What a stupid fricking article.

Authored by some Amish inbred commune residents, they seem unaware of the NSA, Carnivore, Poindexter, Total Information Awareness, or countless other spy programs capable of matching personal data and online activities.

Retards.

Control_this:What a stupid fricking article.

Authored by some Amish inbred commune residents, they seem unaware of the NSA, Carnivore, Poindexter, Total Information Awareness, or countless other spy programs capable of matching personal data and online activities.

Retards.

As disturbing and deeply wrong as that kind of thing is, TFA is right- the NSA doesn't care that you watched a Daily Show clip on YouTube.

Good to know....I couldn't handle the social ostracism of people knowing how many times I did "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" this week!

But deep down I wanted someone to know about my David Blaine Street Magic addiction

The government doesn't want to track all your activities 24/7, so we shouldn't mind if they allocate billions and pass new laws to allow it to track all our activities 24/7.

Silly.

robbiedo: Same thought, different way of putting it.

Link borked.

The point isn't what they want/don't want to do with it now. The point is that this paves the way for them doing it when they DO want to.

Besides, I don't want anyone to know what I've been watching. I'd have to move and change names.

CaptainWahoo:But deep down I wanted someone to know about my David Blaine Street Magic addiction

Clearly a cry for help.

I do.

So, what DO you watch on YouTube?

Cares (new window)
/Not really NSFW but just to be sure

Good, so I can watch this in peice

Link (new window)

This is like arguing, "Well, if you're not talking to terrorists then you shouldn't be worried if the government is illegally tapping your line." When my brother calls me our conversations may be swept up in a net that is then stored somewhere and not even listened to but it doesn't make it not an invasion of our privacy and civil liberties by the government.

Nobody gives a darn what you watch on Youtube until they do. Then watch out.

He's right and yet he's not.

I used to handle the copyright infringement notifications for my place of work. We'd get a letter on our abu­sen­ia­mo­d­c­o­m address, usually from the RIAA or the MPAA or their respective lawyers, telling us that a person at a given IP address at a given time downloaded X, Y and Z copyrighted material.

The way our lawyers saw it, our organization was liable for those infringements unless we blocked the PC that downloaded the material from the network, which would force whoever had done it to call the help desk, at which point we made them sign a liability waiver forcing releasing us from liability should they get sued.

The same is true of your ISP, I would imagine, so if they get served a warning from the RIAA that you've been pirating music...then they might just give you up without a fight.

It's ironic...they'll fight a court order telling them that they need to release mass amounts of personal information about customers...but as soon as another company threatens to sue them for MONEY...then they'll just roll over every time.

So there is something to worry about here, but realistically Viacom won't go around suing ten million people for watching clips of the daily show. They're more interested in Google's money than yours.

America?

That's probably one of the sanest articles I've read recently.

It's the principle of the matter for me, and for the same reason I don't want people digging through my underwear drawer. Do I have anything to hide? No. Do I value my privacy and want others to mind their own concerns? You're goddamn right.

what the fark is a 'paduan'?

FTFA: "If someone posts a "How to be a terrorist" video, the FBI might be very interested in who's watching it - but that's not you."

How to be a terrorist

Your data is a few lines on a terrabyte ocean.

Go ahead, find me.

mgyqmb:what the fark is a 'paduan'?

Jesting I think you might be, hmmm?

I actually have yet to be concerned about Viacom knowing what i've watched...or rather, what's been watched from my IP.
simple reason: millions of people use youtube. billions, maybe. but let's assume a reasonable 100 million, or roughly 1/3rd of the US population(last I checked, anyway). what they're going to get is not a concise list of "who's viewed what," but rather, a giant pile o' numbers that they'll quickly learn isn't really worth anything.
Thusly, I don't see any reason to be threatened by this.

I know nobody cares what I watch. That's because they gave up watching me back in 93, when they called off the vans.

JonnyBGoode:mgyqmb:what the fark is a 'paduan'?

Jesting I think you might be, hmmm?

Isn't it spelled padawan?

/hmm, if I'm right, I need to go give myself a swirly

ollin

Isn't it spelled padawan?


"P-E-D-O-P-H-I-L-E".

Yet.

mgyqmb:what the fark is a 'paduan'?

Someone who lives in Padua, obviously.

hecticthe13th simple reason: millions of people use youtube. billions, maybe. but let's assume a reasonable 100 million, or roughly 1/3rd of the US population(last I checked, anyway).

The sheer number of people who've been rickrolled (each of which is technically a case of copyright infringement) I think will dissuade them from taking any real widespread action towards the viewers.

B-b-b-but the subscribers to my YouTube channel...what will I tell them?!

no one cares ... yet

Cathedralmaster:hecticthe13th simple reason: millions of people use youtube. billions, maybe. but let's assume a reasonable 100 million, or roughly 1/3rd of the US population(last I checked, anyway).

The sheer number of people who've been rickrolled (each of which is technically a case of copyright infringement) I think will dissuade them from taking any real widespread action towards the viewers.

LOL. So true. Rick Astley is up there with James Brown in terms of lost potential profit due to copyright infringement. Perhaps they'll come up with some sort of Rickroll clause for the special cases.

