The Viacom Google saga gets pretty sticky in terms of ironic and embarrassing potentialities. It’s yet unknown how effective the anonymized data being transferred will be at protecting YouTube identities. Further, what looks like a coup for Viacom could be a nice strategic move on Google’s part.
But first with the ugly duckling. It’s reasonable to think Viacom didn’t want a PR debacle on the scale of AOL’s dizzying leaked search records fiasco, and thus gave in a little, agreeing that visitor IDs and IP addresses be anonymized unless coming from within YouTube headquarters. But anonymization isn’t a silver bullet for privacy concerns. AOL’s records were supposedly anonymized, but real people were still found using collective search queries.
Even though we’re talking video viewing/uploading histories and not search, it’s not impossible similar diligence could be applied to unmask and embarrass less discrete users. And. . .Wouldn’t the Feds just love to know who’s uploading and viewing certain materials?
The lid on Pandora’s Box seems reasonably penetrable.
Second, the ironically butterfaced. You can’t help but snicker a little at Google’s insistence on holding user records for 18 months. Any damning information Viacom gleans from said records could cost Google a bundle, especially if it turns out YouTuber insiders consciously uploaded and/or viewed infringing material. That which Google stubbornly held onto could transform in its hands to material evidence.
But give Google some credit. Only the criminally minded would think of such things.
Third, the supreme rubber-glue twist. Valleywag’s Owen Thomas predicts that what could be devastating to Google’s case could be likewise damaging to Viacom’s. Aside from the piracy present on Viacom’s own much lesser-trafficked iFilm, YouTube records from Viacom employees will also not be anonymized. “Google could easily use its records to show Viacom employees doing exactly the same thing [uploading and viewing copyrighted material].”
This harks back to one of Google’s earliest defenses that while copyright lawyers were piping out cease and desist letters, TV marketing types were uploading content faster than YouTube could delete it. Wouldn’t it be hilarious to everybody but Viacom if Viacom employees were uploading their company’s own content in an effort to increase viewership?
Would that damage Viacom’s overall case? Don’t know, but prepare from some raucous guffaws if so.
