Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wins Agreement To Anonymize YouTube Logs

Posted by timothy on from the have-in-my-hand-a-list dept.

Barence, following up on yesterday's news that Viacom is looking for videos uploaded by Google staff, links to an article at PC Pro, excerpting: "Google and Viacom have reached a deal to protect the privacy of millions of YouTube watchers. Earlier this month, a New York federal judge ordered Google to turn over YouTube user data to Viacom and other plaintiffs to help them prepare a confidential study of what they argue are vast piracy violations on the video-sharing site. Google claims it had now agreed to provide plaintiffs' attorneys with a version of a massive viewership database that blanks out YouTube usernames and IP addresses that could be used to identify individual video watchers."

29 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. subject by amnezick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    google playing the good guy again. at least they care .....

    --
    mov ax,4c00h
    int 21h
    1. Re:subject by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe if they hadn't have kept all the information they wouldn't need to have that fight in the first place...

      I doubt they really care about anything except their image. "Yeah, we are the good guys", if they were really good they would have anonymised the information within days of them recording it.

      Remember, information comes in, statistics are collected, raw information disappears. This time Google "won", but next time it might be the CIA or another nasty agency.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:subject by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well then technically the legal argument is fine I will keep the records in RAM for as long as it last or until it is overwritten, basically boils down to your lawyers technical arguments versus theirs. The only data your are really legally required to keep is what will satisfy the relevant taxation departments.

      No, the subpoena required that they make an additional copy of the record and ship it to the plaintiff. So both points are wrong.

      And no, you cannot be an ass and deliver a RAM dump. It is not considered a huge burden to keep it in an easy to read manner.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. Not as it seems by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think Viacom's goal was to go after the viewers anyway. They need the logs to prove damage of the video uploaders... "See, he uploaded 4 episodes of Spongebob which was viewed 41 million times in total. That is 41 million sales we lost!"

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Not as it seems by aztektum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They already release much of it for free with adverts on the tele. Wtf is the difference?

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    2. Re:Not as it seems by lastchance_000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and others will say, "I wish I could watch this on my ginormous flat screen TV. I think I'll go buy the DVD." I know I have, except for the ginormous part. In theory, it could even boost sales.

    3. Re:Not as it seems by cathars1s · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That, or everyone breaking the law and not paying for their product. That will do it too.

      /just sayin

    4. Re:Not as it seems by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, if you think this is such an awesome idea, why isn't every movie and TV producer on earth submitting their content to youtube?

      They're not in touch with their customer base. They think that every single person on this planet would prefer to walk up a hill in 20 feet of snow bare-foot to avoid paying them a nickel.

      Are they *all* wrong about their business?

      Look at iTunes. The record industry was afraid of their customers. They finally caved. Whammo! iTunes. Plus, their original business model is still kicking.

      Your faith in the business executives is, in my opinion, naieve. Yes, they have lots of money. No, that doesn't mean they're brilliant. Their strategy was brilliant back in the 50's. They've had decades to build this infrastructure, which means they've always got heaps of money flowing around. The problem is that new delivery mechanisms have become mass-market feasible. Instead of aggressively staking their claim on that new market, they're trying to prop up the old one. These are not the moves of brilliant business-people. Frankly, avoiding pissing off your customers should be something you learn in the first or second day of business school.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Not as it seems by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any law being broken by "everyone" isn't really a good law in the first place. Laws are a contract that society enforces against itself, and if the vast majority of a society doesn't agree with a law then there's no reason for it to exist at all.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Not as it seems by Proteus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if the vast majority of a society doesn't agree with a law then there's no reason for it to exist at all.

      That's really misguided. When a society agrees to be bound by the rule of law, and enshrines certain rights into that law, it is precisely to protect against a "tyranny of the majority", at least in the short term (that majority has to stay passionate long enough to change a law or amend the Constitution, in the US).

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    7. Re:Not as it seems by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it wasn't the majority who broke copyright law first - it was the content owners. Copyright in the US was a bargain: a government-granted monopoly of rights so that content owners can profit after which the work enters the public domain for all to benefit.

      That bargain was savagely broken many times over many years by content owners who bribed Congress in order to retroactively extend the length of the limited time until it became effectively forever.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  3. Yikes... by trisweb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just the fact that such information exists and is stored is scary.

    Thank God for "Don't be evil." They better not be.

    --
    "!"
    1. Re:Yikes... by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What exactly did you think they were doing? Why wouldn't they have usage logs of their services?

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    2. Re:Yikes... by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank God for "Don't be evil."

      As corporations go, Google is a good one. But that's like saying as dogs go, German Shepherds are good ones; that breed bites, too. They're a corporation, and if evil is necessary for profits they will do evil.

