has ever been removed from YouTube, for whatever reason.

Anyone bothered by this?



Comments:

Only academically.

I don’t see that it would have any effect on my day to day life at all.

AdmiralJack isn't exactly back, but wants to play.

my god....

My name’s already probably on a list somewhere- this is going to do me no good.

I had heard of this a while ago, but thought to myself, “this probably isn’t going anywhere.” Shows what I know.

Yes. All things of this nature bother me. However, it’s naive to think that they (you know, them) couldn’t get this information anyway, court ruling or no court ruling.

Yes, that’s very worrying actually. Not that I’m at all surprised after their complicity in the ‘Great Firewall of China’ shit.

I use Scroogle anyway but I’ll be keeping that YouTube factoid in mind, thanks. :)

WHat will they do with the information?

If they determine this information is property of the US Government then yes, because anyone could request a list of xyz based on the rights of the “Rights to Freedom Act” and companies may opbtain this information to restrict potential employees who visit porn videos, or even communism videos, and other things…should we be alarmed?

Political candiates could use this against other political candiates in elections. Like what YOu Tubne videos does McCain watch? He watched this one does it make him a racist pig? I think it is wrong and a invasion of privacy. Next they will ask the people in the USA to install cameras in their homes to observe our everyday activities, trying to catch potential bomb makers and weapons… who came up with this piece of garbage anyway…

Okay it’s not the government but Viacom in a lawsuit, buy now the information is on Viacom’s database. I am confused more then ever. Should we stop watching You Tube videos?

Kel says it's way too hot

I won't stop using You Tube

but I think privacy is pretty much an illusion. Or could become an illusion depending on which court hears which case and when.

Hmmm, well I know that the Secret Service...

monitors the airwaves for certain words, certain web sites, to protect our national security, they may already have the viacom data base on You Tube, I don’t know.

It’s just okay you choose what to watch on you tube, but what happens when someone sends you a You Tube link that you didn’t want to see in the first place, that’s recorded on a database, and why couldn’t some politiicans use this information to document the viewing habits of their opponents.

Like what if Mc Cain was found watching You Tube videos of naked fruit would we still vote for the guy, hopefully not but what if Obama was caught downloading the You Tube videos of the Oprah Winfrey show…would we still vote for the guy? of course we would Oprah is a mulit-billionaire and she can say or do as she pleases.

Worst wopuld be what if we discover Hillary downloaded YOu Tube videos of “Martha Stewart!!!” Oh my GOD!

I have no idea where this conversation is going right now so I am going to close, LOL

(This comment was deleted.)

I just found this out yesterday...

Do you know every grocery store has video cameras? What you didn’t know is whenever a cash register is not being used, on their computer screen is the video camera survelance of people in the aisles buying food? So if they have 15 aisles for checking out food, and only 7 are being used the other eight have live cameras.

So whenever someone thinks they are getting away with openning a box of corn flakes and having a handfull, big brother is at the front of the store watching you.

Elusive Sleuth time to mix it up

Yes,

It bothers me and I don’t even live in the US.

Kel says it's way too hot

I guess it should,

since the article says,

“While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.”

:|

Elusive Sleuth time to mix it up

I've only been

on that site like 5 times in my life, it still bothers me :/

*Mama Bear* missing you guys...

Uh...

Yes! Pretty damn much actually!
Have uploaded some vids on there for Friends only and certainly wouldn’t like anyone else to see them.

Give it up, naughty minds!! It’s nothing like that!!!

trancegeek spreading Mojo!

Not at all bothered

Information like this is rarely if ever useful against individuals, it’s all just numbers that a system will use for one thing: Displaying more targeted adverts to make you buy more stuff.

And I love the idea of been shown ads that are more relevant to me personally.

Yes, it bothers me.

Why?

What alternative might you suggest?

Suggest for what? I am bothered to have anyone charting and following my habits.

No one cares about YOU, really.

The court had Google hand over the information because there are concerns that copyright laws on some videos are being violated.

This is no big conspiracy to find out what you are watching, it’s an attempt to see if copyrights are being violated on You Tube.

Kel says it's way too hot

No conspiracy here,

but the fact that such databases are being compiled, along with others we know about and others we don’t know about, the potential for abuse opens wider every day.

It’s like having cameras everywhere. People say, “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong, why do you care?” I care because it turns this place into a spy-state, whether or not anyone, at present, is abusing the info from the videos.

God knows the secrecy of govt agencies has recently been increased & defended, with no way for the public to know what or how much is going on. When the govt can enter your home & confiscate your computer – and not even have to tell you about it (Patriot Act) – anything can happen.

Ok. Well, when it’s presented that way it’s different. One other way to look at it is that they might say that’s why they want the information but really they want the information to track people.

