Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses Google Privacy The Internet News

Google Wins Agreement To Anonymize YouTube Logs 242

Posted by timothy
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Wins Agreement To Anonymize YouTube Logs

Comments Filter:
  • subject (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amnezick (1253408) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:06AM (#24196585) Homepage
    google playing the good guy again. at least they care .....
    • Re:subject (Score:5, Insightful)

      by apathy maybe (922212) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:23AM (#24196869) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • Re:subject (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Smidge204 (605297) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:36AM (#24197069) Journal

        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=

        • Re:subject (Score:5, Informative)

          by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @11:00AM (#24197519)

          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.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward

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

            • by kesuki (321456)

              reminds me of back in the day, there was this ad on usenet in bad engrish, "run you computer faster" other posters were quick to point out he meant 'run your computer faster' but i went with 'he just forgot the punctuation!' "Run You computer, Faster *whip crack noise*"

          • Re:subject (Score:4, Interesting)

            by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @11:56AM (#24198659) Homepage
            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.

            • Re:subject (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @12:02PM (#24198775)

              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.

      • Re:subject (Score:4, Informative)

        by jacquesm (154384) <j@SLACKWAREww.com minus distro> on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @11:29AM (#24198097) Homepage

        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.

    • Re:subject (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MacDork (560499) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:41AM (#24197169) Journal

      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...

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by RKThoadan (89437)

        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.

    • translation:
      Google (doing what they promised to do in the first place), at least they (don't want to lose their super-loyal customer base).

      Google isn't "evil", they're just motivated the same way every corporation is: Legally bound to their shareholders to make a profit.

  • How is making a deal "winning?" I mean, it's a good thing, but from the headline, I thought the judge extracted his head from his colon. "Makes" might be a better verb here... or, if you want to keep the drama, "forges" could work.

    • Uh... it didn't say they "won" with no qualifiers, it says they won an agreement to anonymize the logs... exactly what happened. I fail to see a problem with their choice of verb.
  • Not as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:07AM (#24196611) Homepage Journal
    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!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      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.
      • Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cliffski (65094) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:17AM (#24196763) Homepage

        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?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:20AM (#24196821)

          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?

        • Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Interesting)

          by snl2587 (1177409) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:20AM (#24196831)

          Are they *all* wrong about their business?

          Quite possible. That's how an industry dies.

          • Re:Not as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)

            by cathars1s (974609) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:43AM (#24197205)
            That, or everyone breaking the law and not paying for their product. That will do it too.

            /just sayin
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward

              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)

              by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @12:57PM (#24199803)

              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.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Proteus (1926)

                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: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by mav[LAG] (31387)

                  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.

          • Are they *all* wrong about their business?

            Quite possible. That's how an industry dies.

            Is that possible? Well... Say, didn't we used to have an auto industry in the U.S.? And why are we bailing out all of these financial institutions all of a sudden?

        • Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aztektum (170569) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:26AM (#24196919)

          They already release much of it for free with adverts on the tele. Wtf is the difference?

          • by hkmarks (1080097) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:33AM (#24197023)

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

            Or so I've heard.

            • 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)

                by CecilPL (1258010)

                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)

                  by pxc (938367)

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

          • Payment in advance (Score:5, Informative)

            by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @11:11AM (#24197713) Journal
            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.

            • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @12:41PM (#24199475) Homepage Journal

              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.

        • 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.

          Works for just about every other industry that has tried it. The only ones that have failed are the ones that upload it to some obscure site and expect everyone to go there for *insert show here* rather then going to YouTube where they watch the other 98% of the videos they watch online. And you can't say that they have tried it yet.

          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?

          As other posts have said, why bother when someone else will upload it for you. And it is because TV isn't in as much jam as the music business is. But if you look just about every band has most, if not all of the music videos they have made either uploaded by the record label or by the bands themselves. As bandwidth increases and someone can download a show in about as much time as it takes them to download an MP3 now, we will start to see more push to YouTube to distribute them, much as how music videos are now. They will either have to adapt or die. And right now Viacom is heading to die. If an industry doesn't adapt, it dies.

        • Are they *all* wrong about their business?

          In the past? No.

          In the present? No.

          When the majority of advertising dollars are spent online? Yes.

        • Are they *all* wrong about their business?
          Have been in the past see Sony v. Universal Pictures for an example.

        • by autophile (640621)

          Here's what my model of free TV on teh Intarwebz would be.

          Currently, entertainment on TV is supported by ads that are run during the show. These ads can be local or national. The broadcasters and advertisers don't want ads local to area A to be played to area B, because the advertisers get no revenue from that.

          So, each show available for download has a number of blank spots where the ads are normally run -- is this how shows are sent to the studios already? I'm not sure. Anyway, upon download, the serve

        • by Machtyn (759119)
          How long were MP3s being traded illegally before the RIAA started (A) Suing everyone and their dog, then (B) embracing the technology (sort of), finally (C) Continuing to sue everyone and their dog (and their dead, deaf grandmothers).

