Slashdot Log In
Google Wins Agreement To Anonymize YouTube Logs
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:04 AM
from the have-in-my-hand-a-list dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Viacom Looks For Google Staff Uploads in YouTube Logs 308 comments
Barence writes "Viacom wants to know which YouTube videos have been uploaded by members of Google's staff, in what could be a potentially explosive aspect of its copyright infringement claim against the search giant."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:subject (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.
Parent
Re:subject (Score:5, 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=
Parent
Re:subject (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:subject (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:subject (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:subject (Score:4, 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/ [umbc.edu]
(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.
Parent
Re:subject (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re:subject (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. [slashdot.org] I doubt user welfare was on their mind...
Parent
Not as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, 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?
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:4, Funny)
Why waste the time when you know someone else will do it for you?
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they *all* wrong about their business?
Quite possible. That's how an industry dies.
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (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?
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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).
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
They already release much of it for free with adverts on the tele. Wtf is the difference?
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Funny)
It's not always about money. Sometimes it's about power. And then women.
Or so I've heard.
Parent
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That, too, of course. In fact, I've heard you'll also need everything nice.
Payment in advance (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Payment in advance (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
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!!!!.
Parent
Re:Not as it seems (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Yikes... (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yikes... (Score:4, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Money is the corporate god.
That would be Mammon [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yikes... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Risks of being worth a fortune (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Risks of being worth a fortune (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay until you think about.... (Score:4, 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?
Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy (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.
Re:Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy (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.
Parent
Re:Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy (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.
Parent
Re:Reminder: this does not preserve your privacy (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.
Parent
Why does Viacom want all those logs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Whew! For a minute there (Score:4, Funny)
.. I was afraid somebody would learn just how often I allow myself to get Rick Rolled.
What can these logs prove? (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.
Re:Okay then, what's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Okay then, what's the point? (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?"
Parent
Re:Okay then, what's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:If I worked at Google... (Score:4, Insightful)
because acting in a petty and childish way always enables you to retain the moral high ground.
Parent