SonicBlue Ordered to Spy on ReplayTV Viewers

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Got outrage? According to a story on SiliconValley.com, a federal magistrate has ordered SonicBlue to track ReplayTV users' every click to see what they're watching, recording, skipping (commercials) and e-mailing to friends. The info is to be given to the entertainment industry control freaks who are suing SonicBlue for allegedly abetting copyright violations."

Comments

Disney needs a boycott

[woyouwenti]

First Disney sponsors Hollings bill. Then Disney does this to SonicBlue users.

BOYCOTT DISNEY.

Don't buy Disney products. Don't go to DisneyWorld, Don't go to Disney flicks.

Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984

[pgrote]

is slashing their own throats.

It's an escalation of arms at this point. Total war. Never in our histroy have we been subjected to such comprehensive privacy invasion.

It doesn't matter that the data doesn't say Mr. Smith watched such and such. The thought that the entertainment industry will have access to this data implies that they will use it against the viewers. Incredible.

Maybe they should read what the court has said in the past about privacy and viewing habits.

Here is the link to Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984

Assholes.

Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984

[AJWM]

This gets interesting. Quoting from the Cable TV Privacy act:

h) Disclosure of information to governmental entity pursuant to court order

A governmental entity may obtain personally identifiable information concerning a cable subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in the court proceeding relevant to such court order -

(1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought would be material evidence in the case; and

(2) the subject of the information is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.

Two key questions: does the unique identifier make it "personally identifiable" information? (I'd say yes -- a Social Security Number is a unique (well, almost) identifier, for example.) and even though the plaintiff isn't a governmental entity (unless I missed something), the court surely is.

So, has the court offered clear and convincing evidence, etc? If not -- and seeing how this is information that is not being gathered at the moment, then the court seems to be exceeding its authority here, and should issue wiretap or search warrants for each subscriber it wants SonicBlue to monitor.

I hope SonicBlue is appealing this.

ObHeinlein

[sconeu]

Quote:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

Re:And So It Begins...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

... and start digging for incriminating dirt on every elected official you can find.

Shouldn't you be digging up dirt on corporate executives? Lots of people have done things they aren't proud of, and some of it is probably prosecutable. Getting some VPs convicted under 3-strike drug laws could be lots of fun.

no right to business model success

[cowtamer]

What I find most troubling about these Media Company vs. New Technology cases is that the companies are seeking legal protection for their business model.

It is patently unfair to sue someone because they make a product that is _too useful_ (such as a PVR, mp3 player, file sharing program, etc.).

The law is not there to guarantee the viability of a business model. If advertising fails, then use something else (such as product placement), but do not seek to destroy or block technology that gives the users more power. If I were to invent a car that ran on cold fusion, the oil companies would not have a legal case against me, even if I end up destroying their business model.

Of course, this has not kept companies from trying to save their business model in the past. A good example of this is the "Red Flag" laws that were passed in the 1860s to block the automobile industry:

As the world leader in steam propulsion during the 1860s, for example, Britain might have expected to pioneer many of the automotive advances that in fact were made on continental Europe and in America over the following decades. But British railroad and stage-coach companies recognized that the automobile was a threat to their future, and lobbied for the notorious red flag laws. These prohibitive laws, which insisted every self-propelled vehicle be preceded by a pedestrian waving a red flag, were on the statute books for 31 years. By the time they were repealed, Britain had missed a huge opportunity.

(taken from http://www.dana.com/corporate/history/history3.htm . I have nothing to do with the Dana corporation!!!)