Google ordered to identify who watched certain YouTube videos(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Google ordered to identify who watched certain YouTube videos
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/03/22/feds-ordered-google-to-unmask-certain-youtube-users-critics-say-its-terrifying/
370 comments
> The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos..
Hopefully that clarifies for some folks why these big tech/social media companies insist on having your phone number as a “2FA for security” despite all the sim-swap attacks.. simply for this moment, because you might be using a VPN, and address/name aren’t in your google account, but definitely your phone number is there, it’s even worse if you’re using an android too, as they probably will pull out all your app/browsing history..
Hopefully that clarifies for some folks why these big tech/social media companies insist on having your phone number as a “2FA for security” despite all the sim-swap attacks.. simply for this moment, because you might be using a VPN, and address/name aren’t in your google account, but definitely your phone number is there, it’s even worse if you’re using an android too, as they probably will pull out all your app/browsing history..
> The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023.
Interesting aside: Viacom used a similar broad request back in 2008 [1] in its lawsuit that nearly put YouTube out of business in its infancy. This time, it's the government making the request, and Google has way more data to potentially provide.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20100702111029/http://afp.google...
Interesting aside: Viacom used a similar broad request back in 2008 [1] in its lawsuit that nearly put YouTube out of business in its infancy. This time, it's the government making the request, and Google has way more data to potentially provide.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20100702111029/http://afp.google...
Im increasingly coming to the opinion that anonymity isnt guaranteed so you should assume everyone knows what you do.m and who you are. So you should probably just use your real name and do way less online.
Havent fully swallowed this pill but its feeling inevitable.
Havent fully swallowed this pill but its feeling inevitable.
For those who have not already heard of it, check out invidious: https://invidious.io/
A list of public instances (which you probably want to use if you're concerned about being identified) here: https://docs.invidious.io/instances/
A list of public instances (which you probably want to use if you're concerned about being identified) here: https://docs.invidious.io/instances/
Somewhat related story from a few years ago:
Justice Department withdraws FBI subpoena for USA Today records ID'ing readers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27408647 - Jun 2021 (174 comments)
Justice Department withdraws FBI subpoena for USA Today records ID'ing readers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27408647 - Jun 2021 (174 comments)
Police sweep Google searches to find suspects; facing its first legal challenge
2022-06-30 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31938350
2022-06-30 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31938350
The order was merely a nicety. I cannot imagine any company succeeding at taking a stand against the United States Federal Government on when it really wants something.
Likely the same with any other major nation state (I bet the chinese govt once showed Google it could at will access all their data, in order to capitulate cooperation, while the US is given full access at any time for any reason)
Likely the same with any other major nation state (I bet the chinese govt once showed Google it could at will access all their data, in order to capitulate cooperation, while the US is given full access at any time for any reason)
1. Upload a video to YouTube,
2. Make it non-public, but possible to view for people who have links,
3. Post it to some shady underground forum full of people who want to do bad things to you for money,
4. Build the net of connections and track people who did watch the non-public link, see who knows who in this degenerate world of extorsions and theft,
5. Send the message to criminals that if they want to continue what they're doing, then even YouTube isn't safe for them,
6. Profit.
TBH, if the above would be true, I would even be happy. But I'm biased, because I sincerely hate thieves and extorsionists.
TBH, if the above would be true, I would even be happy. But I'm biased, because I sincerely hate thieves and extorsionists.
"In conversations with the user in early January, undercover agents sent links of YouTube tutorials for mapping via drones and augmented reality software, then asked Google for information on who had viewed the videos, which collectively have been watched over 30,000 times."
Huh? Why? Is this because some country doesn't like people having good mapping technology? Israel and China object to precision mapping, but the US historically has not.
Huh? Why? Is this because some country doesn't like people having good mapping technology? Israel and China object to precision mapping, but the US historically has not.
All this surveillance and cops still can't catch day to day petty thieves and scammers.
Just waiting to get pinched for my secret shame: bourbon hunting videos.
I don't even drink bourbon.
I don't even drink bourbon.
Why can't the police track down someone who calls in a threat from the phone records? How can people be more anonymous with "caller ID" than YouTube?
Eleven hundred steaming pantloads of hot bullshit. This is textbook fishing trip. The real zinger of all this . . the thing that has me riled . . is that this is going to be used to put away who knows how many poor-ass sadsack innocent citizens who can't afford counsel, before the poooh-leeeeease finally bust that one guy who has the money to afford legal representation. Upon which everyone goes oh right this was really illegal SILLY US
Someone posting up illegal videos? We already got laws for that, you sons of bitches. WATCHING videos? Like, "everyone in the country who watches this video?" Get the hell out of here.
Someone posting up illegal videos? We already got laws for that, you sons of bitches. WATCHING videos? Like, "everyone in the country who watches this video?" Get the hell out of here.
