Slashdot Mirror
Finding Fault With Google's Privacy Policy
orenh writes "Viacom has recently obtained a court order that requires Google to hand over a complete list of every video watched by YouTube users. These logs will include the login names and IP addresses of the users. Google are now asking Viacom if they can anonymize the logs before turning them over; Viacom hasn't responded yet. But this privacy nightmare could have been greatly reduced if Google had anonymized the data in advance. Google's privacy policy states that they keep personally identifiable information for 18 months. There is no real reason to do so; Google can achieve everything they need even if they anonymize their search logs after just one month, and it's time users told them to do so."
US Courts are going to be brought to their knees as Viacom files 100 million copyright infringement lawsuits. On a side note, they will also be able to sell the information so that the government knows who likes to watch communist or anti-government videos.
Delete the logs after one month. The fact that the AOL search data leak only identified searches with random numbers did not prevent the New York Times from successfully identifying individuals.
To cover themselves legally. The issue of whether YouTube and other similar sites are responsible for the gazillion copyright violations that occur there is legally still up in the air. This Viacom lawsuit should hopefully clear it up but until then Google's position is that they are doing everything they can to prevent copyrighted materials from being posted. Keeping the logs helps them keep up that pretense - they can cooperate if need be and identify the violators etc. They have no legal requirement to guard the privacy of their visitors but they have an enormous potential legal liability looming over their heads - guess which one is more important.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The fact that every video you watched on YouTube is now in the hands of a crooked bunch of corporate lawyers should occurr to you.
This finally drives the stake through heart of the Internet. I've stopped using it for meaningful work. I'm off line. Yeah, I'll post a rant on /., but all research, all class work, etc is off-line. USB drives are cheap enough.
Prof Allen
MIS, COSC, BCIS, etc.
It is a mistake to think you can anonymize this data. Sure, you could strip everything out of the data, but then you would just have public information, since youtube will tell you how many views each video has already. So I presume the people who want to "anonymize" think they will, like the AOL logs, give pseudonyms to people.
I can think of many problems. For example, there are tons of videos on youtube that are never accessed except by the uploader and a few friends. Pretty easy to identify who the likely uploader is from the records, and thus identify a user. Or even if you never upload, a lot can be learned. For example, somebody looking for my records could first see what youtube videos have me in them. Most people have probably searched for their own name, and as such this is a clue as to which user is probably me.
And this is what I can think of in 2 minutes. With more time a lot of other things can leak.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Viacom do not need this information. Any of it. At all.
Viacom, as I understand, want to show what percentage of YouTube content views are of Viacom content. In order to accomplish this all they need to do is provide Google with a list of content IDs, which they would need to have if they themselves were to perform the analysis anyway, and then to allow Google to provide a count of views for each of these pieces of content versus the total of all other content views for the same period.
Done. Mission accomplished. No private data changes hands.
I personally cannot comprehend how a judge ruled that privacy issues resulting from this are "speculative". You are essentially handing over information on millions of people on what content they watched, uploaded, commented on, rated, tagged, etc. to a media company, without need. This information is also the foundation for YouTube's business being handed over to a competitor.
The judge says it's speculative? I say remove the judge for willfully violating the privacy of millions of citizens and foreign nationals.
I would also like to know how the judge has completely ignored the Video Privacy Protection Act? If it's on the Internet suddenly all privacy concern automatically goes away, even if you're engaged as a customer of a company with a published privacy policy offering you many protections?
oh yes, exactly. Google is zee devil.
/. from your wooden cottage on a privatly owned island that you found... how you're on the internet though is beyond me.
...and mods... THAT is consitered insiteful?
They are out to kill us all.
Seriously, do people thrive on having enemys? Do they find no happyness simply in a group being what they are? Protip; "The Man" isn't out to get you, and all the companys aren't working for him.
And shall we stop using every service out there, because somewhere, deep down in their closet, is something we disagree with?
