Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

YouTube told to hand over users' data

MATT HARTLEY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:46 PM EDT 03/07/08

Viacom suing Google over copyrighted clips; critics say information could identify millions of people worldwide ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Sharon Smith from Calgary, Canada writes: I thought stuff like this only happened in scary places like Communist China. What happened to our right to privacy?
  2. J R from Canada writes: Privacy is just a distant memory now, dating back to September 11, 2001.
  3. Rene L from Somewhere, Canada writes: This ruling by the court is pretty scary... makes me think Orwells novel 1984 has finally come true.
  4. Notes from my Cave in Sarnia, ON. from Canada writes: If you use a computer on the internet, there are no secrets. If you use your charge card, there are no secrets. If you use a cell phone, there are no secrets. Do you see a pattern here . . . .?
  5. BUB ImumI from Canada writes: //

    ..

    suckers for thinking they were untraceable...

    Privacy is king!

    ..//
  6. Discordant One from Canada writes: If google, or any other internet based company is serious about protecting the privacy of it's users, subscribers or, members, then perhaps they should consider packing up and moving to another country where there is not a fascist-like regime in place. They are internet based and could set up shoppe anywhere they please should they so choose.
  7. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    YouTube (TM) Broadcast Yourself

    The judge also came up with the bright idea that usernames are anonymous.

    Some people on this G&M site use their real names as usernames so I doubt that they would agree with he judge.

    The judge (U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton) is 81 years old for God's sake.

    Has anyone ever watched an embedded YouTube video here on the G&M or on any other website?

    Well congratulations, you're also now in the Youtube database that will be handed over to Viacom.

    Google wants to seek assurances from Viacom that it will respect users' privacy?

    Even the 81 year old judge with one foot in the grave noted that Google themselves have said in the past that IP addresses are not personal information.

    Why should a YouTube member now have any reasonable expectation of privacy?

    Google: 'YouTube logs are not anonymized in part because YouTube needs separate logging to comply with laws in different countries.'

    How about that for a statement?

    Happy Independence Day Google.
  8. globefan Eh from Canada writes: Google and Viacom, I would have thought Google would have the pockets to fight this if it wanted, the problem is Viacom is now cozying up to the Chinese.

    Does privacy matter..apparently not..the Bushies have been at this for a long time, this is not about terrorists, this is corporate power getting what it wants.
  9. parklane 47 from Washington, D.C., United States writes: Typical. Using the courts in a thinly veiled attempt to mask a business plan that is going south.
  10. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: Notes from my Cave in Sarnia, ON. from Canada writes: If you use a computer on the internet, there are no secrets. If you use your charge card, there are no secrets. If you use a cell phone, there are no secrets. Do you see a pattern here . . . .?

    Well, we do expect that our little secrets are shared with only those organizations that we agree to share them with. I'm fairly certain Google's privacy policy would not allow the wholesale sharing anonymization of this data with other companies (or at least without a decent level of). It is fair to expect some privacy.
  11. Joe Liberali from Canada writes: (Also keep in mind, this beautiful, excellent marketing data was likely far cheaper to acquire via misdirection in the form of a lawsuit then it would be to buy it outright).
  12. Kent Lewis from Toronto, Canada writes: What about people who spoof their IP addresses? What about people who hack into nearly any 'protected' Windows box and surf from there? If you're running Windows, using the built-in firewall, and no router, go to zonelabs.com, download the free version of ZoneAlarm, make sure you set a System Restore point first, then install the product. You'll see quickly how many attempted intrusions it blocks. The Windows firewall doesn't annoy you like that. Sorry for the digression - back to question - if it so easy to hack through and use someone else's pc, what IP shows up when they go to youtube? I know this is hypothetical, but if it is well within the realm of the doable, how good is an IP address as a single instance of proof?
  13. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: It will take some computer program to sort through all this data.
  14. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    I'm sure that Microsoft will happily supply the computer program to Viacom free of charge.
  15. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Kent Lewis -

    The number of people who actually hack someone's Window PC's & surf via that PC is so small it's not worth mentioning, besides, what's being hacked for this purpose is peoples wireless routers not the Window's operating system itself!

