Update in Google v Viacom showdown: Google wins agreement to anonymise YouTube logs

After the landmark judgement in which Google was ordered by a New York Judge to hand over data containing usernames and IP addresses of users who viewed YouTube clips which contained copyrighted material, Google has been allowed to anonymise the data. This partially diffuses fears about the privacy of users on the Internet, as a decision to disallow anonymising the data would have had serious repercussions for users. It would be like a television station being asked to uncover the names and addresses of all viewers of a certain show in which copyright was infringed (which anyone would agree would be a gross violation of privacy). Why should Internet users not have the same rights to privacy?

However, Google employees will be exempt, and they will determine how to share this information in the coming weeks. This is likely in a bid to prove that Google was aware that there was copyrighted material on YouTube.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued that this order threatens to expose deeply private information. They further claim that this is a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act 1988. The act has several important provisions:

• A general ban on the disclosure of personally identifiable rental information unless the consumer consents specifically and in writing.
• Disclosure to police officers only with a valid warrant or court order.
• Disclosure of "genre preferences" along with names and addresses for marketing, but allowing customers to opt out.
• Exclusion of evidence acquired in violation of the Act
• Civil remedies, including possible punitive damages and attorneys fees, not less than $2500.
• A requirement that video stores destroy rental records no longer than one year after an account is terminated.
• The VPPA does not preempt state law. That is, states are free to enact broader protections for individuals' records.

As a federal court noted with respect to the civil discovery subsection:

… in construing the scope of the Act, this Court must strive to protect this aspect of an individual's right to privacy in the face of technological innovations that threaten this fundamental right.

Dirkes v. Borough of Runnemede, 936 F.Supp. 235 (D.N.J. 1996). Accordingly, a YouTube video qualifies as audio visual material under the VPPA.

Furthermore, it appears that Google have made yet another privacy faux pas. It appears that through their Google calendar, users can access other users gmail addresses. It doesn't seem to be a good year for Google and privacy.