Relax. No one gives a flying f*ck what you write in your blog, either.

BlueBook Quote 2008-07-05 05:54:17 PM
FTFA: "If someone posts a "How to be a terrorist" video, the FBI might be very interested in who's watching it - but that's not you."

How to be a terrorist

/will not click
//afraid of being al-qaeda-rolled

January of this year I watched a bunch of 9/11 truth videos on YouTube. February, a secret service guy came to my house. He said he would arrest me for going up against the government unless I let him hypnotize me. I am unhypnotizeable because I practice ninjutsu and watch anime. I pretended to be hypnotized and he left. Now I only use proxies to go on the internet.

I am not afraid of Viacom at all.

I hate to be cruel, but nobody cares what videos you watch. I know that comes as a shock because you think your web activities are pretty much the most important thing in the known universe, but the cold, hard truth is that no government agency, not the FBI or the NSA or XXX, gives a rat's ass what web sites you've visited. Whatever's below "inconsequential", that's you. If someone posts a "How to be a terrorist" video, the FBI might be very interested in who's watching it - but that's not you.


THIS


And it also applies to you self absorbed assholes who think that somehow the big bad government gives a crap about the useless drivel you babble about on your cell phones.

" Oooooo, they're spying on my important phone calls.......I better quote Ben Franklin"

such idiots

lmao

I'd have assumed that after all the crap the FBI did under Nixon and Hoover people would realize that they do in fact give a damn about what you look at. Not officially but people are people and abusing power is what we do. Even if what you do or watch is legal it doesn't mean someone in power won't go after you for it.

libbynomore2:THIS


And it also applies to you self absorbed assholes who think that somehow the big bad government gives a crap about the useless drivel you babble about on your cell phones.

" Oooooo, they're spying on my important phone calls.......I better quote Ben Franklin"

such idiots

lmao

Yes until their not quite 100% right algorithm accidentally labels you a terrorist and makes your life living hell from then on. Granted it's not like they ever make giant lists of potential terrorists that result in innocents getting harried or anything, for example when they try to fly on an airplane.

I see.......... nothing.

libbynomore2:And it also applies to you self absorbed assholes who think that somehow the big bad government gives a crap about the useless drivel you babble about on your cell phones.

" Oooooo, they're spying on my important phone calls.......I better quote Ben Franklin"

The point is not whether they're interested in my phone calls or my web activity. The point is that the government has no right to be interested in my phone calls or web activity without probable cause.

Farked? Anyone have the article?

1000Monkeys:Farked? Anyone have the article?

Yea, the NSA got ahold of them and told them they really do care


/not happy about the Viacom vs. Google Shiatfest

Phlux Quote 2008-07-05 05:49:40 PM
He's right and yet he's not.

I used to handle the copyright infringement notifications for my place of work. We'd get a letter on our abuse, usually from the RIAA or the MPAA or their respective lawyers, telling us that a person at a given IP address at a given time downloaded X, Y and Z copyrighted material.



No one has EVER gotten a copyright notice for DOWNLOADING a file, only for SHARING files while downloading, which is actually UPLOADING. That is what peer to peer software does while downloading files. That is why you should not use it to obtain copyrighted material.

I call bullshiat on you being the one handling copyright infringement notifications for your place of work.

No entries to print

WOW THAT IS A RELIEF

is this a flash or java thing? all I get is a blank page

studebaker hoch:
Your data is a few lines on a terrabyte ocean.

Go ahead, find me.

1. You have an IP. A unique address so packets know where to go.
2. ISPs 'own' a specific chunk of IPs. (frex: 123.456.789.x)
3. Their gateways probably log IPs and account names/numbers.
4. Your account name/number has your home phone and street address.

With the right access to the right information, which can be acquired, you can be tracked down. A few line in a terabyte ocean means nothing when you can parse every single character in that ocean in a day.

The only way to have some level of secrecy is use an anonymizing proxy server.

Surprised there hasn't been a worm that creates a tiny little proxy on infected machines. Logs nothing, uses minimal resources, etc. Nothing more than a rapid packet relay.

cry0fan:No one has EVER gotten a copyright notice for DOWNLOADING a file, only for SHARING files while downloading,

This X 100.

I got ONE notice from my ISP years ago for Kazaa-ing South Park episodes, because I have EVERY episode available for upload. Now, back then Canadian law hadn't caught up with the internet, so I told them to STFU and never heard from them again. Even today, all I'd have to do is move those files into a non-shared folder to be legally un-touchable.

It's very simple...you have to Reproduce or DISTRIBUTE copyrighted materials for there to be an infringement. Distribution, by definition, means you pass it along, not receive it.

Display a video online? Distribution
Seed a torrent of Hancock? Distribution
Download every Monkees song ever recorded onto your own computer? NOT Distribution. Erego, no technical violation.

If you turn off uploads on all your P2P stuff, you may be a rat-bastard leech who deserves to DIAF, but you're NOT breaking any of the distribution or reproduction clauses of copyright law.

mgyqmb:what the fark is a 'paduan'?

One from padua

Highroller48: I have had EVERY episode

FTF Myself...haven't used anything but torrents in about 2 years.