    While Window's isn't the most secure operating system available, you'll rarely see or hear of anybody hacking into a Windows PC that has the latest service pack installed. Even when Windows PC's are hacked into it's the result of operator error not Windows. Opening emails, downloading executable files & running them without scanning with AV software being the primary method of compromise.

    Using ZoneAlarm doesn't prevent you from being hacked nor provide an accurate tally of intrusion attempts, the vast majority of logged intrusion attempts are false positives. What ZoneAlarm does provide is a means to prevent programs on your PC from accessing the Internet without your approval, something the Window's firewall doesn't prevent, that is ZoneAlarms only 'true' ability as a firewall.

    As for IP spoofing, it can't be used to hide your IP address while watching a YouTube video, in fact you can't even watch a YouTube video using spoofing as the TCP-IP packet is redirected to the spoofed address you used, not back to your PC, therefore you can never create a network connection to YouTube to watch a video in the first place. IP spoofing is used for denial of service attacks, nothing more.

    I have two PC's running right now that don't have a firewall or anti-virus installed, both running Windows, both with active Internet connections. One has been running for over two years the other about one year & they have never been hacked or infected in anyway, the only added protection they share is both are attached to a properly configured router.
  16. Bob McDonald from Canada writes: To many North Americans, the personal computer with internet has become their newspaper, their magazines, their video/TV entertainments, their social communications, their reference libraries and their source of music.

    If the usage records of the internet became commonly searchable . . . things would change . . . significantly. Viacom is risking their reputation on this ploy. They may regret it if they succeed.
  17. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: While this is a bad ruling by the judge, people really have very little to fear if Google does release the logs.

    1 - It takes a court order to have the logs released.
    2 - It takes a court order to get the ISP to release the name of the person that was using the said IP.
    3 - It takes a court order to search a persons hard drive.

    Viacom would have to do so individually for 2 & 3 each time, that's a heck of a lot of court orders!

    Then the IP address their looking at could be up to a year old.

    1 - The person may not even have the PC anymore
    2 - The hard drive may have been replaced
    3 - The person may no longer be with that ISP
    4 - The majority of IP addresses won't even originate from within the U.S.

    Besides, it's not illegal to watch the videos, it's only illegal to download them in the U.S., something the article appears to have missed!
  18. Joseph Whistle from Canada writes: It's clear that the programmers should get to work and make it possible to easily anonymize our internet use. Companies and governments think they can control us, and I say, they mustn't be allowed to. What I do on my computer is noone's business. I'm sitting at a computer and I'm using my keyboard and my mouse and whatever I do with that must be my own business. It's a total invasion of privacy them watching and threatening me what I do. I say, let all the programmers collectively get together, and create the ultimate onion network the world has ever seen and make internet use for once and for all anonymous. And not in some weird freaky geeky way, no, in a way that we can all use.
  19. Marty C from Canada writes: Honestly, there's a ton of video sites out there. One isn't really going to make a huge a difference. Like OhSnap.com, Veoh.com, Break.com, MetaCafe.com.. etc. YouTube.com may be the biggest, and probably by far the worst offender, but if one goes down, there's always another one poping up. This goes for anything on the web. Right or wrong, the internet is a different place these days.
  20. michael luger from montreal, Canada writes: every byte you exchange, can, and will be used against you.
  21. Liberals steal from hardworking.... from Canada writes: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes:

    I have two PC's running right now that don't have a firewall or anti-virus installed, both running Windows, both with active Internet connections. One has been running for over two years the other about one year & they have never been hacked or infected in anyway, the only added protection they share is both are attached to a properly configured router.

    Posted 04/07/08 at 12:32 AM EDT

    ======

    Someones in ur box and has hacked ur power supply!
  22. whataguyiam Taylor from Canada writes: Okay, I'm confused. I've read three (or maybe four) different accounts of this story. One says it doesn't apply to Canadians, one says it does. One says Google will appeal, one says Google will not appeal. Can someone set me straight?
  23. David Demchuk from Canada writes: Viacom should be grateful that anyone bothers to seek out and watch their content on any platform, and should think carefully about what they're fighting for.

    It's worth noting that only a tiny percentage of YouTube viewers try to save any of the clips to their own hard drives to watch again at their leisure. The primary use for YouTube is to post clips others watch for free and recommend to their friends--who in turn watch for free and recommend to their friends.

