Google Ordered To Turn Over Details

[Paladin D]

Iacobus, LD, I definately agree with you guys.

I apologize if I came off misleading (or appear to be a flip-flop), one should assume one is innocent instead of guilty. Unfortunately, it seems it's rarely practiced these days (both at the government and individual level).

What I was "attempting" to say however, was that for those who currently aren't doing anything illegal, should have little to worry about being convicted of any wrongdoing (unless of course, they make a mistake and go after the wrong guy). I'm not condoning what Viacom is trying to do with Google, infact I'm opposed to it and believe it's absurd. I do hope Google sticks to its guns.


[b]Edit:[/b] I have a TV tuner myself (WinTV), I love it. Watch TV and browse the web at the sametime. I feel bad that you bought Vista though.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Paladin D

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590570' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:33 PM'][b]Edit:[/b] I have a TV tuner myself (WinTV), I love it. Watch TV and browse the web at the sametime. I feel bad that you bought Vista though.[/quote]


Vista ain't so bad (got it at NewEgg for 200). I built my own box and decided to go with Vista for DX10. And I am happy with Vista since it comes with Media Center, so I have Windows record all my shows, another program comes in and edits out the ads (or I do that in Windows Movie Maker) and then I convert it to *.wmv if I really like it, for file size reasons.

It also helps I have a 17 inch SD tv or a 22 inch widescreen 1080p monitor. Guess which one I prefer to use to watch TV.

[BG45]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590478' date='Jul 3 2008, 07:46 PM']Before you know it, Skynet will take over the world.[/quote]

"On August 29, 2:14 EST Google became self aware and launched a nuclear strike against its enemies" - Grand Admiral Kharr from Spacebattles.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Iacobus' post='1590566' date='Jul 3 2008, 08:30 PM']LD, I am starting to dislike you. Since I am starting to agree with you, or maybe it is you agreeing with me. [/quote]
Great scott!

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Iacobus' post='1590579' date='Jul 3 2008, 09:45 PM']Vista ain't so bad (got it at NewEgg for 200). I built my own box and decided to go with Vista for DX10. And I am happy with Vista since it comes with Media Center, so I have Windows record all my shows, another program comes in and edits out the ads (or I do that in Windows Movie Maker) and then I convert it to *.wmv if I really like it, for file size reasons.

It also helps I have a 17 inch SD tv or a 22 inch widescreen 1080p monitor. Guess which one I prefer to use to watch TV.[/quote]


...

I need a new machine (been wanting to build one for a while now).

1.6 ghz Compaq Pesario... shed a tear for me.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Paladin D

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590717' date='Jul 3 2008, 11:03 PM']...

I need a new machine (been wanting to build one for a while now).

1.6 ghz Compaq Pesario... shed a tear for me. [/quote]

I went sort of budget on my box, enjoy to run anything at high settings but not enough to be super-computer in two years. AMD Dual core 3.0 GHz 6000+, 2 GB RAM, 500 GB harddrive, nVidia 8600 GT, ASUS deluxe MB (free upgrade, love newegg), DVD-RW, stock CPU fan, crum load of case fans (seriously, I could connect a hose to on of the "intake" holes in my case and vacuum with it), 600W power supply and my monitor.

I am loving it. It set me back about 1100 when I built it, maybe more like 800 now, a year later. The thing is amazing.

I feel your pain. I was on (and still am on) a 4 year old AMD single core 1.8 GHz 3300+, 512 MB RAM, nVidia 64MB GeForce GPU (realllllly old). Thing get so hot, and is so slow. I did some bench marks and stuff on it and on my new machine, but the real test was when I did some video conversion and compression to an AVI format. It took forever at 100% CPU, the laptop was unusable the whole time. My desktop did it several times faster with CPU cycles to spare. And didn't get nearly as hot. That was what won me over.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1590706' date='Jul 3 2008, 10:59 PM'] Great scott![/quote]

I know. I even gave money to Ron Paul last winter.

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1590717' date='Jul 3 2008, 11:03 PM']...

I need a new machine (been wanting to build one for a while now).

1.6 ghz Compaq Pesario... shed a tear for me. [/quote]

That's better than what I have: 700Mhz AMD Duron

[jeffpugh]

[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]
Hehehehe

[quote name='Iacobus' post='1590461' date='Jul 3 2008, 06:29 PM']: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. [/quote]
Great post. Srsly. People need to get some background on how this works before they spout of rediculousness. Comp techies need to run these sorts of cases, not well... computer-ly challenged?

[quote name='Iacobus' post='1590508' date='Jul 3 2008, 07:09 PM']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.[/quote]

Hehe... Canada is the loophole here, eh.
[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]
Yeah... exactly. What about innocent until proven guiltly? And can these people really crack down on EVERYBODY?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1590861' date='Jul 4 2008, 01:20 AM']Yeah... exactly. What about innocent until proven guiltly? And can these people really crack down on EVERYBODY?[/quote]
Nah. But if guilt is assumed, they can go after [i]anybody[/i]. And that's what should bother [i]everybody[/i].

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1590861' date='Jul 4 2008, 01:20 AM']Hehe... Canada is the loophole here, eh.[/quote]

Or Sweden. {cool person face... using your mind's eye}

[abercius24]

Viewing copyrighted material is not a crime. Distributing copyrighted material is. If they go after anybody other than Google, they'll go after those who clearly and regularly obtained illegal material and widely distributed it on YouTube. They're trying to define the scope of the problem so they can determine what level of prosecution is necessary toward those who have acted criminally.

And they will be using data mining techonology to look at trends within the data. Other than those who posted the videos, they'll have no interest in individual viewers. That's the only way you can credibly analyze that much data in such a short amount of time.

Edited July 4, 2008 by abercius24