What's new

Google Is Ordered To Identify Who Watched Certain YouTube Videos

Alchemedia

Decomposer
US federal law enforcement and courts have gone a step further in the extreme efforts they are making to surveil people’s activities online, including on Google’s vast platforms.

The latest is that the tech giant gets orders to identify all people who happen to be watching certain videos or livestreams on YouTube.

After directly censoring creators and channels, giving geolocation data of its users to the authorities in response to the controversial geofencing warrants, this is a new example of how Google can be used and abused in dragnet-style “investigations.”

Unmasking everyone who watched a particular video is similar to geofencing in that it makes everyone a suspect – and this, a number of experts and rights groups believe, is unconstitutional, i.e., in violation of the 4th Amendment, that protects from unreasonable searches.

Forbes writes that it has had access to several orders that name certain YouTube videos, citing one unsealed case originating in Kentucky and having to do with people viewing content posted by a user who law enforcement suspects of money laundering for selling bitcoin for cash.

Undercover agents had contacted the user, sending links to drone mapping and AR tutorials, to next turn to Google, asking to be told who watched the videos.

The videos had more than 30,000 views, and a court ordered that any user who did, between January 1 and 8, 2003, must be thoroughly unmasked.

The order wanted names, addresses, phone numbers, and account activity of each Google user, and IP addresses of everyone who watched the videos without an account.

“It’s fair to expect that law enforcement won’t have access to that (sensitive personal) information without probable cause,” commented Electronic Privacy Information Center’s John Davisson. “This order turns that assumption on its head.”

When the police asked for the order to be issued, they stated, “There is reason to believe that these records would be relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Although Google complied with the demand to keep silent about all this until the records were unsealed last week, according to Forbes, they “do not show whether or not Google provided data in the case.”

A separate case in New Hampshire concerned a bomb threat in a public place, and people watching a livestream of the police searching the area. The livestream was possible thanks to a camera on nearby business premises.

Next, the police wanted to know exactly who watched it, including on a YouTube channel belonging to Boston and Maine Live, which has 130,000 subscribers.

Again, no word if Google delivered.

 
This is truly worrying.

I have a totally degoogled tech existence (Murena Phone with e/os custom rom) ..except for YouTube. I need to investigate ways to watch content without my ip being tracked.

But..surely Google do not have the individual names of who watches a paricular video? Only the ISP would have that and, certainly in Europe, they are not obliged to turn that kind of information over.
They could turn over people with a Google account and logged in I guess.
 
I'd be very surprised if this hadn't been happening behind the curtains for years.

I mean it's public knowledge that DARPA funded Google's early efforts.


But..surely Google do not have the individual names of who watches a paricular video?
If you're logged in they do have the Google account but AFAIK you can create one anonymously.
 
This is truly worrying.

I have a totally degoogled tech existence (Murena Phone with e/os custom rom) ..except for YouTube. I need to investigate ways to watch content without my ip being tracked.

But..surely Google do not have the individual names of who watches a paricular video? Only the ISP would have that and, certainly in Europe, they are not obliged to turn that kind of information over.
They could turn over people with a Google account and logged in I guess.
I'm wondering where you're getting this from. As far as I know, tapping phones and requiring any and all internet information when courts demand it is perfectly fine and legal in Europe. I know it is in the Netherlands, there's entire divisions of government for it. There's just very strict rules. It's not at all uncommon.

EDIT: I do guess it's somewhat different as one has to be either worth of terrorism-levels of worry or be involved in a court case of some sort. But the bottom line is, subpoenaing data is very, very common in Europe. AFAIK.
 
Last edited:
I'd be very surprised if this hadn't been happening behind the curtains for years.

I mean it's public knowledge that DARPA funded Google's early efforts.



If you're logged in they do have the Google account but AFAIK you can create one anonymously.
I bet it has. We live in an age where no one keeps secrets.
 
I'm wondering where you're getting this from. As far as I know, tapping phones and requiring any and all internet information when courts demand it is perfectly fine and legal in Europe. I know it is in the Netherlands, there's entire divisions of government for it. There's just very strict rules. It's not at all uncommon.

EDIT: I do guess it's somewhat different as one has to be either worth of terrorism-levels of worry or be involved in a court case of some sort. But the bottom line is, subpoenaing data is very, very common in Europe. AFAIK.
In the UK, from the Guardian:
"it involves asking Internet Service Providers and mobile phone companies to store records of users' email and web traffic - not the content, but the destination. So the companies could be asked to hand over details of who you emailed and when, not what you were talking about"

And they need a court warrant I believe.
 
In the UK, from the Guardian:
"it involves asking Internet Service Providers and mobile phone companies to store records of users' email and web traffic - not the content, but the destination. So the companies could be asked to hand over details of who you emailed and when, not what you were talking about"

And they need a court warrant I believe.
That makes sense. I just know that I was once called in as a consultant in the NL for a presentation of digital workspace management... for a division that specialized in wiretapping. It was the most surreal thing, but I had to get a government certificate (VGG) and everything.
 
Undercover agents had contacted the user, sending links to drone mapping and AR tutorials, to next turn to Google, asking to be told who watched the videos.
This is the other bit of this story that's also worrying. In the US, purposeful entrapment by law enforcement has been used for many decades but it got on a whole new scale since 9/11. There have been instances where victims were essentially recruited and groomed for criminal activity during the entrapment in order to subsequently establish crime. Some were then killed during no-knock raid to arrest.
 
In the early 70s as a kid in NJ my biggest problem was running out of tape for my hockey stick. You knew when it was time to head home for dinner because the street lights came on. Walked right into the house because there was no need to lock the front door. If the phone rang and you didn't answer it in time, that was it. No idea who called, oh well. The TV was free with the 5 stations we got on the antenna, and privacy was a given.

Do we really need all the noise of today's mega-connected world? I'm starting to wonder.
 
In the early 70s as a kid in NJ my biggest problem was running out of tape for my hockey stick. You knew when it was time to head home for dinner because the street lights came on. Walked right into the house because there was no need to lock the front door. If the phone rang and you didn't answer it in time, that was it. No idea who called, oh well. The TV was free with the 5 stations we got on the antenna, and privacy was a given.

Do we really need all the noise of today's mega-connected world? I'm starting to wonder.
I concur!
 
In the early 70s as a kid in NJ my biggest problem was running out of tape for my hockey stick. You knew when it was time to head home for dinner because the street lights came on. Walked right into the house because there was no need to lock the front door. If the phone rang and you didn't answer it in time, that was it. No idea who called, oh well. The TV was free with the 5 stations we got on the antenna, and privacy was a given.

Do we really need all the noise of today's mega-connected world? I'm starting to wonder.
And in the '60s we walked around the neighborhood barefoot...
 
Top Bottom