    Some media companies would (and do) call this free promotion.
  24. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: Seriously, they have no right.
  25. Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: The judge's ruling makes no sense. If all Viacom wants to prove is that copyrighted videos are more watched than user-made videos, a simple viewing count is all that is needed, not personal information about the viewers. As the poster above noted, the judge is 81 years old. Time for mandatory retirement for judges I'd say.
  26. Bill Needle from Canada writes: If you use a Web based e-mail account like gmail or hotmail the US govt. can ask to read all of your communications. It's a different scenario than the YouTube court case, but everyone needs to understand that there is no such thing as privacy when using the internet.
  27. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Once again the lawyers smile and dance in the streets on their way to their bank accounts.
  28. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: 'J R from Canada writes: Privacy is just a distant memory now, dating back to September 11, 2001. '

    The date you're actually looking for is Octorber 28, 1998, when President Clinton signed the DMCA into law. Nice try, though.
  29. Kent Lewis from Canada writes: 'While Window's isn't the most secure operating system available, you'll rarely see or hear of anybody hacking into a Windows PC that has the latest service pack installed.

    I have two PC's running right now that don't have a firewall or anti-virus installed, both running Windows, both with active Internet connections. One has been running for over two years the other about one year & they have never been hacked or infected in anyway, the only added protection they share is both are attached to a properly configured router.'

    That's one of the most utterly ridiculous things I've ever seen posted. Install ZoneAlarm and watch it tell you, without your router, how often it blocks somebody.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cEWIbpgYyA

    http://books.google.ca/books?q=how easy it is to hack windows%3F&source=citation
  30. Kent Lewis from Canada writes: Please ignore the stupid youtube vid I mentioned. I should have watched the thing first, duh//0h>>> LOL!

    If you have a router that you think can eliminate the need for antivirus and software firewall, you should comb the net and see how easy it is to find hacks into all known routers. Just how do you 'know' you know some hacker named Morrissette has dropped in uninvited through some back door? If you're that smart, you should be showing the world how to do it, and get rich.

    Hell, Microsoft and the US government get hacked, and you're sure your little Windoze box has never been visited...do you scan regularly for traces that have been wiped out by smart hackers?

    Please enlighten...
  31. True North from Canada writes: parklane 47 from Washington, D.C., United States writes: Typical. Using the courts in a thinly veiled attempt to mask a business plan that is going south.

    ***

    parklane hits the nail on the head. Take a look at Viacom's tanking stock price.
  32. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: After they complete my Privacy Rights loss dismay, perhaps the courts will order sendings of those old visit links to ME AS WELL so that I might revisit some of those places that I didn't add to FavoUrites.
  33. SN Dream from Canada writes: You guys should consider using a VPN tunnel.

    This judge was born before the invention of turing machine, he probably earned his law degree when punch card based computer was still on the drawing board.
  34. Jan Steinman from Salt Spring Island, Canada writes: Brian Bishop seem to feel safe in this New World Odour. He seems to think it is unlikely that anyone would hack a computer just to watch videos.

    But what if Viacom contracted with some hackers to make Google look bad? You know darn well these guys have armies of zombies under their control that are for sale to the highest bidder for DDOS attacks, spam propagation, what have you. Why not reverse-industrial-espionage, planting evidence? It's not like such a thing has never been done before the info age, so why not now?

    Of course, such a thing would have to be done very secretly, through networks of offshore shell companies. But no one without a 'crooked E' in their logo has ever tried THAT before, have they?

    Brian, you underestimate the power of Greed, and Gordon Gecko has legitimized Greed.
  35. Fifty Mission Cap from Canada writes: You mean they're going to know I watched that stupid laughing baby video 75 times?

    The horror, the horror
  36. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Besides, it's not illegal to watch the videos, it's only illegal to download them in the U.S., something the article appears to have missed!'

