Should content creators get complete logs of everybody's behavior?

Ok, I know I am skirting the "Resident Answers question part, but with the ongoing discussions about DMCA and LL's role as active patroller vs. "safe-harbor protected" service provider, the battle between Google and Viacom over YouTube data is frighteningly relevant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm

And a blow-by-blow description of the claims and rulings:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9242

The upshot is that Viacom has been granted access to 12 terrabytes of data; complete logs of every pageview on YouTube ever, on the grounds that it may have infringed on their copyrights, though Google managed to hang on to the actual source code and algorithms they use.

So essentially, Viacom said, "We think some of your users may have violated our copyright. Hand over your business", and the court ruling ended up being, "You can't have their technology, but here's complete information about everybody else's behavior".

I certainly hope this is not setting precedent. Imagine your every move and chat log in SL being handed over to a content creator because s/he believes you may or may not at some point have worn a pirated skin.

Couldn't agree more Tali. The whole Viacom situation completely stinks.

Viacom has no business knowing the details of every customer just to show how many people watch videos from Viacom-owned networks. They don't need usernames and IP addresses for that, they can be blanked out surely. At the very least Viacom should only be allowed to obtain the info they need through aggregate.

Why are Google even holding on to all this information anyway! And why didn't they fight it out legally instead of putting up such a weak fight.

If this is how Google are going to handle personal info I'm not touching cloud computing with a barge pole. I'll use local apps on encrypted drives thanks very much.

they are fighting it, as for handling personal info.

All your data collected by companies is given away the instant the court orders them too.

Plus read all the ToS clauses... you agree to them and such.

it would never happen because whenit comes down to it content creators are just as much a player or member as anyone else in sl for their own personel reasons..
unless i am misunderstanding something in this ..i just woke up so it's very possible i am lol

And I'm saying Google should fight the court order and kick off a stink about it. All they've done since the order from what I've read is ask Viacom if they'd accept the logs with the user identifiable parts masked out. It shouldnt even be down to Viacom's discretion. Google should be saying "Sorry guys, there's no reason on earth you need that data to prove your point, so we're going to fight that all the way".



Yes pretty much any website ToS has a caveat that they wont turn user data over unless they get a court order to. And I'm fully aware I agree to this when signing up. Doesn't make this Viacom situation any more acceptable. Doesn't make Google's data retention policies any more acceptable. And it doesnt make the idea of cloud computing any sweeter.

PS: Google should hand over the terrabytes of user logs on lots of little hole-punched cards, with a suitable finger gesture embossed on each one.

they could get the data anyways since it is all on the search engine couldn't they?
i mean googles?
i need to reread this i think as i wake up..
because it sounds like viacom is wanting every page of the search engine and all it would be is google answering their search..

i think they are actually asking for servers logs, indicating page views, referrals, ip addresses, etc.

oh yes thats a little more disheartening there..
i think corporations are getting a little too much like the government in my opinion..someone needs to knock them back a step or two and say ..listen you have to go to every state and ask permission from each state to get this done or whatever country the information was originated..there will be no one clump law for the whole world because of copyright infringements sitting on a terrible video or sound file..
i'm all for stopping copyright infringement but not when it has to do with mine or anyone else's information getting out there that has not committed it..

i would say granting access to the information to look over would be one thing and take what you feel you need but you are not walking out of the house with everyones information..
you want to look at terabytes of information then there is the computer have at it..

Got money and connections you can convince the right people to give you whatever you want and most likely get away with it.
Let's face it almost every thing we do is watched on internet be it our shopping habits, links and in some countries even more so to watch for things like if you're gay, left wing extremist,etc
And they justify the invasion of privacy for some legitimate sounding rationalized excuse for it.
And I vaguely recall reading some where in TOS in SL they have right to watch everything you do, save it and when required to turn it over to legal authorities.
Just don't do anything you would care others to know about.
Come on why would they give that information content maker here unless they made lot of money and had right connections of some type?
As content creator I like my content protected from misuse but I don't want to invade other people's private activities with my content it's none of my business as long as they aren't doing something like resell it but seriously doubt that because t I am just one of majority that is lucky to make few dollars a month.

What really worries me is that with the way the current laws and rulings are going, I can easily imagine this becoming a *requirement* for service providers, to help track down evildoers.

I second this opinion. One of the big problems with handing over our data to Google is trust.

Google has wanted us to trust them, coddling us, giving us free services and source-level access. And when the proverbial turd hits the fan, they betray our rights to the first company with a decent court order.


Of course, it could have been anyone. The same can be true of any corporation with access to data they shouldn't have. Look at the statistics of IT "professionals" that read user email outside the scope of their jobs. The BOFH has nothing on reality.


