Judge Orders Google To Turn Over All YouTube User Data To Viacom

Wired’s Threat Level blog says that the judge in the Viacom/Google lawsuit has made a ruling forcing Google to turn over “every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users’ names and IP addresses,” to Viacom.

Viacom is arguing that it needs the data to prove that its copyrighted material is more popular than user created videos.

Wired says:

Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users’ privacy, the judge’s ruling (.pdf) described that argument as “speculative” and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives.

The judge also turned Google’s own defense of its data retention policies — that IP addresses of computers aren’t personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump.

The EFF has responded to the ruling, calling it “a set-back to privacy rights,” that “will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube. “

Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom [Wired] (Thanks, Everyone!)
Court ruling will expose viewing habits [YouTube]


Edit Your Comment

  1. emona says:

    They’re trying to prove that THEIR copyrighted videos are more popular than user-created videos, or that ALL copyrighted videos are? I read the Wired article twice, but the wording still confuses me.

    Having said that, I think this sucks.

  2. anibundel says:

    Does this mean Viacom is going to start following the music industry’s oh-so-successful model of filing lawsuits against those that consumed their content via the internet?

  3. azntg says:

    Google, what do you have to say for yourself? Tsk tsk.

  4. tedyc03 says:

    Anybody wonder whether or not this will prompt more RIAA lawsuits for distribution of copyrighted material on YouTube?

  5. tedyc03 says:

    @tedyc03: Damn, anibundel beat me to it.

  6. sleze69 says:

    If they intend to prove that their content is more watched than other content, why on earth do they need people’s IP addresses and user names? That seems a little over-reaching.

    And why didn’t Ben enable commenting on his “How to comment” article?

  7. tedyc03 says:

    @tedyc03: And I guess it would be the MPAA.

    Clearly I’m a tool who can’t read or think and I’ll go hide now. :-P

  8. Nyses says:

    Google must monitor the content, at some point? After all, people cannot upload, say, porn to YouTube, can they?

    Point being, if there are mechanisms in place, why are they not applied to copyrighted materials?

  9. Razorgirl says:

    The only way this should be allowed to happen is if all personally identifiable information is anonymized before the records are turned over. If Viacom is truly using this information for statistical research, there should be no need for users actual logins/IPs etc. Shame on Viacom for trying to get us to buy their explanation of “need”, and shame on Google for keeping the information in the first place.

    The court truly blew it on this one.

  10. Bladefist says:

    This is actually a much bigger deal. In the past, as far as I am concerned, you really couldn’t get in any trouble for visiting a site and looking at its content. Except for maybe child porn. In the past, you weren’t a criminal unless you hit the download button.

    Now, just being on a website, you can get in a lot of trouble. The internet is heading down a dangerous road, and I hope google stands up to this. Hell, pay off some senators, do something, we can’t let this happen.

    I understand technically, your browser caches the youtube video, so it’s similar to downloading, but come on. That is no where as criminal as going after a .torrent file of a full movie. Shame on them.

  11. logicalnoise says:

    so viacom has asked for literally petabytes of data? or if google wants to a few dozen trucks of paper. Otehr have mentioned that Youtube stores all it’s records for teh vdieos under video ids meaning even when viacom gests tehdata they’re going to have to look up every video id to ever know what it was for and the thing is that if viacom filed for a DMCA take down all they’ll get is a standard “this video has been removed due to a DMCA takedown request” messege.

  12. Gilbert Tang, Jr. says:

    I completely agree that this is a setback for privacy rights. To what end does having a user’s name/IP address serve Viacom in proving whether Viacom Video X is more/less popular than User Video X? Anonymous data could serve the very same purpose.

    What prevents Viacom from looking at this very same data and using it as a mailing list of sorts to attack those it believes infringed on its copyrights? In no way am I suggesting infringement is appropriate, but finding them in a manner giving them access to data of this sort is akin to saying their assuming all are guilty until proven innocent.

    I hope Google/YouTube takes this to appeals (duh). I’m curious as to how they will interpret the rationale behind this ruling on privacy.

  13. MPHinPgh says:

    @tedyc03: Don’t be so hard on yourself. After all, it’s kind of a Friday afternoon…

  14. Gilbert Tang, Jr. says:

    @logicalnoise: Four terabytes = .004 petabytes.