    And if Viacom sends out a few million letters to people on the list saying that they're going to sue them for watching the videos anyway, and they have the choice between settling out of court for $1000 or spending $10,000 on a lawyer to successfully beat the suit ... how many people do you think would take the settlement route? I think Viacom wants into the 'spamigation' market that's worked for the music labels.
  37. john smith from Canada writes: great, first there never was such a thing as privacy when using the internet, second why would anyone put their real info on the internet when viewing trash
    besides most of youtube videos are garbage and hopefully they will be banned by their so called copyrights. so trash wont be displayed as often.
  38. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    @Jan Steinman

    What if Viacom contracted with Microsoft to make Google look bad?

    Steve Ballmer must be laughing his rear-end off right now.

    Does anyone remember in 2006 when AOL published a text file containing millions of search terms entered by more than 650,000 users?

    Although the data had been scrubbed to remove specific user login information, media outlets and researchers were able to piece together the identities of several of these users based on nothing more than the information contained in the user's search requests.

    Due to the resultant public outcry, several AOL executives were fired over that one.

    Viacom has no right to this data.

    If Viacom spots a copyright violation, they should serve YouTube with a takedown notice and order YouTube to remove the offending video.

    Then YouTube can deal directly with the offending uploader in anyway they feel is appropriate.

    It looks to me like the judge cared more about protecting YouTube's source code than he did about protecting the private viewing habits of YouTube members.
  39. Squamish Mom from Canada writes: viacom is just jealous people are watching their shows on the net vs TV. It's obvious their ratings are going down with 3 good shows on in the same hour and people are often too busy to sit down for each show they want to watch anyways. You can spend about $40 per person at the movies or spend around $10 to rent. it's no wonder poeple are finding all the programming online these days. I totally agree with you John Smith.. aside from banking and shopping i doubt i have given my real information on registartion forms in the last 10 years. Viacom has no right to ANY of the information regarding persons using youtube. whether it be drunken stupors or copywritten movies no persons except those directly owning the media should have any right to related information . i say give viacom the country, age, gender of someone viewing their material (useful for ratings, free data collection!), but keep names and IP's outta there. the only way more should be given out is if someone has uploaded viacom media without consent. and face it viacom, the busier and more advanced the world gets the more that little line on your chart will go down. so start thinking of solutions to keep raking in the money, and leave us viewers out of it. and isn't youtube doing viacom a favour by hosting their content... for free???? allowing users to rate, recommend dicuss and ultimately promote viacom media is like free commrcials and marketing for viacom. and they're pretty 90's anyways i thought :P
  40. Squamish Mom from Canada writes: amen globefan eh... enuf said there :P
  41. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Gee, the death-throws of these irrelavent dinosaurs are certainly destructive aren't they?

    Here's a clue: if you aren't already trying to find a way to capitalize on the new digital realities, then I suggest you tuck your head between your knees and kiss your a$$ goodbye.

    Fighting overwhelming consumer demand for online content isn't just stupid, it's a one way ticket into obscurity.
  42. Michael B from Canada writes: The way things are going, someday we'll all wake up and the US will be an Orwellian sink-hole.
  43. verruckt verruckt from Canada writes: Michael B .....uh wake up..... Welcome to Orwell's Canada.

    Things have improved (not got as bad as fast as they were... not really improved) under the conservatives but Canada is much closer to Orwell's concepts than the US! In the news the other day there was an item in Manitoba about Children's Aid taking away a child because 'the government didn't approve of the opinions of the parents' ... their words.
  44. Fake Name from Canada writes: Verruckt - were these 'opinions of the parents' neo-nazi indoctrination lessons, or something else along those lines? If someone is teaching a child to hail hitler, CAS d@mn well ought to intervene. It can't have been some trivial difference of opinions like voting for the wrong political party to single these parents out as 'unfit'.

    More detail is needed if this is supposed to convince anyone the government is out to oppress them.
  45. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: The people that POSTED the material are in violation of copyright infringement. The people that VIEWED the material are not. At least that's my opinion. This is a needless witch hunt and a huge degradation of privacy law. The sad part is, as evidenced over and over again in the press, corporations can avert the law because they have huge wads of cash - the general public has to sit back and take it because we don't have the same cashflow. Maybe Viacom forgot that the postings on You Tube would spark interest in other Viacom offerings and thus is a good marketing tool to increase revenue. But then again, there's nothing like getting free publicity and then suing the very thing that gave you the free publicity for more money! This case is not about copyright infringement, it's about greed. Privacy rights just get the s**t kicked out of them in the process.
  46. verruckt verruckt from Canada writes: Fake Name

    From what I gathered there were no other charges. They just decided what the parents should have for an opinion. I definitely do not agree with their parents either but I do trust our government to abuse that power at the whim of the powers that be. Learn a little history... say German about 1930's and the education policies and practices of Nazi Germany (especially those that were used of the death camps) or Mao's cultural revolution or right back to the Spartans.

