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."

59 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 Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IANAL but isn't there some recent laws/legal precedence that would actually expose them to MORE trouble if they didn't keep those records?

      A story of a certain torrent site comes to mind...
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:subject by MacDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

      at least they care .....

      They care about themselves. Had Viacom gotten the IP logs, they could have proven Google staff was party to the infringement. I doubt user welfare was on their mind...

    4. Re:subject by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      IANAL but isn't there some recent laws/legal precedence that would actually expose them to MORE trouble if they didn't keep those records?

      No, there was a recent ruling that a torrent site had to start keeping records in response to a subpoena.

      IANAL, but I believe the issues was as follows. Basically, a subpoena cannot be used to force you to start keeping records you otherwise would not (otherwise, imagine the subpoenas over MS's coffee drank allocated to line of code), it can only force you to retain records you create anyway. The torrent site claimed that they never kept records. The plantiff claimed that they kept records in RAM for the purpose of actually running the torrent, and that recording those logs counted as a reasonable imposition for a subpoena.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it just me who gets bugged when a post starts by "I Anal, but ..."?

    6. Re:subject by RKThoadan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, if you RTFA you'll find that YouTube/Google staff are not part of this agreement and their full data will be included. So they are not protecting themselves at all with this one.

    7. Re:subject by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Informative

      for some more background on how much trouble you can harvest from supposedly anonimized data:

      http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2006/08/21/aol-cto-resigns-two-researchers-fired/

      (sure, that's aol, and it was publicised and google will never (I hope!) do something this stupid but even anonimized data is not without risks, the fact they have to share this data with viacom does not make me happy, it sets a really bad precedent).

      Google claims they use the history to be able to target ads more precisely but I really don't see why a few % extra revenue would be worth the liability.

      So, your privacy policy no longer matters one bit because any group suing you to disclose that information does not have such a policy agreement with the customers of the party sued.

      --
      MP3 Search Engine
    8. Re:subject by fictionpuss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know it pisses me off when I can't see my IP address on YouTube, oh wait, I can't, so there's no reason why I would want them to keep my IP address.

      We're talking about logged-in YouTube users here, right? Not anonymous browsing.

      So for a YouTube user who has already given their name and email address, it would seem pretty standard to record the IP address of at least the last successful login as part of the authentication mechanism.

      Do we know if YouTube stores the IP for any longer than that? I'd think it could help track down account break-ins and abuse.

      So you have two scenarios - either they keep your IP address and you can then successfully defend yourself against an accusation of uploading unauthorised content which occurred when your account was hacked, or the activity is linked purely to your username and you're on the hook.

    9. Re:subject by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      What it still boils down to for google is google, as a privacy invasive marketing firm, has not desire to give away data that it considers valuable enough to store for years and only rents out. Tricky for google to argue that it court and claim Viacom is actually trying to steal valuable data that could be used to psychologically analyses an extensive customer base for marketing purposes, as Viacom also manages a less successful video portal and is in affect trying to steal that commercially valuable data via the court in order to try to make it more successful.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. 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 Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but this proves that Viacom needs to upload things on YouTube with ads on them. Because say you get $.01 per each view. That's a whole lot of money Viacom lost because they were being idiots and not using the internet. If that is what Viacom was doing all this is doing is proving that they are indeed dying.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Not as it seems by cliffski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You keep insisting that you hold the secret to profitability for viacom, by repeatedly insisting that all their content should be made freely available on the web paid for by adverts.
      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?

      Are they *all* wrong about their business?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    3. Re:Not as it seems by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well that was their stated intention, at least. Many people have suspected that they wanted to do more with it, since they were asking for the record of every view of every movie, including usernames and addresses. That seems like a lot of info just to demonstrate that a movie had been viewed many times. Doesn't YouTube publicly display the number of views for each movie anyway?

      But personally, I'd sooner be suspicious that this is a ploy to get access to Google's data as market research. If you're a media company looking for sources of data to mine, getting Google's YouTube records is hitting the jackpot.

    4. Re:Not as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      why isn't every movie and TV producer on earth submitting their content to youtube?

      Why waste the time when you know someone else will do it for you?

    5. Re:Not as it seems by snl2587 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are they *all* wrong about their business?

      Quite possible. That's how an industry dies.

    6. 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!!
    7. Re:Not as it seems by hkmarks · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not always about money. Sometimes it's about power. And then women.

      Or so I've heard.

    8. Re:Not as it seems by FriendComputer · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not always about money. Sometimes it's about power. And then women.

      Or so I've heard.

      You need to get the sugar first however.

      --
      ----- Rooting out Commie Mutant Traitors since 1984
    9. 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.

    10. 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

    11. Re:Not as it seems by CecilPL · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not always about money. Sometimes it's about power. And then women.

      Or so I've heard.

      You need to get the sugar first however.

      And the spice.

    12. Re:Not as it seems by gyranthir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, they wanted the information to attempt to completely take down youtube.

      As they wanted to identify Youtube employees as uploaders of copyrighted content, youtube would lose it's ISP Safeharbor granted to them based on the DMCA ISP Safeharbor rules about illegal or copyrighted content on ISP's servers (they are not responsible for it, and do not have to proactively search for it).

      If they would lose that safeharbor clause they would be gone within weeks.

      Also they stated they weren't planning on going after individual users, but weren't going to rule it out..... Sound familiar? RIAA!!!!.