          Let's see, when I start collecting MP3s it was around 1996, I'm sure it was earlier for some. Then Napster arrived after 5 or 6 years and it took a year or two before the RIAA members took notice, then some time after Apple actually made something somewhat viable for all par
        • Re:Not as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @12:17PM (#24199061)

          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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MMC Monster (602931)

          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)

      by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:18AM (#24196787) Homepage

      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.

    • Re:Not as it seems (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gyranthir (995837) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:55AM (#24197415)
      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!!!!.
    • That's assuming only one viewer per play. If an average of 3 people watched the vids as they played then that's $123 million worth of lost sales ON ONLY 4 SPONGEBOB EPISODES! Factor in the the whole series then the loss amounts to probably hundreds of billions! Viacom cannot absorb such losses for much longer.

  • Yikes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trisweb (690296) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:10AM (#24196649) Journal

    Just the fact that such information exists and is stored is scary.

    Thank God for "Don't be evil." They better not be.

    • 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.

    • Don't worry. They'll only deliver the database on paper.. printed in 8-pt Comic Sans.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gewalt (1200451)
      What exactly did you think they were doing? Why wouldn't they have usage logs of their services?
    • Re:Yikes... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:42AM (#24197187) Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CodeBuster (516420)

        Money is the corporate god.

        That would be Mammon [wikipedia.org]

    • Thank God for "Don't be evil." They better not be.

      Maybe I missed something; I read a case study that detailed the history of google on the market and that said that google's decision to not compromize the quality of their search results by accepting to raise the pagerank of a site is called, for short "don't be evil".

      It may be that "google is not evil" as it's generically stated around here is just a misunderstanding.

  • by bEwre4am (1322859) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:11AM (#24196673)
    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.
    • by aussie_a (778472)

      I don't have any problem corporations knowing what I view on YouTube, so it certainly isn't a risk for me. Then again I don't go around viewing pirated content.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fumblebruschi (831320)
        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.
    • by fumblebruschi (831320) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @12:47PM (#24199605)
      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.
  • by Seakip18 (1106315) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:14AM (#24196705) Journal

    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?

  • by Dekortage (697532) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:15AM (#24196735) Homepage

    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.

    • by bravecanadian (638315) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:19AM (#24196791)

      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.

      • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gm a i l . c om> on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:34AM (#24197027)

        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.

      • 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.

      • by spiffyman (949476)
        Look. When I go to YouTube, I know that they're going to retain my data. When I log in to my Google homepage, I know that they're going to be monitoring my searches and slipping ads into my results. I'm not so stupid as to think that, when I'm reading an email about an upcoming trip, Gmail has just randomly decided to insert ads for Priceline. I get it. They're using my history and habits to target advertising to me.

        I'm ok with that. It's the price I pay for the services they provide. Besides, at some po
        • Besides, at some point ads stop being ads and start being advice.

          No, IMHO they're NOT advice. Advice given should primarily focus on benefits for the givee, not the giver.

          They don't give a rat's kazoo if you have a full head of hair and will STILL take your cash for a Rogaine prescription.

      • by pembo13 (770295)
        It was never a secret that Google stores this data. Anyone who doesn't know this simply doesn't want to. Even if Google said they weren't storing that data, I would still assume they did.
      • Weigh what Google will use for versus what Viacom will use it for however. Google can't sue you for content, but they can use the information to make a more effective search engine which in turn will be beneficial to internet users. Viacom will use it to try to exploit you and take your money through advertising or litigation with no additional product or service.
      • by Drakonik (1193977)

        I don't mind Google using statistics they gathered from my usage of their service to further narrow advertisements I see. Maybe now, instead of seeing fifteen "ENLRAGE YORU PEN15" ads on every single page, I'll see something relevant to my interests, such as discount computer hardware, or the latest games.

        The objection arises when Viacom, instead of providing something I want to use and gathering statistics from that, leeches off of services that provide content I desire.

  • This lawsuit and the eBay/Tiffany lawsuit yesterday only means that the courts are only now starting to address how the internet affects traditional businesses models that rely on older concepts of ownership. I remember hearing a speech by the late Douglas Adams on how the internet would change the concepts of property for things like media since no one really "owns" something that can be distributed worldwide in an instant. That was back in 1994.

    For eBay/Tiffany the issue was about defending trademarks a

  • by phr1 (211689) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:25AM (#24196889)
    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.

    • by game kid (805301)
      That I would rather have portraits of Osama bin Laden sewn into my underwear than portraits of US government officials should say something about the success and consciences of both.
    • 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.
  • they anonymize it better than the government does... Foiled by Ctl+C

  • by Mesa MIke (1193721) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @10:45AM (#24197231) Homepage

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

  • by tiananmen tank man (979067) on Tuesday July 15, 2008 @12:03PM (#24198777)

    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.

  • Thank you, Viacom, for taking a reasonable approach and accepting anonymized logs.

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Working...