Comments on: Privacy Falls into YouTube’s Data Tar Pit http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html Musings of a techie lawyer Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:17:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: Unit Structures – Ongoing Analysis of YouTube-Viacom http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3856 Unit Structures – Ongoing Analysis of YouTube-Viacom Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:44:00 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3856 [...] Why does Viacom get a record of every legal video I’ve watched? What right do they have? Wendy Seltzer writes about the dangerous precedent being set: “I worry that this discovery demand is just the first of a wave, as more litigants recognize [...] [...] Why does Viacom get a record of every legal video I’ve watched? What right do they have? Wendy Seltzer writes about the dangerous precedent being set: “I worry that this discovery demand is just the first of a wave, as more litigants recognize [...]

]]> By: JOLT Digest » Viacom v. YouTube http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3561 JOLT Digest » Viacom v. YouTube Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:02:49 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3561 [...] Wendy Seltzer at the Citizen Media Law Project summarizes the bifurcated outcome of the case: “trade secret wins; privacy loses.” Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation calls this a “setback to privacy rights,” and argues that some of the login names and IP address information, which the court states are anonymous, can in fact be used to identify individual users. The most contentious portion of the 25-page opinion from Judge Louis Stanton concerns YouTube’s logging database. Each time a video is watched on youtube.com, this database records the YouTube account name of the viewer (if he or she has one), the IP address of the viewer’s computer, an identifier for the video, and the time. [...] [...] Wendy Seltzer at the Citizen Media Law Project summarizes the bifurcated outcome of the case: “trade secret wins; privacy loses.” Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation calls this a “setback to privacy rights,” and argues that some of the login names and IP address information, which the court states are anonymous, can in fact be used to identify individual users. The most contentious portion of the 25-page opinion from Judge Louis Stanton concerns YouTube’s logging database. Each time a video is watched on youtube.com, this database records the YouTube account name of the viewer (if he or she has one), the IP address of the viewer’s computer, an identifier for the video, and the time. [...]

]]> By: themaskedanalyst http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3510 themaskedanalyst Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:08:30 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3510 Interestingly enough, Judge Stanton had the Video Protection Privacy Act staring him in the face. Google certainly brought it to his attention, as witnessed in Footnote 5 on page 13 of the order. Yet he seemingly ignored the following section of the VPPA: (2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally identifiable information concerning any consumer— (F) pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot be accommodated by any other means, if— (i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding relevant to the issuance of the court order; and (ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure. If an order is granted pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (F), the court shall impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure. The judge said that Viacom “need(s) the data to compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing videos with that of non-infringing videos.” But nowhere in the order does he explain why they need the IP AND the username, much less why this need is compelling or why Viacom can’t prove its case without this information. And even if the need is compelling, I do not remember Viacom giving me reasonable notice of this disclosure or affording me an opportunity to contest this claim. Judges hold people in contempt of Court. It’s too bad that people can’t hold the Judge in contempt of the People. Interestingly enough, Judge Stanton had the Video Protection Privacy Act staring him in the face. Google certainly brought it to his attention, as witnessed in Footnote 5 on page 13 of the order. Yet he seemingly ignored the following section of the VPPA:

(2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally identifiable information concerning any consumer—

(F) pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot be accommodated by any other means, if—
(i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding relevant to the issuance of the court order; and
(ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.

If an order is granted pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (F), the court shall impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure.

The judge said that Viacom “need(s) the data to compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing videos with that of non-infringing videos.” But nowhere in the order does he explain why they need the IP AND the username, much less why this need is compelling or why Viacom can’t prove its case without this information.

And even if the need is compelling, I do not remember Viacom giving me reasonable notice of this disclosure or affording me an opportunity to contest this claim.

Judges hold people in contempt of Court. It’s too bad that people can’t hold the Judge in contempt of the People.

]]> By: Auren Hoffman http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3496 Auren Hoffman Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:21:23 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3496 Wendy -- great post and good quote on Sat in the Wall Street Journal. Wendy — great post and good quote on Sat in the Wall Street Journal.

]]> By: My del.icio.us bookmarks for July 5th through July 7th » the billblog http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3485 My del.icio.us bookmarks for July 5th through July 7th » the billblog Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:01:56 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3485 [...] Wendy?s Blog: Legal Tags » Privacy Falls into YouTube?s Data Tar Pit - excellent analysis from Wendy Seltzer of the YouTube data disaster in the making [...] [...] Wendy?s Blog: Legal Tags » Privacy Falls into YouTube?s Data Tar Pit - excellent analysis from Wendy Seltzer of the YouTube data disaster in the making [...]

]]> By: Christopher Herot's Weblog http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3452 Christopher Herot's Weblog Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:31:14 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3452 <strong>Is YouTube Similar to Videotape?...</strong> Wendy Seltzer points out that Wednesday's discovery order in Viacom v. YouTube, which requires Google to release the login names and IP addresses of every person who has ever viewed or embedded a YouTube video may be in contradiction to... Is YouTube Similar to Videotape?…

Wendy Seltzer points out that Wednesday’s discovery order in Viacom v. YouTube, which requires Google to release the login names and IP addresses of every person who has ever viewed or embedded a YouTube video may be in contradiction to…

]]> By: Christopher Herot http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2008/07/04/privacy-falls-into-youtubes-data-tar-pit.html#comment-3451 Christopher Herot Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:00:12 +0000 http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/?p=519#comment-3451 I agree that if this decision establishes a precedent it will unleash a wave of subpoenas that will dwarf what we saw when Iran-Contra taught everyone that emails never really get deleted. The Video Privacy Protection Act is promising, if the courts hold that video-on-demand is "similar" to "prerecorded video cassette tapes." Since that act also requires the provider to "destroy personally identifiable information" within a year, that would seem to limit Google's ability to retain log information. What does "destroy" mean in a world of backup tapes anyway? I agree that if this decision establishes a precedent it will unleash a wave of subpoenas that will dwarf what we saw when Iran-Contra taught everyone that emails never really get deleted.

The Video Privacy Protection Act is promising, if the courts hold that video-on-demand is “similar” to “prerecorded video cassette tapes.” Since that act also requires the provider to “destroy personally identifiable information” within a year, that would seem to limit Google’s ability to retain log information. What does “destroy” mean in a world of backup tapes anyway?

]]>