Isn't that what they already do? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
[deleted]
Casual reminder that Invidious[0] and Piped[1] exist. Farside[2] can automatically redirect you to a working instance, for example: https://farside.link/invidious
If you add a redirector plugin for your browser, you can add a capture for something like this:
[0] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious
[1] https://github.com/TeamPiped/Piped
[2] https://farside.link/
If you add a redirector plugin for your browser, you can add a capture for something like this:
https?://(.*?\.)?youtube.com/(.*)
https://farside.link/invidious/$2
[0] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious
[1] https://github.com/TeamPiped/Piped
[2] https://farside.link/
Let's walk through this rationally:
Take the crime they are investigating and ignore that; it is a red herring. Say that there is a stalker who hacked someone's devices and pulled private information and videos from them, and posted them publicly. Something unequivocally bad. We would all agree that there needs to be a way to investigate and stop this person and seek justice for the victims.
Until recently, taking this to the cops would get you a blank stare and nothing would happen. At least now in certain places it is taken seriously. But traditional investigative methods don't work. They would need to get access logs to the places where that data was uploaded, at the very least.
Cops are not particularly great at investigating (most crime is solved by confessions or just catching them in the act). They don't have any reason not to just blindly grab all the data and sort through it by hand, because that's what they know how to do, and if they request it and get denied, why would they care? They either try something else or say 'fuck it'.
Local Judges see a request for records and a block of time and it seems reasonable to get that info. No one is sitting and explaining to them the implications of allowing cops access to personal information from viewer logs. Historically, the lower courts are not the place to seek enlightened rulings.
Google? I honestly have no love for them, and they bend over for China every day for worse stuff, so I would be surprised if they gave two shits about their users, except that if this becomes common enough they might actually have to devote support to these requests, and they hate giving support, so they might fight it just for their own self-interest.
The problem is that there is no settled case law here and no clear legislation, and I would hesitate to take any important cases to the Supreme Court until at least Mr. "Is This a Pube on My Coke Can" is gone.
Take the crime they are investigating and ignore that; it is a red herring. Say that there is a stalker who hacked someone's devices and pulled private information and videos from them, and posted them publicly. Something unequivocally bad. We would all agree that there needs to be a way to investigate and stop this person and seek justice for the victims.
Until recently, taking this to the cops would get you a blank stare and nothing would happen. At least now in certain places it is taken seriously. But traditional investigative methods don't work. They would need to get access logs to the places where that data was uploaded, at the very least.
Cops are not particularly great at investigating (most crime is solved by confessions or just catching them in the act). They don't have any reason not to just blindly grab all the data and sort through it by hand, because that's what they know how to do, and if they request it and get denied, why would they care? They either try something else or say 'fuck it'.
Local Judges see a request for records and a block of time and it seems reasonable to get that info. No one is sitting and explaining to them the implications of allowing cops access to personal information from viewer logs. Historically, the lower courts are not the place to seek enlightened rulings.
Google? I honestly have no love for them, and they bend over for China every day for worse stuff, so I would be surprised if they gave two shits about their users, except that if this becomes common enough they might actually have to devote support to these requests, and they hate giving support, so they might fight it just for their own self-interest.
The problem is that there is no settled case law here and no clear legislation, and I would hesitate to take any important cases to the Supreme Court until at least Mr. "Is This a Pube on My Coke Can" is gone.
Use Invidious, use RSS, use yt-dlp, use Tor.
https://archive.is/2fCUs
(Never not seen an archive link of a paywalled article buried so carrying my part of that responsibility)
(Never not seen an archive link of a paywalled article buried so carrying my part of that responsibility)
Why are you linking to paywalled scam sites?
[deleted]
> “This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day,” said Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.
If companies would respect the spirit behind GDPR and not store data that is not needed to fulfill a user's requests and protect the data that they must have in a way that makes dragnet searches impossible, this would not be a problem.
Instead, we have sites not being ashamed in informing you about literally thousands of external ad broker, tracking, notifications and whatnotelse integrations.
To u/decremental: you seem to be shadowbanned, here's an Archive link: https://archive.ph/kAXQ1
If companies would respect the spirit behind GDPR and not store data that is not needed to fulfill a user's requests and protect the data that they must have in a way that makes dragnet searches impossible, this would not be a problem.
Instead, we have sites not being ashamed in informing you about literally thousands of external ad broker, tracking, notifications and whatnotelse integrations.
To u/decremental: you seem to be shadowbanned, here's an Archive link: https://archive.ph/kAXQ1
With the TikTok ban, jawboning, and now this, it feels like the US really wants to control the narrative its citizens see, now much more than previously...
>"...undercover agents sent links of YouTube tutorials for mapping via drones and augmented reality software, then asked Google for information on who had viewed the videos, which collectively have been watched over 30,000 times."
For fuck's sake, there are thousands upon thousands of companies and individuals with totally legit commercial interest in this tech. I bet Zwift and the likes are doing just that.
For fuck's sake, there are thousands upon thousands of companies and individuals with totally legit commercial interest in this tech. I bet Zwift and the likes are doing just that.
If doing shady shit, you're not using your own IP, let alone Google account...
[deleted]
Someone post the pirate link so we can read this.
The first one where the police uploaded videos and wanted viewer information is absolutely egregious and makes me wonder how a court could authorize that.
The next one, which I didn’t fully understand, but appeared to be in response to a swatting incident where the culprit is believed to have watched a specific camera livestream and the police provided a lot of narrowing details (time period, certain other characteristics, etc) appears far more legitimate.