Your YouTube history at risk of exposure?
RealAudio - MP3 - iTunes
Would you be embarrassed if strangers knew what video clips you watch on YouTube? Could those viewing habits come back to bite you in some way? A judge's order last week has many people thinking about such questions.
As part of $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit, the judge ordered YouTube owner Google to turn over user data to Viacom, which is seeking evidence that YouTube is illegally showing Viacom-owned programs. The data include usernames of YouTube viewers, what videos they watched, and users' unique computer addresses.
Privacy watchdogs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation say the judge's ruling violates a 1988 law that was passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental habits were revealed.
The following is a lightly-edited interview with EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl:
GORDON: Why does it matter that one more big corporation will now hold data on YouTube users?
OPSAHL: People have, by signing up for YouTube, they've agreed that YouTube will be able to get this information and by necessity, in order to view the videos, they have to tell YouTube and Google what videos they want to view. But that information is still protecte and private information that should not be disclosed outside of the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
GORDON: I watch YouTube videos and don't particularly care if people know what I watch. So what's the harm that can be done if this information is exposed?
OPSAHL: Well that is your choice but under the Video Privacy Protection Act each consumer is entitled to notice that that information will be disclosed and given an opportunity to contest disclosure. So you may choose not to contest disclosure if it doesn't matter to you. But for those people who are concerned about this information and do consider it to be private, they have that opportunity to contest disclosure.
FT: Right but what negative real world effects are we talking about here? Are you saying, for example, that people could suffer employment discrimination or something like that based on their YouTube viewing habits?
OPSAHL: The problem is that this order ignores the protections of the Federal Video Privacy Protection Act and will expose, potentially, some deeply private information about what videos are watched by the YouTube users.
FT: So how should Viacom treat this data?
OPSAHL: They key thing is to remove the personally-identifiable information such that that information is not disclosed. Alternatively, to comply with the Video Privacy Protection Act, provide notice to the users and give them an opportunity to contest the disclosure.
FT: What larger issues does this ruling point out?
OPSAHL: It illustrates that Internet companies are compiling vast repositories of information about ordinary Americans, which becomes a bit of a honey pot that people make seek. If Google had not kept all of this information we wouldn't have to worry about them disclosing it.
Leave a comment
|
permalink Would you be embarrassed if strangers knew what video clips you watch on YouTube? Could those viewing habits come back to bite you in some way? A judge's order last week has many people thinking about such questions.
As part of $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit, the judge ordered YouTube owner Google to turn over user data to Viacom, which is seeking evidence that YouTube is illegally showing Viacom-owned programs. The data include usernames of YouTube viewers, what videos they watched, and users' unique computer addresses.
Privacy watchdogs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation say the judge's ruling violates a 1988 law that was passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental habits were revealed.
The following is a lightly-edited interview with EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl:
GORDON: Why does it matter that one more big corporation will now hold data on YouTube users?
OPSAHL: People have, by signing up for YouTube, they've agreed that YouTube will be able to get this information and by necessity, in order to view the videos, they have to tell YouTube and Google what videos they want to view. But that information is still protecte and private information that should not be disclosed outside of the protections of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
GORDON: I watch YouTube videos and don't particularly care if people know what I watch. So what's the harm that can be done if this information is exposed?
OPSAHL: Well that is your choice but under the Video Privacy Protection Act each consumer is entitled to notice that that information will be disclosed and given an opportunity to contest disclosure. So you may choose not to contest disclosure if it doesn't matter to you. But for those people who are concerned about this information and do consider it to be private, they have that opportunity to contest disclosure.
FT: Right but what negative real world effects are we talking about here? Are you saying, for example, that people could suffer employment discrimination or something like that based on their YouTube viewing habits?
OPSAHL: The problem is that this order ignores the protections of the Federal Video Privacy Protection Act and will expose, potentially, some deeply private information about what videos are watched by the YouTube users.
FT: So how should Viacom treat this data?
OPSAHL: They key thing is to remove the personally-identifiable information such that that information is not disclosed. Alternatively, to comply with the Video Privacy Protection Act, provide notice to the users and give them an opportunity to contest the disclosure.
FT: What larger issues does this ruling point out?
OPSAHL: It illustrates that Internet companies are compiling vast repositories of information about ordinary Americans, which becomes a bit of a honey pot that people make seek. If Google had not kept all of this information we wouldn't have to worry about them disclosing it.