Google Blogoscoped

Forum

YouTube Handed Out User Data  (View post)

Joey J. [PersonRank 5]

Saturday, October 21, 2006
13 years ago4,317 views

Oh god. This.. no. Just no.

/pd [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Does this incident diminish your trust worthiness of Google ?

ha ha [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

The article said "Promptly"

The accused user said "eventually" and "no bad feeling"

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

> Does this incident diminish your trust worthiness of Google ?

Google didn't own YouTube at that time...

jtdgrz [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

Using the Google colors as the logo for YouTube in this post is just wrong. This has NOTHING to do with Google.

Russianger [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

Yeah u should change the logo

Ed Barton [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

This is more a problem with the justice system than with YouTube. If a court issues a subpoena, there may not be much YouTube can do about it.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this shouldn't be the way the system should work. If anything, the subpoena should have been for YouTube to remove the content.

Christopher Sisk [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

I agree with Ed... YouTube shouldn't work as a link from lawyers to users... YouTube should take the content offline, inform the user that uploaded it via an encrypted message and leave it at that.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

> Using the Google colors as the logo for YouTube
> in this post is just wrong. This has NOTHING to do
> with Google.

I have a standard icon for posts about YouTube, AdSense, Google Webmaster tools, Google Books etc. that I re-use for every post... and sometimes, update for all posts at once. Admittedly, the icon – which I did not create for this post – is not very fitting for this post as it talks about YouTube's non-Google past, so I just removed it this time.

Cristian Mezei [PersonRank 5]

13 years ago #

>> Does this incident diminish your trust worthiness of Google ?

/pd, May is NOT October. Google didn't owned YouTube then right ?

Chris [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

"it seems to me that this shouldn't be the way the system should work. If anything, the subpoena should have been for YouTube to remove the content."

So do you believe that judges should just tell bank robbers to stop robbing banks and not punish them for their past infractions?

NotSaussure [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

So what do folks think YouTube should have done? Ignored the subpoena?

Peter [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

this headline is completely appropriate.

you can challenge a subpoena. YouTube didn't want to look out for their users, though. so, they threw this guy under the bus to make sure they made mad money. well done Chad and Steve! hope you sleep well at night.

but, they did have the decency to thank this dude who they threw under the bus – a dude who helped make them a lot of money:

+ Show video



i mean, 'hey loser – thanks for making us rich, ahole! hahahahah!'

pretty good guys, them youtubers.

NotSaussure [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

You can, indeed, challenge a subpoena. This costs money. Given the number of subpoenas YouTube would likely find themselves challenging if they took the policy decision to fight each and every one they receive despite their legal advisors telling them they had little chance of success in a particular case, that might not be a particularly smart business decision, though. It would be for their lawyers, obviously, but maybe not for everyone else.

Would it satisfy folks if YouTube changed their terms and conditions to include a clause promising to challenge such subpoenas in future, provided that the person whose details were sought indemnified them against the legal costs of so doing?

George Smith [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

No "for" or "against" opinion of Chad and Steve dilemna. Unless the details are known behind the reason for the subpoena, everything is just speculation. Court is an adversarial arena and one attorney will ask for court approval on a matter, the other side has to come up with a better argument to convince the judge not to grant the motion. If the defense's argument is weak, the judge rules in favor of the strong side. The reason for the turning over of the "user" may be tied in to an internal problem of the offended party requesting the subpoena, i.e.: Identifying a disgruntled employee with revenge in mind. Won't know anything until you're in the know.

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!