  15. arniec says:

    This has been the danger of Google all along. Google’s motto (cute as it was) was “Do no evil”, but by storing this data, the ABILITY to use it for evil was there.

    For example, if you built a world-destroying weapon but vowed to never use it, the fact that you created the weapon in the first place makes you somewhat culpable when some “evil doer” (turning Google’s phrase, not coining a Bushism) takes your weapon and blows everything up.

    Google could CHOOSE not to store this. They could CHOOSE to store all data anonymously. But then it wouldn’t have the marketability as not all the data can be linked.

    But the hope was “It’s Google. They do no evil. So my data is safe with them. I know they have all this on me, but I trust them with it.”

    And now what I KNEW would happen has happened–the government gave an order that said “gimme”. I expected it, honestly, to happen due to some federal investigation, not because Viacom are a bunch of whiny bitches, but nonetheless it has happened.

    Worst: it’s a drop in the bucket compared to all the data Google has on us, but it now sets a precedent for the next company to pull all gmail records, and the next to pull all Google Calendar records, etc, etc, etc. Finally our search history etc. will be open. And not just to Google, and not just to the government, but to a corporation like Viacom.

    This should be appealed, resisted, and even go to the Supreme Court if need be…but if Google gives in, bye bye privacy.

  16. Difdi says:

    I wonder if turning over the Judge’s personal data to a private corporation or publicly publish, it would also be a merely “speculative” invasion of privacy, in his opinion?

  17. Concerned_Citizen says:

    They should be limited to the data of videos only covered under copyrights they hold. This judge is crazy. They easily could have proved the exact same thing by providing a list of infringing videos and asking for specific information on those, but aggregate totals and statistics on all other videos.
    Now they have a ton of data which according to the RIAA is more than enough to sue someone over infringement. I cannot wait till we get the first lawsuits based on video titles with the word “daily” and “show” in them that of course had nothing to do with the “daily show”. Every YouTube user now has to worry about a lawsuit from Viacom weather they did anything illegal or not.

  18. XianZomby says:

    The law keeps Viacom from inappropriately using users’ wacky screen names and whatever “personal data” they may have entered into the YouTube website. What that information could be, I don’t know. I certainly didn’t tell them my underwear size or home address.

    The biggest fear from this should be that Viacom will finally be able to prove what everybody knows but pretends they don’t ever see or understand: users spend a lot of time on YouTube watching and illegally uploading copyrighted music videos, TV shows and movie clips. Surprise.

    I wish they’d do the same for P2P, so they can have numbers. Then all those people so hell bent on damning Comcast et al. for infringing on their “right” to transfer gigabyte-size files over the network 24 hours a day will no longer be able to keep a straight face when they say they don’t understand why copyright holders should be suspicious of them and would want more accountability.

  19. InThrees says:

    Do the logs differentiate between 5 seconds of playback and me going “This sucks, close window” and watching the entire thing?

  20. howie_in_az says:

    @Nyses: In another article about this on ArsTechnica ([arstechnica.com]), it’s stated that Google’s code “scans incoming videos against a database of video fingerprints; matches are flagged for human follow-up”. Google would need a video fingerprint of the TV show (for example) from Viacom, then they could scan their db for possibly infringing content.

    As far as porn goes, I think there have been numerous cases where porn or illegal material (eg Girls Gone Wild-style stuff with minors) has been taken down after the YouTube community flags it as such. There’s far too much incoming data for Google to review every video.

  21. sleze69 says:

    Sounds like a good time to organize an internet boycott of all things Viacom.

    Although I am not sure I really watch any Viacom stuff anyway.

  22. Drowner says:

    @logicalnoise: I’m never really a grammer nazi, but I had to read your post 4 times to decipher your words.

    Anywho, congrats to the judge for catching that data retention policy/ IP address slip up on google’s part. It would appear Google’s legal department didn’t debate in high school…

  23. NikkiSweet says:

    @Nyses: the community at large monitors what is uploaded, and then flags it if its inappropriate. I’ve seen several 10 minute long full on porn videos posted that took months to remove, because people were uploading them and then setting them to “friends only.”

    @InThrees: depending on how they log, sorta… while it won’t give you an exact length that you watched, if you browsed to another page, you could compare date/times with video lengths…

    And it was my understanding that Viacom is requesting access to ALL videos that have been removed, not just the ones that they specifically own. Why should viacom have access to content it doesn’t own, and has no claim to? How would that prove anything?

