Joris van Hoboken

The US Court dealing with the YouTube v. Viacom case has ordered Google to provide Viacom the log file of the use of the Youtube service. It does not have to provide the source code of its search engine(s), which could be considered a victory for Google. Some other motions are either granted (list of all removed videos) or dismissed.

The “logging” database contains: for each instance a video is watched,

• the unique “login ID” of the user who watched it;
• the time when the user started to watch the video;
• the internet protocol address other devices connected to the internet use to identify the user’s computer (“IP address”);
• the identifier for the video.”

Google tried to defend its millions and millions of users on the basis of their privacy, but, unfortunately, Google’s statements about user privacy over the last few years now boomerang back into its face. The judge considers that Google’s privacy claims are “speculative“. The problem is that Google tries to have it both ways - to users and regulators it says there is no privacy problem, and when it is in its own interest it says these data collections are a privacy concern (which of course they are, and not only a privacy concern but a freedom of expression and freedom to access information interest as well). The judge simply cites Google. Google does:

“not refute that the “login ID is an anonymous pseudonym that users create for themselves when they sign up with YouTube” which without more “cannot identify specific individuals” (Pls.’ Reply 44)” (what about users that do use their real name?)

and Google has elsewhere stated:

“We . . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot.” (this statement must have been made by Google in the European data protection law context.)

This is terrible for Youtube users and arguably shows how awfully Google represents the privacy interests of its users. I am not sure about the reasoning of the judge but there seems something wrong there too. EFF argues there is a problem with the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), but i doubt it applies, since YouTube is not in the rental business and these kinds privacy laws in the US are usually very specific. More fundamentally, I would argue that the privacy interests of users should be (partly) evaluated independent of Google’s statements about them.

I am curious how the Youtube community will react to this. Some might even be taken to Court by Viacom. Finally, it will be interesting to see what Google will do. Will it be calling for better privacy laws in the US, now that it gets hurt in its trust relationship with its users on this major scale?

More coverage on:

• Search Engine Land, calling for a US Internet Privacy Act;
• TechCrunch, promising a class action lawsuit of staggering proportions if Google turns over the data;
• Heisse online, asking whether the judge took the privacy protection of Europeans into account;
• News.com, discussing several legal issues around the ordered data transfer such as Viacom’s ability to use the data for other purposes than to prove the prevalence of piracy on YouTube;
• BBC, with a short Q&A, concluding that Google is liekly to challenge the order, more here.
• Forbes, with a good overview with quotes of Rotenberg and a product manager.

Update: Google and Viacom both try to resue the damage in terms of goodwill. Both parties assert that the transfer will be structured in such a way that it will not affect user privacy. And Google has hastily posted a link to its privacy policy on its homepage. A ‘historical’ miniature move.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm and is filed under Ranking, U.S., censorship, freedom of expression, governance, liability, litigation, news, privacy, search engines, user data.