CT Blue

Verizon is currently suing Google/youtube, claiming that youtube has committed sundry acts of copyright infringement. Recently, a judge ruled that youtube’s source code was a trade secret, and youtube did not have to hand it over to Verizon in connection with the lawsuit. But the same judge ruled that youtube had to hand over 12 terrabytes of data, which will allow Verizon to paw through the viewing habits of each and every youtube user. When it comes to our secrets, the judge ruled that any invasion of our privacy interests would be purely speculative:

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.

…

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 article goes on to report that privacy groups, such as the Electronic Freedom Foundation have been warning Google/youtube for years that it should anonymise (that word doesn’t pass muster with my spell checker, but if the BBC uses it, it must be real) IP addresses, but it has failed to do so on youtube, although it has on its search facilities.

Any corporation that had any concern for the privacy of its users would act proactively to protext them. We have not yet reached the point in our steady march toward becoming a security state that the government requires corporations to acquire this sort of information (at least I don’t think we have). If they never acquire it, it can never be demanded. It seems clear from the article that Verizon doesn’t need the IP addresses to prove its case. Google has now offered to anonymise (there it is again) the data, but so far Verizon isn’t having it.

There are lots of uses to which this data could be applied, some relatively benign (more direct marketing stuff). some not so nice. It is emblematic of our times that the court recognizes the trade secrets of a corporation, but can’t see a problem with needlessly divulging information on millions of people.