    In my experience, the most popular videos on youtube are the ones of girls shaking their half naked asses to hip hop… Sorry viacom.

  24. @sleze69: Probably b/c of the fallout from when Gizmodo did it and what that devolved into, namely repeating everything the article said not to repeat, and people apologizing for breaking the rules once or twice, just in case.

    Does anyone know how MUCH info they will be handing over? By how much, how many billions of records and how much data in file size. It’s almost the def of information overload. I for one have been known to watch 10 videos in a row. Hell, I wonder how many pages “Battle at Krueger” is going to be. And what about embed videos. Is there a record for every page load?

  25. Ah! That explains the sudden absence on YouTube of a whole slew of videos…

  26. Skiffer says:

    Just to clarify both the consumerist and wired post – they had to turn over “user names”…not “user’s names” – if that makes any difference.

    I could see how IP addresses / user names could be needed, instead of pure anonymous data. There’s some strength to “our video was watched 10,000 times by 10,000 different users” instead of “10,000 times by 10 users”.

    Still, yes – you could still sterilize the data and keep the same “multiple views” information…but that would take time and effort (money).

  27. Skiffer says:

    @Git Em SteveDave wants a Lego build buddy: For user name, ip address, video ID, date and time – let’s conservatively assume 100 characters.

    4,000,000,000 bytes / 2 bytes per character / 100 characters per log entry = 20 million log entries

    Now if they compressed the log data instead of a straight text file…oh boy…

  28. howie_in_az says:

    @Gilbert: Because it’s harder to fake numbers when there’s real data backing them up? Google could just say “two people viewed your infringing content, omg swaerz!”. If Google has to supply the IP addresses and usernames (if available), lying about it becomes a lot more difficult. I don’t agree that giving users’ IP addresses out is A Good Thing(tm), but I can understand where Viacom is coming from.

    @InThrees: They can probably determine that based on how much data was sent before the connection closed.

    @Concerned_Citizen: Yes ok, but how do you identify videos on YouTube owned (intellectual property-wise) by a given entity? Google has their own fingerprinting technique, but an h.264 encode will fingerprint differently than an xvid encode, and resizing both will result in different fingerprints… so how many permutations do you check against?

  29. Andronicus1717 says:

    @XianZomby: “The law keeps Viacom from inappropriately using users’ wacky screen names and whatever “personal data” they may have entered into the YouTube website. What that information could be, I don’t know.”

    What law is this that you speak of?

    O, and you should leave the internet immediately. Do not pass GO.

  30. Skiffer says:

    @Skiffer: Doh…damn metric…I missed 1,000

    20 billion log entries…

  31. Viacom’s about to find how much porn gets deleted (and that most users are looking for this verboten porn, not 10 minutes of some shitty TV show).

  32. stacye says:

    This looked more like a motion by Viacom to gleam every bit of source code, and operating procedures of YouTube, then an attempt to thwart piracy.

    Viacom wanted source code of the Video ID code, their search, user search keywords to their videos, database schemas, and advertising.

    Google was their own undoing for the ruling on user ID and IP addresses (see pages 11 – 14 of the judges ruling).

  33. NikkiSweet says:

    @Skiffer: I read it was 12Tb, not 4. Still… that’s a fairly big dataset…

  34. Christovir says:

    I totally agree this is a very dangerous step… But aside from the (im)morality of this, the supposed utility is equally questionable. One of the claimed objectives for requiring this information is to look at the relative popularity of copyrighted videos compared to user-generated videos. But how could this possibly be done without knowing the copyright status of each video? Anyone who has looked for a music video or concert knows most of the returns are user-generated knock-offs. Titles aren’t useful in determining copy-right status, and even watching the video itself it can be very difficult to know if the content is copyright infringing. This is a data-grab, plain and simple.

  35. @NikkiSweet: They’ll need Nedry to get in there to debug all the lines of code. That’s one big excel file.

  36. Gilbert Tang, Jr. says:

    @howie_in_az: I understand the implications, but again, not only do we have to protect our right to privacy, but we have to operate under the notion that Google and YouTube are innocent until proven guilty and that they will abide by their sworn submissions.