If so, I'm going to assume you're posting to
Frankly, I don't care. Yes, they should have known better, but their products (Google, GoogleMaps, Gmail, ect) are damn good. The very thing I love about them is their drive to cataloge all of the worlds information and present it to the world. The fact that I can go into google map, find a resurant, and then go to street level view to scout around for a parking garage... or that I can see a chart of what was searched on the internet when... seeing spikes of intrest.
And how does storing this information in the first place make you question their stupid slogan? They're evil because they don't sit up all night, wild eyed freaking out about the boogie man comming to hunt down your IP? It was information, they stored it. Now that they have a reason NOT to, we'll see if they adjust.
You sir have spent too long nose deep in these things and are posting irrationally...
"exhibiting insight or clear and deep perception"
Read his fearmongering company-phobic post again for me before you down-mod this to hell. Posts like that being taken seriously is part of the crazy rep this site gets from time to time. No, his isn't the only one, but ffs...
'Gov't has tried to take our IPs before, google shoulda knowed so dat meanz they waz just save'n dem to give dem to da gov't so they can take my hat!!'
The interenet has a lot of enemys, google however isn't one of them.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
The records could have been unobtainable by the US division of Google.
For example, the records in the "safe" country would be owned by an independent subsidiary, such that the related company (Google) wouldn't have direct executive authority to force the other company to release the records.
Because they're independent companies and Google has no legal authority to force an outside company to do anything.
Google could then request the records, but the data storage company could refuse to approve the request, and there would be no way for Google to force the other company to provide the information.
Because the use and manner which the records could be accessed would be spelled out by some binding agreement.
Limiting the volume of records that could be requested at any time, limiting the allowed uses for every record, and requiring them to be destroyed a short time after loaded.
And for google to "request all the records" from their separate company formed to hold the records would be an operation requiring special permission, extensive justification, and full disclosure, regarding reasons for the request, which the board of the other company would have to vote on (after researching to guarantee that Google is not possibly under any kind of duress in making the request, to release information).
Also, the company in the foreign country could be prevented from illicitly disclosing records, by having each log line independently encrypted.
The US-based Google would have the decryption keys but not the data.
The foreign "record storage company" would have the logs, but no means to decrypt them.
Or alternatively, the logs would have been produced in a split binary format:
The US-based Google would have half the information; the foreign "data storage" company would have the other half --- and no individual record could be obtained without bitwise XOR'ing all pieces together.
And there could be more than two pieces: there could be more than 1 subsidiary that has to agree to any massive information release request.
We may THINK there's no reason for Google to have to keep logs for 18 months, but these days I wouldn't be surprised to find there's some hidden provision of the Patriot Act, or possibly some law we've never heard of, which it's illegal for us to hear of or read in the first place. So maybe there IS a law requiring them to keep it for 18 months, it's just not one the public is allowed to know of until it's used to prosecute them.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
In Google's defense, they may have legitimate use for these records. Viewing history is clearly important if they want to offer better viewing suggestions to YouTube users. I also wonder if they include this data in their formula for presenting personalised Google search results.
I'm sure it would be possible for them to get by with only a month or two of records, but consider why it is that Google is so successful as a search engine. They go out of their way to use every source of data they can to optimize their search results. They're not going to just toss out a valuable source of information like this if they can help it.
.. they remove anything connecting the video usage log to users. That includes name, mailing address, email, and even IP address.
I work in the health insurance/medical industry, and we're generally expected to do this if we need to provide information to third parties for analysis. (They -heavily- regulate it, and the removal of personal member information is only the tip of the iceberg as far as these regulations go.)
If Viacom insists on keeping personal user information in the data set, then I honestly think they're up to no good, regardless of what constraints the judge may put on the usage of the information.
Even if they do go along with an anonymous data set, I really think Viacom is better off dropping the suit altogether, since the long term effect this is going to have on their PR will be disastrous. (Right now, I think even Hitler would get a higher approval rating among Youtube users than Viacom would. Many Youtubers want to see Viacom's proverbial heart ripped out of its chest.)