Judge’s YouTube Order Threatens Privacy Protection
It is reassuring to know that companies pledge to protect privacy, but a recent federal court ruling ordering YouTube viewership records to be released may change all that.
After all, credit card companies know what you buy, and phone companies know whom you call. Could all the private data about you be made available with a judge’s ruling?
"Companies have a tremendous amount of very sensitive data on their customers, and while a company itself may treat that responsibly … if the court orders it be turned over, there’s not a lot that the company that holds the data can do," said Jennifer Urban, professor of law at the University of Southern California.
Up to this point, subpoenas and court orders have targeted the records of an individual. But with the YouTube case it covers all users, even if they have nothing to do with the $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit that Viacom Inc. has brought against Google, Inc., parent company of the video sharing site.
The situation is one that privacy activists have long feared.
"What we’re seeing is (that) the theoretical is becoming real world," said Lauren Weinstein, a computer scientist.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed privacy arguments as speculative and authorized full access to YouTube logs. The access was granted so that Viacom can use the data to prove that their copyrighted material is watched far more than amateur videos that are uploaded to the site.
"This decision makes it absolutely clear that everywhere we go online, we leave tracks, and every piece of information we access online leaves some sort of record," Urban said. "As consumers, we should all be aware of the fact that this sensitive information is being collected about us."
According to Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department official, the ruling could create a slippery slope for additional disclosures.
Judges who are usually hesitant about releasing privacy records may look toward Stanton’s ruling for affirmation, said Rasch. But the ruling does not officially set precedence because it happened in a U.S. District Court.
The database at YouTube includes data on the viewers login ID, videos played, and even the IP address for the viewers computer that can be traced to specific individuals.
Search engines like Yahoo Inc., and Google keep a year of records on users search requests. Other sources of personal data are e-mail services, electronic health records, spreadsheets, calendars, and web-based word processing.
Someone could easily track your spending habits by using credit card data or find your location by tracing your cell phone calls.
There is disagreement on the amount of time a company should keep privacy records but companies argue that the data can help improve services, or protect customers in billing disputes.
According to privacy activists, shorter retention times make it less tempting for lawyers to bring lawsuits against companies who hold data.
Service providers in banking, health care, and other similar industries often comply with court ordered subpoenas and reveal privacy data. In most cases the person is notified so they can challenge the disclosure. The movie and music industry have also aggressively tracked individuals they suspect are illegally downloading copyrighted works.
Law enforcement routinely uses records to solve crimes.
The U.S. Justice Department recently asked for search requests made in major search engines as part of a case involving pornography. All the major companies complied, with the exception of Google who fought to get the requirements narrowed, and won.
Viacom got the majority of the data it wanted from YouTube.
Google has agreed to work with Viacom to ensure the anonymity of users, and Viacom has promised not to identify individual users for lawsuits. The logs are expected to be placed under a confidentiality order.
Privacy advocates fear that litigants in the future will not be as restrained, and data will eventually reach the public.
Government agencies, retailers, and other companies often lose information to hackers.
"You just never know," said Steve Jones, from the University of Illinois at Chicago. "There are some circumstances under which what seems to be private information is going to be shared with a third party, and the court says it’s OK to do that."
—
On the Net: