this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024

273 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy Guides

16263 readers

25 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.

You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...

Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!

This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.

Moderation Rules:

We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

273

Google was ordered to identify people who watched certain YouTube videos. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional. (www.forbes.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If the linked article has a paywall, you can access this archived version instead: https://archive.ph/zyhax

The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023. The government also wanted the IP addresses of non-Google account owners who viewed the videos.

“This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day,” said Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. “No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up. I’m horrified that the courts are allowing this.” He said the orders were “just as chilling” as geofence warrants, where Google has been ordered to provide data on all users in the vicinity of a crime.

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 66 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The scary thing isn't that this sort of thing is technically possible. It's that the cops try this lazy-ass investigative method because they know full well the information oligopolies readily play ball and provide the data more often than not.

And that my friends is the very definition of Fascism: when big business is in cahoots with the authorities. Don't take my word for it: Benito Mussolini, the very dude who invented Fascism, said it himself in 1932:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

I've known Big Data would eventually lead us to full-blown fascism since Scott McNealy inadvertently spilled the beans about the future of privacy in 1999. Everybody dismissed McNealy back then and said nobody would stand for this. But I instantly realized he was telling the naked truth as it would happen that day. And I've been called a nutcase and a conspiracy theorist ever since, for a full quarter of a century.

And now here we are: everybody is finally coming to the same realization - too late to do any goddamn thing about it.

This is sad...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

It is unlikely that Mussolini ever made this statement because it contradicts most of the other writing he did on the subject of corporatism and corporations.

From your own link.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I remember the term for the fascists in Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here was corporatists. That novel was contemporaneous with the rise of fascism as I recall, and it's a chilling look at how America might have gone fascist back then. It's pretty relevant to what's happening now.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Re: Fascism, Mussolini's full explanation/description is a very good read. Here's a version that a search turned up:

https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf .

Another: http://media.wix.com/ugd/927b40_c1ee26114a4d480cb048f5f96a4cc68f.pdf (Soames).

Got to hand it to the guy, he was well-educated and could write, which is more than you can say for his modern-day imitators, especially the loud, orange one.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

invidious ftw

i think we are at the point where normies are going to regret their carelessness soon

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But one has to be careful when using Invidious since the browser gets the video feed directly from Youtube/Google unless it is proxied or a VPN/Tor is used.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

thats sad to hear, why is it much slower then?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Because its not on a powerful google server, it's just a volunteer. Some instances allow proxying to hide your ip but i believe it is more taxing on the server

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This... isn't how I thought it worked.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

It is still better than having to go to Googles ad-ridden tracker-filled website. Also, in the settings you can select an option to proxy videos.

[–] LazerDickMcCheese 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I prefer Freetube, but I agree

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Freetube is Invidious under the hood

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Actions, not thoughts, or media consumption, or associations should be the basis for legal actions against people.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Literally Psycho-Pass plot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Broadly speaking this is terrible in its implications and I am NOT defending this practice based on "wont somebody think of the children" because of the slippery slope argument.

However, there is a almost hidden in plain sight emporium of borderline CP buried in the YT servers. Videos of peoples kids in dance/gymnastics/swimming costumes and the comments are disturbing in their "sanitary" nature... its mostly timestamps. Timestamps of when the 8yo girl has her legs spread as part of a dance routine and stuff like that.

Its a shame that for the people to be protected from broad govt surveillance we also have to protect that shit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would suggest the adding of said time stamp would be an action, that would be actionable by CP or laws that protect the children. But also we worry to much and the state goes too far. They have been for years trying to get porn online banned (or gated), and its for the children, but it would be much better and simpler to make a .kids domain and make it a walled garden, then you could show intent by adults to get in there. Then the parents that want their children in the safe area, support it and pay for those things and those companies could be better monitored for data issues and tracking instead of the other way around (not that I like my data being stolen 100's of times a day, but its my choice if I want to use more secure means or not).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I imagine that the viewer count far exceeds the comments, Im not going to look for examples to cite because I dont want to wind up on a list myself.

Point is that the act of wanting to identify people based on some content they watched is simultaneously incredibly worrying and absolutely understandable, the problem is that if you allow it for one thing then adding on second thing doesnt seem like such a stretch and then the slippery slope happens and hypothetically you cant get a government job because you watched a video on communism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

timestamps

🤮

[–] starman2112 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The more I watch Ghost In The Shell, the more I think "man the stuff Section 9 does is actually pretty awful, it's a good thing they're the good guys"

I wish the people doing Section 9 shit were the good guys in real life. They don't even have any hot cyborgs

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

In real life the good guys don't do that stuff. It's sort of adjacent to copaganda where the noble police detective HAS to torture the suspect because he's going to strike again! That red tape lawyer bs is going to get everyone killed!!!

But if you look at what that mentality enables in real life it's innocent teens getting beaten up and tricked into incriminating themselves because bad media led us to believe breaking the rules is what good cops have to do to save the day.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Looks like my avoidance of ads is paying off with newpipe and freetube replacing using a signed in YouTube use to watch videos and keep track of my subscriptions.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think newpipe will help with this since it still contacts the YouTube servers with your IP address.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Can still use with vpn which means nothing using the YouTube site with vpn. Having an account simplifies the whole process too not even having to rely on IP address.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't necessarily mean your IP isn't being exposed to YT.

If that is something you're concerned about, you should read the documentation of whichever pipe/front ends and services you use.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm not concerned. And it just gives me less incentive to bother using YouTube through official means. I already find the unofficial methods to be superior with adblocking, sponsorblock, background play, and being able to hide shorts or trends from showing up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

they were tracking down a SWATter, so i'm fine with it

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So the ends justifies the means?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

this particular case called for it, that's all.. there's a reasonable warrant, and the details are now open to public scrutiny.. it's obviously been handled responsibly.. creating a big uproar over it doesn't help..

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

The concern is who gets to draw the line. Will it be drawn when the Texas AG seeks viewers of a YouTube video about abortion? Once the gates are open, who can really say.