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."

13 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. 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 cathars1s · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      /just sayin

    3. 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
  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.

    --
    "!"
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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?