Monday, July 25, 2016 • Morning Edition • "Where your childhood dreams don't have to die alone."

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

YouTube: be careful what you watch

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

nietoperz

The Goddamn Bat-min

Postby nietoperz » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:00 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm

Civil liberties take a new blow.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:02 am

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25509046/

Be careful what you search for online, too.
User avatar

kingbobb

Great Scott!!!

Postby kingbobb » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:02 am

I predict the order will be stayed pending appeal, and it'll be overturned on appeal. That's just such a massive invasion of privacy, all in the name of protecting ideas...which the heart of copyright law is to encourage the spreading of. This will only inhibit the spread of ideas.
User avatar

nietoperz

The Goddamn Bat-min

Postby nietoperz » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:05 am

kingbobb wrote:I predict the order will be stayed pending appeal, and it'll be overturned on appeal. That's just such a massive invasion of privacy, all in the name of protecting ideas...which the heart of copyright law is to encourage the spreading of. This will only inhibit the spread of ideas.


I do hope you're right, Bobb. I also wonder how legal it is for the US Government to demand the viewing logs for non-American YouTube users.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:05 am

kingbobb wrote:I predict the order will be stayed pending appeal, and it'll be overturned on appeal. That's just such a massive invasion of privacy, all in the name of protecting ideas...which the heart of copyright law is to encourage the spreading of. This will only inhibit the spread of ideas.


I wish I had your optimism.

The Juan Percenter

Rain Partier

Postby The Juan Percenter » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:05 am

kingbobb wrote:I predict the order will be stayed pending appeal, and it'll be overturned on appeal. That's just such a massive invasion of privacy, all in the name of protecting ideas...which the heart of copyright law is to encourage the spreading of. This will only inhibit the spread of ideas.


I was thinking this would be overturned as well.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:05 am

Nothing to do with civil liberties IMO. It's a private business dispute.

As part of a private dispute, parties, where relevant, can get access what services were used as part of a business dispute

That's in part how you assess damages.

If you allege someone harmed your business, say, your entitled to the business records as part of the lawsuit.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:11 am

People forget, it's not private. Your using services-companies to access the internet, companies while you're on the internet. Much of it is categorized and kept as business records.

It's essentially no different than you walking into a store and purchasing something or using their services.

You've entered the world and are no longer in the privacy of your own home, despite posting in your underwear.

If you do it from work, your using your work's resources which they have every right to look at and fire you for or limit.

True, a government would have to get a warrant for the records, especially if the business don't cooperate.

But this is civil discovery.

and unless something is passed that specifically protects it-like say health records in the US needing to comply with HIPAA, it's not private. It's not your record, and you have no expectation of privacy.

Google may have made certain contractual promises to you. But that can be overriden in a civil action.
User avatar

C20Percent

rubber spoon

Postby C20Percent » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:12 am

It doesn't say which U.S. Court made the ruling. Does anybody know?

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:16 am

A lot of things people don't think are available, are.

Shop at a supermarket, or a drug store, with one of those cards that give you a discount?

I can subpoena what you buy on those cards, if it is relevant.

and we have.

We subpoened records from CVS to see if someone was buying stuff for an injury they claimed to have. That caused them to need adult diapers constantly.

Well, we found out how often they bought those diapers.
User avatar

kingofcities

dINGO

Postby kingofcities » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:18 am

Seems pretty dumb.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:19 am

Spiderrob wrote:A lot of things people don't think are available, are.

Shop at a supermarket, or a drug store, with one of those cards that give you a discount?

I can subpoena what you buy on those cards, if it is relevant.

and have.


Only part of the reason I only use cash.

I get your point, but it's still important to be aware of these things. I thin the RIAA and it's UK equivalent have shown us all how far these companies are willing to go, and how far the legal system will allow them to go. You tend to see these things as set-in-stone constants, I see them as stepping stones.

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:21 am

C20Percent wrote:It doesn't say which U.S. Court made the ruling. Does anybody know?


Federal court for the Southern District of New York

Which is, frankly, generally one of the top courts of the country IMO.
They could be overturned but I wouldn't necessarily think they would be.

It would go to the 2nd Circuit.

After that, the Supreme Court could take it.
User avatar

lancer_man

Expert Post Whore

Postby lancer_man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:27 am

So somebody is going going to stand up in court and say, "This guy, lacer_man, regularly seaches for 'boobies' on youtube."

Spidey-Man

Postby Spidey-Man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 11:27 am

nietoperz wrote: I also wonder how legal it is for the US Government to demand the viewing logs for non-American YouTube users.


It's not really the US government. It's a private party that got a court decision, true.

But this is not the same thing as the President looking at phone records like the other issues.

I would submit the viewing logs aren't yours or any non-Americans.

The viewing logs belong to google/youtube.

Now, google probably could have stored those logs anonymously somehow on their end. Business records that don't collect user data.

But they didn't.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck] and 26 guests