    The Prime Minister just apologized for the government actions of seizing children from Canada's indigineous people.... Orwell's 'right think' wasn't a new idea just a repackaging for his story. Maybe you should try reading it.... then read the news.... :-)

    Now the people stealing the clips, posting them etc. were in the wrong. IF the media companies had a brain in their heads they would have been doing it themselves on their own sites short clips, upcoming and adding 'Click now to own the DVD' and made money YouTube should have cleaned the material as fast as it could or made a deail with the media company etc. .... instead they are in a legal fight that both sides should have done more to avoid.
  47. wawa dave from Cobal, Canada writes: ''Viacom had also sought access to Google's computer source code, the secret sauce that powers the search functions on both YouTube and Google.com, the company's search engine. The judge denied that request.'' You see they got denied the real goal!! MS is defiantly pulling the strings. As any one who has ever tried searching for something on MS,s site know the search totally sucks. And getting the source code of googles search engine would mean they could then make a search engine that quit posible may work. well it is MS after all they sold M.E twice(vista).
  48. Simon Spivey from Lakefield, Canada writes: Golly, I have no idea who's videos I've ever watched on Youtube--but I know who's videos I'm not going to -buy- if I can help it from now on...
  49. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Liberals steal from hardworking -

    No it's ok, their just lost in my honeypot!
  50. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: 'Kent Lewis from Canada writes: That's one of the most utterly ridiculous things I've ever seen posted. Install ZoneAlarm and watch it tell you, without your router, how often it blocks somebody.'

    Kent I have ZoneAlarm Pro installed on 3 PC's, what your seeing are nothing more than false positives being reported. ZA logs every type of connection as intrusion attempts, which they are not! Have you taken the time to understand ZA, have you even checked the ZA logs & investigated what each blocked entry is, the information is there & I can assure you ZA isn't stopping hack attempts!

    ZoneAlarms only real value as a firewall is in stopping programs on your PC from connecting to the Internet without your consent! That's the only purpose I use it for.

    Here's what ZA shows on the PC I'm using right now on the 'Overview - Status' page.
    Blocked Intrusions - 31,706 intrusions have been blocked since instal 0 of those have been high-rated
    Inbound Protection - The firewall has blocked 127,323 access attempts.
    If you examine the logs all the intrusion & access attempts are perfectly legit, no hackers to be seen!

    The 2 PC's with no AV or firewall are connected to the Internet via the same network, each runs a program that logs all connections 'PeerGuardian'. Again through close examination, there's no hackers getting in.

    A hacker needs an open port to compromise a Windows PC, as I said if you have the latest service pack installed & a properly configured router your safe. Nobody will get in unless you invite them in.

    Best check how hackers compromised Microsoft & U.S. government systems before you blame a Windows operating system, that's not how they were hacked sorry to say.
  51. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Fake Name from Canada writes: ' brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Besides, it's not illegal to watch the videos, it's only illegal to download them in the U.S., something the article appears to have missed!'

    And if Viacom sends out a few million letters to people on the list saying that they're going to sue them for watching the videos anyway, and they have the choice between settling out of court for $1000 or spending $10,000 on a lawyer to successfully beat the suit ... how many people do you think would take the settlement route? I think Viacom wants into the 'spamigation' market that's worked for the music labels.

    -------------------------

    I never said American's were bright!

    It's still funny how the author of the article or the many experts never picked up on that small little detail, 'It's not illegal to watch a video on the Internet'!

    It might be in Iran, but I doubt Viacom would pursue anyone there!
  52. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Kent Lewis -

    I should explain my comment 'A hacker needs an open port to compromise a Windows PC' before you jump all over me.