    It’s up to Viacom to prove any attempts to alter the numbers on the defendants’ part, not up to them to unnecessarily view sensitive data under the guise of preventing otherwise.

  37. mgy says:

    @sleze69: The other guy pretty much nailed it on the head. The first instinct when an article says “don’t respond with ‘lol’ is to respond with ‘lol'”.

    We’re all a little childish like that sometimes. Maybe just me.

  38. NikkiSweet says:

    @Git Em SteveDave wants a Lego build buddy: “Yeah, so I’m going to need you to come in on Saturday…”

  39. greatgoogly says:

    At the risk of being “agist”, Judge Louis Stanton is over 80 years old (Reagan appointee, 1985). How come I detect another believer that the internet is “a series of pipes”. As someone else suggested I hope Google hands over the data on trucks full of the data printed out from old dot matrix printers… Good luck digging through that…

  40. @greatgoogly: Ahhh, I can just imagine the sounds of a thousand dot matrix printers running with a box of paper in the front, a box in the back, and a mile long sheet of that old connected paper with the tear off holed sides. Then someone over at Viacom has to pay someone to rip each page apart, and also the edges off. I see some guys in hard hats and hearing protection, carrying little oil cans, and walking in between the printers giving them some oil now an then. Ahhh, the deafening clacking!!!!

  41. kspray-dad says:

    So if I am surfing through Ultrasurf (or TOR for that matter) I’m aok right?

  42. cjnewbs says:

    @Skiffer: 1 Character takes 1 byte, not 2.

  43. XianZomby says:

    @Andronicus1717: What law? This ruling by a federal judge, which I consider to be “law”:

    “Google has been ordered to turn over YouTube user data to Viacom. But Viacom will be guilty of contempt of court if it uses that data for anything other than specifically proving the prevalence of piracy on YouTube, a source close to Viacom told CNET News.com on Thursday.

    That’s serious business. Contempt of court is the sort of thing that can get a lawyer’s license taken away.

    On Wednesday night, a federal judge ruled that Google must turn over YouTube user activity–videos watched, IP addresses, usernames–to legal foe Viacom as part of a long-running copyright infringement case. But the source told CNET News.com that a heavy protective order is in place that will keep individuals’ personal information cloaked.”


    Perhaps you should use the internet more. You might learn something.

  44. ShadowFalls says:

    Youtube keeps a record of views for a particular video, is that not good enough for them to know how often content is watched?

    I can’t believe how badly the court system screwed up here. It is clear what Viacom’s interests are, they don’t need IP addresses for their “study”. This information can be clearly used to obtain identifiable information, that is why they want it.


    You mention this article regarding a “protective order”, but the judge ordered the IP addresses released too, which is it? With an IP address, they can just go to the ISP and demand that information, with no proof of anything, as they always have.

  45. newfenoix says:

    It’s time to start class-action suits against VIACOM.

  46. @newfenoix: I agree. My user name on Youtube is my real name (like here), so unless Google anonymizes it, then I think I fall in to the EFF’s class of non-anonymous users:

    If any single one of the YouTube users in the Logging database picked a Login ID that does identify that user (i.e. if my YouTube login was kurtopsahl), then the Logging database’ information about viewing habits is protected by the VPPA, even if others pick anonymous pseudonyms. [www.eff.org]

    If anyone could guess from my first post here, Viacom will soon know how much time I spend on Youtube searching for “sexy lesbian girls kissing” or “stripper babes pole dancing hot”.

  47. @Michael Belisle: When I say “I agree” I mean “Wait until Google announces their intentions with respect to this ruling, and then see why my lawyers say.”

  48. ibored says:

    notably..or perhaps not…they don’t mention the actual videos in there. I think gogole shouuld include them for free. Just fing brain dump all of youtube on viacom and watch them struggle to breath. Datamining may by a neat new tool but I highly doubt viacom is equipped to handle what would be petabytes of information.

  49. superlayne says:

    You’d think from sheer volume of the information it would be useful.

  50. superlayne says:

    Useless. Useless! Totaly changed my comment’s message right there.

  51. toddiot says:

    I’m seriously wishing I voted Viacom for Worst Company In The World.

  52. The_IT_Crone says:

    This kind of scares the crap out of me.