My suggestion for DIY cloud computing: set up your own server with SVN+SSH, sync your documents, and run the applications locally. I've been loving it ever since I set mine up a year ago.

What are good Google alternatives?

By "good", I mean, principally, that they don't have ads with moving images.

According to LL's mission plan? SL Search.


More realistically, someone has compiled a list of the "Top 100 Alternative Search Engines."

Not much that's terribly impressive, but worth a shot:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_100_alternative_search_engines.php

The main problem with litigation between big, high-tech companies is that they have no way to effectively sort this massive amount of data they have.

That the Judge decides that a a party has a right to data from another party is nothing new to litigation. That the Judge decides what information is discoverable, and what is not, is nothing new. And that the scope of the information that parties may discover in litgation is quite broad is nothing new.

What's new is the way the computer age has changed the nature of information and data. We now store huge, huge amounts of data without context. Data only becomes meaningful when its sorted and arranged. There are infinite ways of sorting and arranging the same data set.

Discovery in litigation was much easier when companies relied upon memoranda. Now companies rely on databases.

So with these huge tech companies, there is a huge problem of determining what data is relevant. No data cell is truly relevant on its own; it only becomes relevant in combinations.

I'm an optimist. I think if there are enough cases in which this data discovery is a huge problem, creative people will figure out ways to deal with it. It's a temporary problem. (I even have ideas on solving it, but no one asks me.)

Bring that around to SL and content creators.

A content creator has absolutely no chance of protecting IP unless (1) data that document the infringement exists, and (2) a content creator has access to that data upon bringing a legitimate claim.

In the litigation context, I have no problem with a Judge serving one of a Court's traditional roles- deciding who has brought a sufficient claim.

Figuring out the difference between the discoverable and non-discoverable data remains the problem.

Linden Lab has already shown that it is unwilling to give out any data without a subpoena. In that sense, they are protecting your privacy.

What I question is what they give once they get the subpoena. Is the legal team just going to allow broad access to the SL database once the subpoena is issued, are are they prepared to fight about what types of data they must give? Has the tech team developed a way to actually sort their data into what is relevant and irrelevant, so it can be given in a way that complies with a subpoena but protects as much other data as possible?

I also wonder how much data Linden Lab keeps. One way to protect itself from subpoena is to simply not keep any information that they do not need to keep. This scenario could be bad for a content creator. A content creator makes a legitimate IP case, a Judge issues the subpoena for data, and Linden Lab has none to give.

(Keep in mind that Linden Lab may not have an duty to keep data. Destroying data so that it cannot be subpoenaed is prohibited; however, it it destroys data as part of its normal business routine, it is in the clear.)

They will all keep all of your records.

no

Or use multiple search engines.

In most cases, someone can be identified from their search logs even if the IP address is ommited. Seem to remember this was successfully demonstrated a while back.

But if you for example use one (or more) search engine(s) for anything that can be used to collectively identify you, and another search engine for everything else, there would be less information held against you.

Or at the very least do the vanity searches using a different search engine anyway!

Obviously this doesnt stop an ISP spilling the beans for an individial though. Unless you tunnel through the ISP's servers using something like TOR for the more sensitive activities. The only problem with going via several proxies (as with TOR) is it's slow as hell, even for basic web browsing. I decided my sanity/time was more important than my privacy.

Google tracks whatever information they can get their hands on - it is how their business works.

It is also Google's obligation to respond to court orders. It is the court's obligation to ensure that their subpoenas are reasonable and not merely driftnets given to any plaintiff who wants to see if they can skim it for some violation.Google continues to fight to narrow the information that they are compelled to provide to Viacom. Google hasn't "rolled over", the court did.

Google knows more about me than probably even I do. I'm ambivalent about that, but to date it hasn't caused me any affirmative harm.

so do i need to stop searching for "Pixie Unicorn's in bondage gear"? is it going to get me in trouble by someone who happens to have these logs?

Depends if your country thinks it is criminal act and if they choose to severely punish you for it but until then enjoy your searches for "Pixie Unicorns in bondage gear" to your heart's content.

of course google save everything! adsense, google history, targeting ads to you search history, etc... google mines and archives every piece of data it can.
for an anonymous google search use a proxy front end, like:
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

i'm the only person that pipe most of my server logs to /var/null ?

Nope. It saves on maintenance when I'm not tracking traffic stats.

Very handy!

No idea if I really can trust them, but I like their data retention policy and anonymity promises at least.

I also noticed that search results don't include the search terms in the URL. I hope everyone doesnt start using this service otherwise website referrer stats wont show the search terms people are using to discover your own site

Also noticed that search results arent quite the same as Google's own results *shrug*

In a word " No"


but I wonder if there is a way to write a virius that will be stored on the servers that try to take your data and store it and I wounder how long it will take for said virius to be written lol