    This is 100 percent correct statement, however I wouldn't advise a friend or relative who knows absolutely nothing about operating systems, programs, the Internet or computer security to run their PC without AV, a firewall or a router. The fact is people who use computers are complete idiots & while a open port is required they will do a thousands a day that will make that open port available.

    A hacker can't open the port, the user has to do that for the hacker, whether they run a browser with active scripting enabled, open an infected email from an unknown sender, run a program they downloaded through BT without scanning it first or don't password protect their router. You can't hack Windows just because it's Windows, in 12 years I've never heard or seen anyone hacking into a Windows PC without user intervention when the latest service packs are installed & you use a router. Anyone that claims they have is full of it, I can't & I'm better than anyone I know!
  53. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: they will do a thousands 'a' day that will make that open port available.

    Should read - they will do a thousands 'each' day that will make that open port available.
  54. William Out West from Calgary, Canada writes: This judge should have excused himself from the case as he did and does not have sufficient knowledge of internet protocols or system security to render a competent decision.

    Giving Viacom access to all of this information is a hackers dream as he knows the machine and half of the username/password authentication it is scarry. What assurances do “we the people” have that viacom will keep this data protected? What recourse do we have to sue them to delete our records?

    Must we demand random IP addresses from our service providers to provide us with some anonymity.

    Additionally if asinine rulings like this continue to be made then the “New” Canadian government must make a ruling that they will never store any Canadian data in the USA ever.
  55. Carl Hansen from Canada writes: I rip all the youtube videos I watch. Come and get me suckers.
  56. Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    Privacy International director Simon Davies: 'The chickens have come home to roost for Google.'

    'If they were going to unnecessarily keep this information, there was always the chance someone was going to grab it.'
  57. Some Guy from Canada writes: death to america!
  58. Serge L from Westmount, Canada writes: I must confess that I have used YouTube and watched material that had a copyright. I must confess that YouTube (and Napster, before that, for audio contents) has made me discover or rediscover material that I enjoyed so much that I went out and bought the corresponding CDs or DVDs.

    Without these sharing media that helped stimulate my interest, I am pretty sure that the copyright holders would've not made those sales. I think this works both ways; some people will use these media to enjoy artistic production without compensating the artists involved, while other crazies like me will go out of their way to legitimately acquire the artistic material (or, maybe more accurately, a license for enjoyment of that material).
  59. Serge L from Westmount, Canada writes: Paul who is from Vancouver, Canada writes: .
    I'm sure that Microsoft will happily supply the computer program to Viacom free of charge.

    ===============

    Of course, this free Microsoft software will only be serviceable after installing Service Pack 3, which will correct most of the 27 vulnerabilities resulting from installing Service Pack 2 and Security Patches 20778992 and 20778994 (the latter issued to correct vulnerabilities introduced by Patch 20778992. Security Patch 20778993, meanwhile, is somewhere in the system).
  60. Tracy Bracy from Toronto, Canada writes: Crap is interesting only the first time you smell it.
  61. Norm Jom from Petawawa, Canada writes: Gotta love those of you who think because of the judge's age he has no understanding of the internet or how it works. While I don't agree that the judge should have allowed the release of information, it's clear he's ruling on issues other than the technology. Where actual technology is involved (source code) the judge did rule in Google's favour. I don't see that any of this would matter if the judge were 25 or 95.
  62. Dude From The Bronx from Bronx, NY, United States writes: I anticipate that someday I'll get a letter from Selective Service that reads 'Dear Dude From The Bronx, Our records show that you have not yet registered. Just a friendly reminder...'

    All because of a damn search engine and an octogenarian judge in diapers!
  63. Toby Maloney from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I better make this call from a pay phone ...
  64. K Kal from Canada writes: all your privacies are belong to us.
  65. K Kal from Canada writes:
    Brian Bishop has the right idea

    it all depends on how you configure your router, which most people do not configure at all, they dont even secure their wireless with encryption or mac address filtering and then they wonder why their bill is like twice the amount its supposed to be lol

    i have a firewall on the router, none on my windows machines, and only AV installed, everything is good.

    and kent, zonealarm is the worst program ever invented, sorry man.

    if you really want super firewall capabilities then use a computer as your router
  66. Richard Gordon from Toronto, writes: Screw Viacom. Hopefully Google will contest a bad decision by a senile old fart who's probably ultra right wing conservative.