      Have you seen the Visa ads where everyone uses a Visa card and the line flows smoothly while the guy with money gums up the works, exactly the opposite of how the real world works? That's how corporations think.

      Corporations are by necessity hedonistic. There are no morals, only ethics. And they write their own code of ethics. God has nothing to do with a corporation. Money is the corporate god.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:Yikes... by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Money is the corporate god.

      That would be Mammon

  4. Risks of being worth a fortune by bEwre4am · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google had to know when it bought YouTube that it was risking attracting a number of lawsuits, the Viacom one being only the first. You can bet if it's successful, the other media giants will be lining up to get their payouts, too. Using Google services is a privacy risk as long as its billions of dollars are attracting high powered lawsuits.

    1. Re:Risks of being worth a fortune by fumblebruschi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but isn't that the same as saying "I don't care about privacy because I don't have anything to hide?" I don't watch pirated content on Youtube either (because I find television uninteresting) but I resent the idea of someone inspecting my viewing data. Not because I'm hding anything, but because it's none of their business.

  5. Yay until you think about.... by Seakip18 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how much data Google actually collects. The amount of data they must collect and analyze could really reveal how we act when "no one" is watching and who knows what kinda of ads or content will be directed at us?

    I mean, think about videos that just have a hot frame in the middle to serve as the video's thumbnail? You know what I'm talking about, you /.'ers you.

    Seriously though, with a gold pot like this, what (un)respectable advertiser wouldn't want to strike at it?

    --
    import system.cool.Sig;
  6. Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy by Dekortage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a great reminder, once again, that Google actually HAS your username and video watching habits, and can use the info however it wants.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy by bravecanadian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree.

      I think it is funny how everyone is up in arms when Viacom might have gotten their hands on it.. and funny now that everything thinks that Google is the "good guy" for coming to an agreement with Viacom to anonymize the data.

      Meanwhile glossing over the fact that Google has and continues to use the very data they were so worried about.. every day to target ads and whatever other purposes they have or find in the future for it.

    2. Re:Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's funny how people get upset over the idea that there are those of us who are OK with a company with a track record of Google's having more access to information on how we use their free services than we are OK with a company with the track record of Viacom or any other 'big media' having access to information on how we use someone else's services.

      Meanwhile glossing over the fact that the majority of the information Google keeps isn't really that personally identifying and helps them actually provide those free services in the first place.

    3. Re:Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy by jeffasselin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference I see is that when you go to YouTube or other Google services, you have a tacit understanding and agreement with Google that they will have access to this data, and you can read their privacy terms and agree to them when you use their services.

      You certainly don't expect other companies to also have that access.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  7. Re:If I worked at Google... by cliffski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    because acting in a petty and childish way always enables you to retain the moral high ground.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  8. Re:If I worked at Google... by jbman64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once Viacom get the data it's only going to open Google up to more lawsuits, why should they make it any easier for them?

  9. Re:Okay then, what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You need to get out more.

  10. What can these logs prove? by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I enter the search term "Jon Stewart", and click on a video and watch it, what does that mean? Did I just watch a large unedited portion of the show on youtube? OR did I just watch somebody's imatation of jon stewart?

    The logs cant show either way, and viacom won't know unless they personally watch it.

  11. Re:Payment in advance by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With internet ad income the producers would need to finance everything in advance and then just hope the money trickles in over time.

    Product placement. Ford and Coca-Cola sponsor "American Idol" and their products are worked into the show all over the place. I don't particularly care for blatant placements 20 times a minute, but that's the only form of advertising that can't be easily skipped.

    Does an advertiser prefer to air his ads on certain timeslots on tv OR god knows when on a user screen?

    Magazines seem to have figured out how to handle that dealbreaker.

    The bigger point is that Viacom and their ilk have to start getting creative. Even if they wipe YouTube clean, there's always TPB. Close it down and there'll be an AllOfTv.ro (there's already a .ru today). Square things up with eastern Europe and Asia and some guy in Venezuela will pick up the slack. The cat is out of the bag. It's decided. People will watch TV over the Internet, and it's impossible at this point to go back. The only question is whether media will figure out a way to profit or keep fighting until their doors close for the last time.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  12. Re:Not as it seems... because, like so many by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    companies, these studios want to OWN not only the content, but they want to own the DELIVERY MECHANISM, too.

    So, since YouTube is doing well, in contrast to the stodgy studios, they are envious.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  13. Re:Okay then, what's the point? by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, they may know precisely what's going on.

    They are trying to get YouTube's DMCA safe harbor provisions yanked, which will make YouTube collapse VERY quickly. Which means that the most popular site for this would go away, and in their minds, their worst nightmare would end. (Of course, it wouldn't, everyone would just go to another site.)