God my neighbors are annoying with their fireworks!!

tangerine_now a.k.a. Tankarina Nau

It's a choice

The internet is an open space, no matter how many privacy policies, just like real life. As people are more and more seen as consumers rather than people, as we are in this market-driven world, this kind of thing should not come as a surprise. I know that when I enter something on a website, when I click an ad or link, it is registered and may be used. (I expect mostly to sell me stuff ‘cause it’s not like I plan on becoming a criminal or committing genocide or anything.) (Whoops, did you hear that bell ringing at FBI headquarters?) Whether I like it or not, that’s the price I pay for using this amazing facility called the Web.

calypte desperately seeking sparkle

not *really* bothered

The whole net-privacy, cross-border thing does, really, but just the fact that someone will know I’ve used YouTube to watch interviews of flavour-of-the-month, truly filthy Sesame Street clips (The Count singing his *!£@’ing song!), or listen to a song that’s been going through my head (actually, I don’t even know if that’s legal, to be honest!) – couldn’t care less. It’s not like I have to admit to a new RDJ drool-fest to people I actually know! urm…

Kel says it's way too hot

The Internet hasn't

been a regulated medium, and that has worked in its favor, for the most part, IMO. As long as it’s clear to all that there is no privacy guarantee anywhere within anything online, everything is peachy.

The court case, although limited at present, leads me to expect more of the same, until who knows what will be determined to be within the public realm, available for sale to any govt’l or commercial entity by one court or another. I doubt that our online purchases, personal info, even email will be private for long. Anything that can be hacked into, IMO, will end up available to anyone if only because there won’t be a way to stop that from happening.

Anything that can be obtained, will, of course, be fair game for abuse by any govt, commercial, or individual interests. That’s true to a great extent now, but will become more and more common, IMO. No way to avoid much of it.

Don't you think copyright laws...

...should be enforced? Or do you think they should be suspended online?

Or do you think they should be enforced, but think this way of seeking enforcement might lead to something ugly?

Kel says it's way too hot

The Internet

will inevitably be brought to heel by laws and regulations. I’ve got no problem with copyright laws. Some issues are overblown, IMO, but creators need some kind of protection. It’s the privacy of individuals that concerns me.

If Viacom has a problem with Google over YouTube, let ‘em get an order to stop whatever is illegal. Why drag every user (with log-in identities & their computer addresses) into it? No matter what Viacom claims will be done with that info, a database like that can be abused by someone somehow, and someone will leak info out for the right price.

Even though voter records are “public,” I don’t like them being online. It’s too easy. I pay for unlisted phone book info, yet my address is available to the world in the state voters database. So are many divorce hearings transcripts – incl. kids’ names – lots of info a person used to have to jump through hoops to get, that bored or petty folks can now tap into without leaving home.

If I were rich, I’d toy with the idea of purchasing an entirely new identity with valid paperwork – and I don’t have a damn thing to hide! It’s the issue of privacy itself.

While I UNDERSTAND your concerns...

...I don’t share them. I’m not quibbling with you about the potential problems, I’m just not concerned about them, at least to the degree they might effect me.

And my assumption is that someone or some ones is going to have to wade thru all the information Google furnishes to see what copyrights have been fucked over, but how that will be accomplished I can’t understand.

I DO think that copyrights should be enforced on the net as well as any where else. What would be the argument against that? HOW to do that, especially on the interweb, is probably a really good question.

mahinui aloha from the Big Island

heh heh

you can’t purchase an entirely new identity with valid paperwork.

But it only costs about a thousand dollars to purchase a new identity – or you can make one up your own self.

There are internet sites that detail ways to get it done. In most US counties, you can mail away for any birth certificate and pay the fee, and then use it to begin the process.

Or, you can print up a blank and fill it in. The internet gives you almost unlimited access to forged identity sites – you can order up an ID from almost any state on line. It isn’t valid, and won’t get you through airport security, but you can use it to open a bank account. And you can take it into a DMV in another state and probably, maybe, get a real ID issued – but those days are numbered as technology makes detection of fraudulent ID cards more available.

But starting with the BC, real or forged, yours or not yours, you can establish a whole new identity. It is illegal to steal an identity or to commit forgery, but to make one up, I am not sure. You cannot for example get a new social security number, but if you invent an identity and then use that invention to get the number.

As long as it is not for fraud, I am not sure if there is a law against that. Yet. You can for sure change your name legally, but then you keep your identity chain. It is easy to follow.

And a skilled searcher can follow you from identity to identity unless you begin the new one totally fresh, with no ties whatsoever to the old one. That means, getting a mail box in the name of the new identity before you ever use it, and never receive any mail for one where the other is. And that’s just for starts.

mahinui aloha from the Big Island

until they figure out a way

to organize, classify meaningfully, and retrieve all that data, it is useless.

What are they going to do, select a certain set of tags, and monitor the million or ten million viewers who have more than two of them turn up in their viewing habits?

All those video cameras… how many of them roll the same tape over and over, losing the information within 12 hours? And accessibility – it is ludicrous. Who can get at the info?

Someday, with a system in place to meaningfully code the data it will mean total lack of privacy. But for now, imagine getting a hundred thousand letters in plain envelopes a day in your mailbox. Are you going to even begin to open them all? It is a full employment act in the making, sorting through all that crud. Why do you think the FBI is so inefficient? TMI… in a very big way.


Kel has gotten 1 cheer on this entry.

 

I want to:
43 Things Login