http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/ Switched Comments for Judge Orders YouTube to Hand Over User Data http://www.switched.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.switched.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/Warning for people thinking about buying a LCD TV or Laptop: The worst laptop in the market today is Averatec. I purchased a 12.1" laptop and could not get the customer service to even respond and when they responded they said I should find a local laptop repair shop to help me at my own expense. I paid a lot of money for this laptop and has taken it in for repairs 4 times and finally dumped it. This is the most terrible manufacturer one can ever encounter. I bought it based on a recommendation by PC Magazine, so be careful when you read these recommendations. Walmart and a lot of other stores have stopped carrying this brand. For those considering LDC HDTV, forget about Olevia/Syntax brand. The product is terrible and the customer service is the definition of "chaos". I paid $1500.00 for the tv, but have lost sound/audio and pictures/video a couple of times in just a couple of years. They don't have authorized dealers, so you either have to ship it to them for repairs at your own expense or hope to find a handy person locally to fix it for you.
]]>Jul 4th 2008 4:32PMhttp://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/Jul 5th 2008 12:22AMhttp://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/Jul 5th 2008 1:54AMhttp://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/The Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710:) was created in 1988 to prevent what it refers to as "wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records." Congress passed the VPPA after Robert Bork's video rental history was published during his Supreme Court nomination (EPIC). It makes any "video tape service provider" that discloses rental information outside the ordinary course of business liable for up to $2500 in actual damages.

Whether or not the court's ruling is proper turns on the interpretation of "wrongful" in relation to the requested records within the context of the forum in which the records were requested and for the purpose the records were requested. When a right (such as copyright protection), or the public good, is served by the release of the information within a court proceeding, it would not be wrongful and would not be a violation of the law. Google is trying to stretch the law too far by hiding behind it to protect itself, while at the same time claiming to be protecting the privacy of You Tube viewers.

A class action lawsuit against Blockbuster Inc. was filed over the release of customer rental and sales records to Facebook through the controversial Facebook Beacon program. The lawsuit alleged the release of the records was a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. This is the type of wrongfulness the statute addresses. Whether or not the release of IP addresses to prove copyright infringement of a wrongdoer will most likely survive an appeal, because using the statute as a shield to protect a wrongdoer was not the intention of the legislature in enacting the statute. Rather, the statute was intended to protect consumers from unscrupulous business practices, not to protect companies when they engage in illegal conduct.

But in the end, it all comes down to the statute, and this is what non-lawyers, including groups like Electronic Frontier Foundation conveniently ignore, relying instead on emotional arguments. What the law requires is that . . .

"A video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person . . . "

However, it goes on to say, "(2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally identifiable information concerning any consumer in certain enumerated instances, one of which is —

". . . pursuant to a court order, in a civil proceeding upon a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot be accommodated by any other means, if—

(i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding relevant to the issuance of the court order; and

(ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure.

If an order is granted pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (F), the court shall impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure."

The article by Terrance O'Brien did not address the law, it only addressed the emotion.

An example of a violation of the VPPA is Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City, 248 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001) (
the Tin Drum case).

In 1997, an Oklahoma citizen complained that the academy award-winning German movie The Tin Drum contained child pornography and therefore violated Oklahoma law. The police took the film to a local judge, who informally viewed it and agreed that it was probably child porn. The police subsequently went to neighborhood video stores and removed all copies of The Tin Drum, and obtained, without a warrant, the names of those who were currently renting it. One copy had been rented by a local ACLU employee who got wind of the impending seizure and wanted to see if the movie was really objectionable. Police came to Mr. Camfield's house and asked for the cassette, which he handed over after some discussion of "the artistic merits of the movie."

The court found that the city violated Camfield's rights under the VPPA by obtaining his rental records without a court order or warrant. He was awarded the statutory minimum of $2500 and a victory for civil liberties. However, it appears the decision turned on the issue of the city acting independent of a court order or warrant, thereby making it an unlawful search and seizure in violation of Article 4 of the Constitution and also in violation of the VPPA.

I doubt Google will be able to hide behind VPPA and use it as a shield to its own wrongdoing because of the exception built into the law.]]>Jul 5th 2008 12:00PMhttp://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/Jul 7th 2008 8:51AMhttp://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/Jul 7th 2008 9:16AMhttp://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/http://www.switched.com/2008/07/04/judge-orders-youtube-to-hand-over-user-data/Jul 27th 2008 5:33PM