    13. Re:Not as it seems by pxc · · Score: 3, Funny

      That, too, of course. In fact, I've heard you'll also need everything nice.

    14. Re:Not as it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My god. This looks like someone saying that maybe, just maybe, people ought to be paid for their creations. What are you doing on Slashdot?

    15. 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)

    16. Re:Not as it seems by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Informative

      They've got their own site, Hulu.

      And not only is it successful, but apparently they've already sold all advertising for the time being.

      Hulu probably is the wave of the near future for large media companies on the internet. I can't say I'm upset, as the site is actually usable.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    17. 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
    18. 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
    19. 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. Re:Okay then, what's the point? by JoshJ · · Score: 4, Informative

    The point is that Viacom can find out that "the same person that viewed video X that infringes our copyright also viewed fifteen other videos that infringe our copyright; and he only looked at two that do not". (Or at least, that's what Viacom is hoping to find- that users view piles of Viacom-copyrighted videos and very little in the way of original content.)

    --
    Care about privacy? Read this!
  4. 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 bravecanadian · · Score: 2

      The amount of data they have collected from their search engine and ads would probably boggle our minds.

      As for the "Don't be evil"... I certainly wouldn't count on it.

    2. 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
    3. Re:Yikes... by trisweb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Darn, I knew I should have used a lowercase G.

      --
      "!"
    4. 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
    5. Re:Yikes... by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Money is the corporate god.

      That would be Mammon

  5. 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: 4, Interesting

      As I understand it, Google bought Youtube *specifically because* Viacom was going to sue. Youtube didn't have the resources to fight a lawsuit from Viacom, so they would have had to settle and the most likely outcome would be that Viacom would end up owning Youtube's technology (which they would shelve) and patents (which they would use to stop other companies, Google included, from developing a Youtube equivalent.) So Google bought Youtube in order that Viacom would have to sue Google, which does have the resources to fight the lawsuit (also, presumably, Google thinks it can win it) and Google will wind up owning the technology and free from patent interference.

    2. 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.

  6. 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;
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Re:Okay then, what's the point? by fictionpuss · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Well, it might not be that useless, if their goal was to go after individuals.

    But I think the bigger prize here is getting their grubby paws on more accurate viewing figures than could ever be achieved by something like Nielson. That, after all, is why advertising $$$ continues to flow online -- a trend which (hopefully sooner rather than later) will wipe Viacom and all the rest of the old-media dinosaurs out.

  10. 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?

  11. Why does Viacom want all those logs? by phr1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    and why did the judge go along with it? They claim they want to see what percentage of users are looking at unauthorized uploads of copyrighted videos. But they could/should/would do that with a statistical sample, not a full dump of the entire log. Like if you wanted to check out an allegation that 50 million Americans have portraits of Osama bin Laden sewn into their underwear, you would not inspect the underwear of every single American. You'd look at a few thousand selected at random and figure out the percentage. Even when the FBI wanted a look at Google search patterns, they only wanted a few million searches, not the billions that Google has stashed. And Google resisted that.

    I don't know what Viacom wants with this data, but it's not what they say they want, and it has to be evil. Barfff on them, and boo to Google and the judge for handing it over so easily. Google should appeal this up the wazoo, and most importantly STOP KEEPING SUCH LOGS.

    1. Re:Why does Viacom want all those logs? by j_f_chamblee · · Score: 2

      Google should appeal this up the wazoo, and most importantly STOP KEEPING SUCH LOGS.

      Ok, I realize that this has been said somewhat less directly in related posts, but, in this case, I think a clear rebuttal may be in order. "SUCH LOGS," as they are described above, are the bread and butter of Google's business model. They would no more stop keeping them than they would stop running keyword searches on the content of your gmail account.

      --
      The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
  12. Re:Okay then, what's the point? by Khaed · · Score: 5, Funny

    The point is that Viacom can find out that "the same person that viewed video X that infringes our copyright also viewed fifteen other videos that infringe our copyright; and he only looked at two that do not".

    I find it hilarious that they're going to pay someone to look at all these lines.

    I imagine it won't be a geek or someone with knowledge of the culture. And I can imagine the following moment.

    The guy/girl sets down a sheet of paper, rubs the bridge of their nose, and says, out loud: "Jesus Christ, when did Rick Astly get so popular?"

  13. Whew! For a minute there by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. I was afraid somebody would learn just how often I allow myself to get Rick Rolled.

  14. Re:Okay then, what's the point? by papna · · Score: 2, Funny

    The data are extremely numerous. They are going to need a geek to transform the data into something the lawyers can look at.

  15. Payment in advance by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative
    TV stations BUY tv programs and pay for them in hard cash BEFORE they are aired. This makes it fairly easy to do your balance book if you produce content. Hell, most content is even PAID before it is ever produced. What happens is that you pitch an idea, get money to produce a pilot. Show the pilot and get money to produce a season. It is the way the industry works.

    With internet ad income the producers would need to finance everything in advance and then just hope the money trickles in over time. There are also issues with advertising. Does an advertiser prefer to air his ads on certain timeslots on tv OR god knows when on a user screen? People on slashdot seem a bit to fond of new tech to be able to see the many difficulties internet ads bring.

    TV is also a onetime affair. Want to watch it again, buy the DVD. If it is always available on the internet, why buy the DVD? If you think ad revenues way up against dvd sales, you are just silly.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. 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?
  16. 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.

  17. 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"
  18. 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.)