Google must divulge YouTube log

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.

Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.

Legal action

When it initiated legal action in March 2007 the firm said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Following the launch of its billion-dollar lawsuit, YouTube introduced filtering tools in an effort to prevent copyright materials from appearing on the site.

The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.

But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".

The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data.

Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

'Erroneous ruling'

The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube.

"We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."

The body said the ruling was also potentially unlawful because the log data did contain personally identifiable data.

The court also ruled that Google disclose to YouTube the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm


Freaking boo! What a terrible ruling. I understand wanting to protect intellectual property but I for one haven't even ever upoloaded anything to Youtube but I have a login and Google has my name and IP address and I don't want this information given out for any reason, nor do I want anyone to have unfettered access to my viewing log. This is a setback to privacy and internet rights. Boo I say, boo!

In child porn case, a digital dilemma

U.S. seeks to force suspect to reveal password to computer files

By Ellen Nakashima

The Washington Post

updated 2:23 a.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 16, 2008

The federal government is asking a U.S. District Court in Vermont to order a man to type a password that would unlock files on his computer, despite his claim that doing so would constitute self-incrimination.

The case, believed to be the first of its kind to reach this level, raises a uniquely digital-age question about how to balance privacy and civil liberties against the government's responsibility to protect the public.

The case, which involves suspected possession of child pornography, comes as more Americans turn to encryption to protect the privacy and security of files on their laptops and thumb drives. FBI and Justice Department officials, meanwhile, have said that encryption is allowing terrorists and criminals to communicate their plots covertly.

Criminals and terrorists are using "relatively inexpensive, off-the-shelf encryption products," said John Miller, the FBI's assistant director of public affairs. "When the intent . . . is purely to hide evidence of a crime . . . there needs to be a logical and constitutionally sound way for the courts" to allow law enforcement access to the evidence, he said.

'The forbidden trilemma'
On Nov. 29, Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier ruled that compelling Sebastien Boucher, a 30-year-old drywall installer who lives in Vermont, to enter his password into his laptop would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. "If Boucher does know the password, he would be faced with the forbidden trilemma: incriminate himself, lie under oath, or find himself in contempt of court," the judge said.

The government has appealed, and the case is being investigated by a grand jury, said Boucher's attorney, James Boudreau of Boston. He said it would be "inappropriate" to comment while the case is pending. Justice Department officials also declined to comment.

But the ruling has caused controversy.

"The consequence of this decision being upheld is that the government would have to find other methods to get this information," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "But that's as it should be. That's what the Fifth Amendment is intended to protect."

Mark D. Rasch, a privacy and technology expert with FTI Consulting and a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was "dangerous" for law enforcement. "If it stands, it means that if you encrypt your documents, the government cannot force you to decrypt them," he said. "So you're going to see drug dealers and pedophiles encrypting their documents, secure in the knowledge that the police can't get at them."

The case began Dec. 17, 2006, when Boucher, a Canadian citizen with legal residency in the United States, was driving from Canada into Vermont when he was stopped at the border by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspector. The inspector searched Boucher's car and found a laptop in the back seat, according to an affidavit filed with the court by Mark Curtis, a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement who was called in by the inspector.

Boucher said the laptop was his, according to the affidavit. When the inspector saw files with titles such as "Two-year-old being raped during diaper change," he asked Boucher if the laptop contained child pornography. Boucher said he did not know because he was not able to check his temporary Internet files, according to the affidavit.

Curtis asked Boucher "to use the computer" to show him the files he downloads. Curtis reviewed the video files, observing one that appeared to be a preteen undressing and performing a sexual act, among other graphic images, the affidavit says.

Boucher was arrested and charged with transportation of child pornography in interstate or foreign commerce, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison for a first offense.

'Nearly impossible' to access files
The agents seized the laptop, and a Vermont Department of Corrections investigator copied its contents. But the investigator could not get access to the drive Z content because it was protected by Pretty Good Privacy, a form of encryption software used by intelligence agencies in the United States and around the world that is widely available online. PGP, like all encryption algorithms, requires a password for decryption.