    We should mass post “screw Viacom” videos on YouTube, then MOB them to show that homemade videos are watched more. And that we hate Viacom.

  53. weste7679 says:

    oh boy, pandora’s box is slowly opening. first, i can’t believe the judge bought the argument that viacom needs ip addresses and personally identifiable data to prove its videos are more popular than amateur vids. second, i can just envision a new spate of infringement suits against youtube users viewing such content (but not downloading it). more likely, suits against those individuals posting infringing content. finally, maybe google should take a lesson from this and stop stockpiling personally identifiable data for so long.

  54. silentreformation says:

    This is going to prove a landmark case. The real heart of the matter is that the DMCA holds uploaders, not hosts, responsible for unauthorized content. As a member of the creative industry, this is a big deal to me. Piracy is growing rapidly and simple sites like YouTube and its ilk are making it far too easy to pirate media.

    I don’t like to see anyone’s privacy invaded, and this order is dangerously close to doing that. But at the same time this could help several industries that are struggling under the weight of piracy.

    I am hoping Viacom wins this lawsuit, so that content hosts are forced to monitor what is put up on their sites. I would be heartbroken if I ever saw any of my work thrown up on youtube or something similar, and this would put a huge dent in that possibility.

    If Viacom wins I think there will be a decrease in RIAA-style lawsuits, as hosts will become the targets, not end users. Of course users won’t be able to download pirated media anymore, but then thats a GOOD thing.

  55. Echomatrix says:

    whats worse? That they have to hand over the information, or that they have it to hand over…

  56. arcticJKL says:

    Is it now illegal to WATCH illegal movies?

  57. jamar0303 says:

    Looks like I’m sticking to NicoVideo.

  58. GamblesAC2 says:

    @Michael Belisle: I too wonder what will happen with my screen name on youtube beacuse mine is also my name (seangamble2)….. but I’m just guessing that for YT members like us they’re gonna do 1 of 2 things
    1) Have us choose new screen names (yeah pretty unlikely)
    2)send us overe without anonimisation

    this situation sucks… if only there were a way we could legally,and quickly, send viacom,and other big media companies such as news corp., the message that this kiind of behavior on thir part is pissing we the consumers off.
    @The_IT_Crone: already happend when the viacommies first filed the lawsuits but it didnt work….even when people stared puting angry messages on viacom’s profile…..which, oddly enough, is a page on youtube…I wonder if their account is still open?

  59. Jesse in Japan says:

    That’s got to be tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. How is Viacom supposed to sort through all of that?

  60. thecodingeye says:

    @sleze69: Exactly. YouTube lists the number of plays for each video on their website.

  61. XianZomby says:

    @ShadowFalls: I guess Viacom could contact ISPs with individual user information. But what would they say to them? “We can’t tell you how we know this, because a federal judge has told us we’d be in contempt of court … but a user at IP address xxx has recently illegally uploaded videos to YouTube. So do you think you can just give us his home address but not tell anybody we asked?”

  62. @GamblesAC2: Some more recent reports suggest that they’ll likely figure out an anonymizing solution and Viacom will not have direct access to the data. And to think I was all excited to pitch myself as a test case for the “user names do not imply anonymity” lawsuit.

    I do like the idea of being able to contest the handover of my information or even (gasp!) having a way to access everything Google knows about me. I wonder what would happen if I sent a FOIA-like request to Google. Yeah, I know they’re not a government entity, but maybe we need an FOIA for our dealings with corporations in the internet age.

    @weste7679: finally, maybe google should take a lesson from this and stop stockpiling personally identifiable data for so long.

    I agree. It’s alarming that it sounds like Google never deletes anything (if, for example, they turn out to have copies of every deleted or pulled video, ever).

  63. jaewon223 says:

    No appeals?? I don’t understand how handing over IP address is just “speculative” when it EXACTLY identifies the user.

  64. Skankingmike says:

    Fristly the only thing they’ll find is that people watch the user created ones wayy more like.. somebody on wii fit in their underwear or chicks semi stripping see the top viewed stuff.

    Viacom will come up with a weak argument and then Google will counter sue, there’s no way Google doesn’t have something planed for this they’re way to big of a company now to be blind sided by something without an appeal.

    You watch.

