Google Ordered To Turn Over Details

[cathoholic_anonymous]

On a serious note, would it really be possible to amass and go through all that data? I can't imagine how it would be done.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Alycin]

Does this mean I need to start using proxy servers to watch movies on youtube?

grrr...

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1590303' date='Jul 3 2008, 03:28 PM']Does this mean I need to start using proxy servers to watch movies on youtube?

grrr...[/quote]

Somebody just lost her movie dates.

[Farsight one]

From my understanding of copyright laws, it's not illegal to view copyrighted material - only to upload it.

[Iacobus]

:Cough: That is why I like to use proxy connections... or better yet, VPN's to IP's outside of the US, for the... fun part of my browsing habits.

But really, this is just an insane ruling. I vote that we take all judges, lawyers, etc, over the age of 30 who don't have a degree is computers and we put them in a room and answer the "But Will It Blend" question. :Evil Laugh:

Last year there was another insane ruling, about some kid hacker, where the FBI installed malware... err, legal malware, on the user's computer, remotely, to trace his usage habits, etc to obtain an arrest warrant. When it came to court, the defendants (and CS prof's) requested the FBI turn over the malware code or describe how it works, in open court. The FBI refused, and the judge ruled, and this is close to a quote, "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet."

The cool part about that? Since when you buy or sell things online... or go to your bank account number, if someone intercepts it or hacks it and takes all your money, too bad for you, since you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Oh, go ahead and hack into the government servers, since they can't do anything since they are online and have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

It upsets me a bit. Clearly. We need to take the justice system and give them an education about the internet and networking, since they clearly fail to understand it. Other that that it is a series of tubes, not a truck you dump something on.

Also, what the heck does Viacom want with all these IP addresses and viewer histories? Shouldn't they have to show that there is a reasonable cause for obtaining each IP and each viewer history. A buck gets ten that Google either fights this, or refuses to turn over data, like what happened when the Gov't ordered the search engines to turn over user history, search and IP data (to show that people use the internet for porn... real novel there).

I think the answer is no, they won't blend. For blending to occur, the brain's must first exist.

[Paladin D]

Before you know it, Skynet will take over the world.

[Apotheoun]

The Terminator is governor of California, so you could be right.

[Paladin D]

Technically, if they wanted to go out of their way, couldn't they still track you down?

[url="http://ask-leo.com/can_an_anonymous_proxy_service_capture_memail_password.html"]http://ask-leo.com/can_an_anonymous_proxy_...l_password.htm
[/url]

(Proxy servers)
[quote]That has two exceptionally important ramifications:

1) The proxy knows your IP. If they maintain and retain access logs, it's conceivable that those logs could be demanded by legal authorities to track activity. They'd know the IP address you were coming in from and the web sites that you were visiting through the proxy.

I'd expect a "good" proxy not to keep those logs at all, but you never know. It's a matter of trust.

2) The proxy sees your data. Every request you make goes to the proxy where it's interpreted so that the proxy knows what to do with it next. While it's looking at it, your data could be there for the proxy to examine and do whatever else with. So yes, if that data contains your email account name and password in unencrypted text, you bet a malicious proxy could be collecting that information.[/quote]

Might as well just stick with your own direct connection.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Paladin D

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590496' date='Jul 3 2008, 07:01 PM']Technically, if they wanted to go out of their way, couldn't they still track you down?

[url="http://ask-leo.com/can_an_anonymous_proxy_service_capture_mmail_password.html"]http://ask-leo.com/can_an_anonymous_proxy_...l_password.htm
[/url]

(Proxy servers)
Might as well just stick with your own direct connection.[/quote]


Depends. I use a VPN to places outside of the US where the law regarding turn over of logs is a bit more strict.

Also, a lot of proxies delete their logs after some time. Or we can all just use tor.

I am more worried about about Hal then Skynet.

[Paladin D]

Ah okay.

Still, the ones that really fear such a thing, tend to (not always) be the ones who have something to hide. Same goes for cops, you can tell who is guilty of something when they stop what they're doing and try to avoid making any contact with a cop (especially drugies).