    I think that we, the people, should have a say in a decision that shreds our civil liberties.
  67. Lou Bix from Canada writes: NEVER TRUST GOOGLE WITH YOU INFO !
  68. Santino DeGasperis from Toronto., Canada writes: Reading The Comments Above Reminds Me That We Live In A Very Selfish & Paranoid Society.
    YouTube Was Designed For People To Share Their Personal Videos Hence The Name 'YouTube'.
    Viacom Has Stake In This.
    It Costs Money To Produce & Broadcast Movies, TV Shows, & Other Programs.
    When People Think They Have A Right To Everything For Free, It Becomes Dangerous For The Economy.
    People In The Arts Need To Get Paid Too.

    To Get All 'Conspiracy Theory-Ridden' Is Entirely Laughable.
    This Has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE USER..
    It's About Intellectual Property, Copyrighting, Publishing, Broadcasting, & Economy.
    Not Corperatism.
    Not Bush.
    Stop Blaming Scapegoats To Take The Blame Off Yourself.
    Society Is Very Sick, Selfish & Uninformed.
  69. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Santino DeGasperis -

    There's nothing selfish about protecting your right to privacy. Paranoid I can see, since Viacom has no possible way of using the information against anyone but the users how uploaded the video's, not the millions who view those video's.

    Viacom has no stake whatsoever in YouTube or any identifying user data, to suggest such clearly shows a lack of understanding of copyright laws on your part.
  70. Dick W. from Toronto, Canada writes: Santino DeGasperis is totally right! You're all greedy pigs! Give the multi-billion dollar company its money already! LMAO!!!

    Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.
  71. Julie Wellington from Canada writes: use proxies try proxify.co.uk ( just one of thousands of sites ) until China err America eases up
  72. Julie Wellington from Canada writes: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes " As for IP spoofing, it can't be used to hide your IP address while watching a YouTube video, in fact you can't even watch a YouTube video using spoofing as the TCP-IP packet is redirected to the spoofed address you used, not back to your PC, therefore you can never create a network connection to YouTube to watch a video in the first place. IP spoofing is used for denial of service attacks, nothing more " ----______________________________________________--- Brian try proxify.co.uk and firefox and tell me you cannot watch a youtube video , I mean no disrespect but your information is totaly false, it does work and many have been doing it for a long time ! I could point out other errors in your post but lack the time.
  73. Lorraine Singer from Anytown, Canada writes: When Fascism comes, it will be holding a flag and a bible.
  74. verruckt verruckt from Canada writes: Lorraine Singer from Anytown

    Why should it change from last century where they came chanting to Neitzche and carrying the Bible to burn it! The Bible declares that a human being has a value, has an accountability and to care for the widows and children.

    Fascism and Communism came declaring that man was nothing more than a cog in the machine a part that could produce for the ultimate authority the government. The denegration of the value of man, the obscuring of right and wrong and the government having the ultimate right etc. we can see in the Cultural Revolution, the killing fields in Cambodia, Beaugenvild and the concentration camps......

    Why do you feel the need to attack the Bible?
    Do you hate or fear the implications of there being an objective right and wrong and the 10 commandments?
    Do you deny that stealing the video content is wrong and think the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" has changed?

    Sad how a discussion about privacy and computer piracy and someone takes it out of their way to attack the Bible....Let's stay on topic shall we?
  75. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Julie Wellington -

    Sorry Julie, but using a proxy server to connect to a website is totally different than IP spoofing!

    Also if you believe your hidden & nobody can track you down while using a proxy server, think again. There's thousands of proxy servers worldwide you can use to connect to websites & web services. While they provide a very small measure of privacy from the owners or maintainers of the websites your trying to view, proxy servers are hardly anonymous in a true sense of the word.

    Virtually every provider of proxy services are also required to retain usage information "log files", through data retention laws almost every country now has in place. This information contains all the details of your travels & is easily accessed though court orders.

    Please Julie, find the time to correct my other errors, it's so very rare to find another of my peers today to talk with. One that has the same level of experience & expertise I've obtained over the past dozen years.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.