  65. varro says:

    @weste7679: Expect the spate of lawsuits against children, searches for similar but non-infringing strings (e.g., “South Park” the high school in PA, not the show), and a massive sale of the data to data miners.

    I don’t trust Viacom for a minute to abide by the protective order. Google/YouTube’s request to redact the user id and IP information is a reasonable one, as well as restricting the information to outside attorneys with a punitive clause if the information is leaked, and destruction of all copies of the information when the lawsuit concludes.

    Of course, I also like the idea of overwhelming the Viacom lawyers with (literally) tons of useless information.

  66. katurian says:

    The major flaw with this verdict is one line “IP addresses of computers aren’t personally revealing in and of themselves”. With the AOL data ‘leak’ of IP addresses and search terms sleuths were easily able to identify certain persons and then connect that to possibly embarrassing search terms – breach of privacy.

    Take an IP address and username, you probably have video footage of that person, from the videos you could be able to get their first name at least. Narrow that first name, age and geographic area (based on IP) – you have a good chance of find exactly who the person is.

    Now everything that person has ever looked at is open to whomever. Everyone will know that John Doe likes watching foot fetish videos, or Brittany Spears videos.

    This could in fact be dangerous to certain young girls who post silly videos that a pedophile would be interested in. I’m sure there are a dozen more scenarios that could be harmful to a person’s body or reputation.

    This is speculation on my part, but I’ve always felt if there’s a 1 in a million chance of something happening it will happen.

    I’m really surprised that with the power of Google they were not able to fight this.

  67. agency says:

    @Bladefist: Contrary to the MPAA commercials you so readily believe there is nothing “criminal” to downloading your average torrent while having no commercial profit motive although it may be actionable in civil court.

    Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer and this is an opinon, not legal advice.

  68. rjgnyc says:

    @arcticJKL: They’re not trying to do that (in this case, at least), what it looks like they’re trying to do is show that more unique people (IPs/usernames) view *their* stuff on average as opposed to someone’s new video of their kid falling over or a meowing cat or something.

    While I dislike the methods to the madness, I can’t fault Viacom for being annoyed that people on Youtube are distributing their content. And one of the best ways to show that Youtube is making money off of your own content is to show how many unique people are visiting that content, how many are even coming back to see it again and again, etc.

  69. rjgnyc says:

    I would even go so far as to request the clickthrough rates for the targeted advertising that appears on those videos, just to see if the rate is higher than content that isn’t yours, or just to show that people going to see “Video X” are very likely to clickthrough the ads associated with it.

  70. Rando says:

    Users should counter sue for invasion of privacy

  71. macMD says:

    Its pretty clear that once Viacom has this data the users can expect to see their lawsuits jump. The old guard of content is not happy with taking your money at POS they want it over and over and over. So lets cut back, way back on the consumption everywhere, period.

  72. @sleze69: so people wouldn’t bitch about it.

  73. GamblesAC2 says:

    @Michael Belisle: “And to think I was all excited to pitch myself as a test case for the “user names do not imply anonymity” lawsuit”. lol… Thats exactly what I was thinking.
    your right, for viacom this isnt about proving video viewership this is all about collecting personally Identifiable info most likely for direct marketing or to simply find a reason to sue someone for which they had no reason to before. and also whats to stop viacom from simpily puting an IP tracking bug on any one of the IP adresses that they recive… I mean its happend before, The cult of scientology has put trackers on the IP’s of their precived enemies. so whats to stop a multi-national media conglomerate from using a discrete tracking bug. either way viacom is becoming dangerous to mess with….well leagly anyway.

  74. GamblesAC2 says:

    @GamblesAC2: umm okay the coding I used on that comment didnt work out too well…..

  75. ninjatoddler says:

    The court’s decision to award a Viacom even a partial victory like this shows that the government sponsors corporate greed over the privacy rights of their citizens. If there’s a way for people to show solidarity with Google against Viacom, please direct me to one.

  76. famousmortimer78 says:

    So if I’m understanding this right, Google will share user info with Viacom to fight piracy, and the Chinese government to fight dissent, but not the FBI to fight child pornographers.


  77. wdnobile says:

    Time to boycott Viacomm and these privacy destroying companies

  78. Ein2015 says:

    I really hope Google challenges this to keep user privacy in place. They can easily turn over logs on hits-per-video without admitting what usernames or what IPs watched them. *sigh*