For more than a year, the government has been unable to view drive Z.

A government computer forensics expert testified that it is "nearly impossible" to access the files without the password, the judge wrote. "There are no 'back doors' or secret entrances to access the files," he wrote. "The only way to get access without the password is to use an automated system which repeatedly guesses passwords. According to the government, the process to unlock drive Z could take years . . . "

In his ruling, Niedermeier said forcing Boucher to enter his password would be like asking him to reveal the combination to a safe. The government can force a person to give up the key to a safe because a key is physical, not in a person's mind. But a person cannot be compelled to give up a safe combination because that would "convey the contents of one's mind,'' which is a "testimonial" act protected by the Fifth Amendment, Niedermeier said .

In a phone interview, Boucher said that he likes to download Japanese cartoons and occasionally adult pornography, but that he does not seek to view child porn. He sometimes inadvertently receives images of child pornography when he downloads the other material, but reviews what he downloads to "clean out" the child porn, he said. It is not illegal to possess animated child porn.

He said that he agreed to show the agents where he downloaded his files "because I was sure that there was nothing bad in those files." He also said that he felt coerced: "I felt like they really want to force me to do it, like I have no choice."

Asked whether he typed in a password to unlock the drive so the agents could view it, he replied: "I prefer not to answer that one."

Boucher added the encryption software to protect the rest of his computer from viruses that might accompany the downloaded files, he said.

Orin S. Kerr, an expert in computer crime law at George Washington University, said that Boucher lost his Fifth Amendment privilege when he admitted that it was his computer and that he stored images in the encrypted part of the hard drive. "If you admit something to the government, you give up the right against self-incrimination later on," said Kerr, a former federal prosecutor.

Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, said encryption is one of the few ways people can protect what they write, read and watch online. "The last line of defense really is you holding your own password," he said. "That's what's at stake here."

Staff researcher Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22672241/

Privacy Issues in the Digital Age

I think I have found an interesting topic for discussion, technology versus privacy. Over on the MSNBC website, they are doing a series of articles on the issue called Privacy Lost: No Secrets in the Digital Age. Some things to consider directly from the first article in the series:

• Hewlett Packard executives hiring private investigators to spy on employees and journalists.
• Rep. Mark Foley sending innuendo-laden instant messages – a reminder that digital communication lasts forever and that anonymous sources can be unmasked by clever bloggers from just a few electronic clues.
• The federal government allegedly compiling a database of telephone numbers dialed by Americans, and eavesdropping on U.S. callers dialing international calls without obtaining court orders.
• Privacy will remain in the headlines in the months to come, as states implement the federal government’s Real ID Act, which will effectively create a national identification program by requiring new high-tech standards for driver’s licenses and ID cards.
• The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may seem innocuous — so much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered.
• ...MySpace pages laden with fraternity party photos might one day cost (someone) a job.
• Virginia Shelton, 46, her daughter, Shirley, 16; and a friend, Jennifer Starkey, 17, were all arrested and charged with murder in 2003 because of an out-of-synch ATM camera. Their pictures were flashed in front of a national audience and they spent three weeks in a Maryland jail before it was discovered that the camera was set to the wrong time.

I think each one could be a valid starting point for a discussion. Where should a person's privacy rights extend to in this new age where your personal information is a traded commodity, where employers spy on employees and there are cameras on every street corner? Can privacy be regained? Should it be regained? How much would you be willing to give up to known or unknown entities for market research? for security? for convenience?

There are other issues brought up in the later articles in the series too. The difference in the US vs Europe is what is in the third article:

Europe:

• Personal information cannot be collected without consumers’ permission, and they have the right to review the data and correct inaccuracies.
• Companies that process data must register their activities with the government.
• Employers cannot read workers’ private e-mail.
• Personal information cannot be shared by companies or across borders without express permission from the data subject.
  
• Checkout clerks cannot ask for shoppers’ phone numbers.

There is also a side-by-side comparison of the US versus the EU on the second page of the article (click here to go directly to page 2 of this the 3rd article). It is an interesting and telling difference. There is quite a divide between the two.

What are your thoughts on this one?