I'm not doing anything illegal over the web, so I'm at ease. Though I like my privacy still.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Paladin D

[homeschoolmom]

Here's your bill.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590523' date='Jul 3 2008, 07:21 PM']Ah okay.

Still, the ones that really fear such a thing, tend to (not always) be the ones who have something to hide. Same goes for cops, you can tell who is guilty of something when they stop what they're doing and try to avoid making any contact with a cop (especially drugies).

I'm not doing anything illegal over the web, so I'm at ease. Though I like my privacy still.[/quote]

I used to download a lot of things, but not so much any more. I have a TV tuner in my computer, so I can DVR shows, and I have money for games and what not. I think I am the only person in the whole world to have paid retail for Window's Vista. (haha). So I am not really worried.

I really don't buy the whole nothing to hide thing. I agree, there are people (perhaps most of the people who oppose such things) that want to hide because they are guilty. But at the same time, one of the things that makes this country amazing is the whole assumption of innocence. To me, saying "why do you oppose {wiretapping, data mining, turning over IP, lack of privacy online}, do you have something to hide" is the exact opposite of that idea. Rather, you are assumed to be guilty, and the only way to be not guilty is to turn over all your data and what have you to prove that you aren't guilty. It is kind of a fishing trip to find guilty people and merely brushes aside the privacy and freedom of the rest of the people.

Second, I don't think the government should have jack to do with things like this, half of the reason the government is there is to protect our privacy. If Viacom has data, legally obtained, that shows that IP address X has been repeatedly posting files to youtube that Viacom owns the rights to, then they should be able to request the court to order Google to turn over that data for that user. But to order Google to turn over all user data to find out if people are, and who is, posting and viewing copyrighted material on youtube, then I have issues.

Thirdly, as you mentioned, who is going to go through and sort out all of this data? I saw some huge number, like 15 TB, thrown around. That is a LOT of log data. The only way to process something that size would be to use a program to find all the copyrighted postings and the ones that Viacom own's the rights to, and discard all the other data. But how do you do that? YouTube has long had problems with users for taking down videos for which it received a DMCA notice from Viacom or others. But the video was in fact fair use or was not related to the original item mentioned in the request. This most likely results from, an illegal, use of some search engine using terms or keywords on YouTube.

What I am getting at is, a computer program cannot accurately, at this point in time, determine what videos are indeed copyrighted works owned by Viacom and what subsection of those videos are not indeed fair use of the copyrighted acts. In other words, Viacom should have to go through and process all of the sorted data by hand, something that would likely be impossible. Of course they could use some sort of heuristics to narrow it down, but still that would be a lot of data to process.

And then if they wanted to go the next step and go after users by IP addresses, I have an even bigger problem, since as the MPAA and RIAA are starting to learn by refusals and defeats, IP addresses are not individual nor lead to the user all of the time. And since more often then not, these copyright cases are not criminal but civil in nature, the rat dog lawyers in the employ of the companies use scare tactics and fear into abusing the person the IP leads to, regardless of whether or not that person is indeed who they think they are, scaring them into settling.

That isn't right.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590523' date='Jul 3 2008, 07:21 PM']Ah okay.

Still, the ones that really fear such a thing, tend to (not always) be the ones who have something to hide. Same goes for cops, you can tell who is guilty of something when they stop what they're doing and try to avoid making any contact with a cop (especially drugies).

I'm not doing anything illegal over the web, so I'm at ease. Though I like my privacy still.[/quote]


The problem is, this assums guilt of every American. We are supposed to be presumed innocent (something about a U.S. Consititution).

This blatent legal sanctioning of privacy violation implies guilt. We shouldn't have to prove innonence from wrongdoing by allowing personal records to be made and then searched by others.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1590563' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:23 PM']The problem is, this assums guilt of every American. We are supposed to be presumed innocent (something about a U.S. Consititution).

This blatent legal sanctioning of privacy violation implies guilt. We shouldn't have to prove innonence from wrongdoing by allowing personal records to be made and then searched by others.[/quote]

LD, I am starting to dislike you. Since I am starting to agree with you, or maybe it is you agreeing with me.

[Caramelonion]

oh my!