:: NEWS COCKTAIL aka BlahBlahBlog ::
"Everything is being compressed into tiny tablets. You take a little pill of news every day - 23 minutes - and that's supposed to be enough." -Walter Cronkite, RE TV news. The Web has changed that for many, however, and here is an extra dose for your daily news cocktail. This prescription tends to include surveillance and now war-related links, along with the occasional pop culture junk and whatever else seizes my attention as I scan online news sites.:: 7.07.2008 ::
:: One Subpoena Is All It Takes to Reveal Your Online Life ::
New York Times
By Saul Hansell
Whenever questions are raised about privacy, big online companies talk about how benign their plans are for using data about their customers: Much data is anonymous, they say, and even the information that is linked to individuals is only meant to offer users a more personal experience tailored to their interests.
They never talk about subpoenas.
Yet in the United States, one of the biggest privacy issues is what information about people can be revealed through a court process, either as part of a criminal investigation or in some sort of civil dispute. This article I wrote in 2006 gives some examples.
The issue came up again last week when Google was ordered by a court to turn over records of activity on YouTube, including the user names and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of people who watched videos. A judge agreed with Viacom that the records could assist its case arguing that YouTube has infringed on its copyrights.
There is nothing special about the way the law treats the Internet here. All sorts of records, from your health club dues to your auto repair history, can be drawn into all manner of legal proceedings, and the records of Internet companies are generally no different.
There is a higher standard for the disclosure of the content of e-mail messages under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but there are many ways for investigators to get access to e-mail as well, particularly if the user has already read it. (The law has traditionally given greater protection to a sealed envelope in a post office than to an opened letter sitting on a person’s desk.)
But Internet companies are different from other businesses that keep records about their customers. A person’s activity online represents an unusually broad picture of his or her interests, transactions and social relationships. Moreover, it is the nature of computers to keep records of all of the bits of data they process.
Much of this data is spread among various different companies and their servers. But these puzzle pieces can be put together. This is the key fact that so much of the discussion about I.P. addresses skips past.
The way the Internet is set up now, an I.P. address, by itself, doesn’t identify an individual user. But an I.P. address can be traced to a specific Internet service provider, and with a subpoena, the Internet provider can be forced to identify which of their customers was assigned a particular I.P. address at a particular time. That is how the recording industry has been identifying and suing people who use file sharing programs.
Viacom says that it isn’t going to use the information from Google to sue individual YouTube users for copyright infringement, but there is nothing under the law to stop it from doing so.
Read more here.
posted by me
:: 2:13:00 PM [+] ::
...
