Current Events > The government can get warrants for the data of anyone who viewed Youtube videos

(+) Yeah! (+)

the sky is OFFICIALLY falling

If you bothered to click the link and read the text of the article, you'd see that they requested the data of anyone who had viewed a legal Youtube video because they suspected a suspect in a criminal investigation had viewed the video. That's not a minor thing, and experts don't think it's constitutional either.

Feds Ordered Google To Unmask Certain YouTube Users. Critics Say Its Terrifying.

In two court orders, the federal government told Google to turn over information on anyone who viewed multiple YouTube videos and livestreams. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional.

- Thomas Brewster, Mar 22, 2024

The government orders show an "unconstitutional" overreach by the government, multiple privacy experts said.

Federal investigators have ordered Google to provide information on all viewers of select YouTube videos, according to multiple court orders obtained by Forbes. Privacy experts from multiple civil rights groups told Forbes they think the orders are unconstitutional because they threaten to turn innocent YouTube viewers into criminal suspects.

In a just-unsealed case from Kentucky reviewed by Forbes, undercover cops sought to identify the individual behind the online moniker elonmuskwhm, who they suspect of selling bitcoin for cash, potentially running afoul of money laundering laws and rules around unlicensed money transmitting.

In conversations with the user in early January, undercover agents sent links of YouTube tutorials for mapping via drones and augmented reality software, then asked Google for information on who had viewed the videos, which collectively have been watched over 30,000 times.

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. The cops argued, There is reason to believe that these records would be relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation, including by providing identification information about the perpetrators.

No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up.

Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project The court granted the order and Google was told to keep the request secret until it was unsealed earlier this week, when it was obtained by Forbes. The court records do not show whether or not Google provided data in the case.

In another example, involving an investigation in New Hampshire, the Portsmouth Police received a threat from an unknown male that an explosive had been placed in a trashcan in a public area. The order says that after the police searched the area, they learned they were being watched over a YouTube live stream camera associated with a local business. Federal investigators believe similar events have happened across the U.S., where bomb threats were made and cops watched via YouTube.

They asked Google to provide a list of accounts that viewed and/or interacted with eight YouTube live streams and the associated identifying information during specific timeframes. That included a video posted by Boston and Maine Live, which has 130,000 subscribers. Mike McCormack, who set up the company behind the account, IP Time Lapse, said he knew about the order, adding that they related "to swatting incidents directed at the camera views at that time."

Again, its unclear whether Google provided the data.

"With all law enforcement demands, we have a rigorous process designed to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement, said Google spokesperson Matt Bryant. We examine each demand for legal validity, consistent with developing case law, and we routinely push back against overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands for user data, including objecting to some demands entirely."

The Justice Department had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.

Privacy experts said the orders were unconstitutional because they threatened to undo protections in the 1st and 4th Amendments covering free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches. This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. Its unconstitutional, its terrifying and its 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. Im 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. Google announced an update in December that will make it technically impossible for the tech giant to provide information in response to geofence orders. Prior to that, a California court had ruled that a geofence warrant covering several densely-populated areas in Los Angeles was unconstitutional, leading to hopes the courts would stop police seeking the data.

What we watch online can reveal deeply sensitive information about usour politics, our passions, our religious beliefs, and much more, said John Davisson, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. It's fair to expect that law enforcement won't have access to that information without probable cause. This order turns that assumption on its head.

I mean... No shit.
:v

There should be no presumption of privacy when using Google's services

There should be no presumption of privacy when using Google's services

Just don't watch these videos of horrible things happening in real time or the government is going to collect that data for cross-referencing and extra judicial review.

You mean before opening this topic you thought that a federal judge would allow the government to compel Google to hand over the personal information of every person who watched a legal Youtube video?

No, but were I on trial I would not be the slightest surprised to find out they checked my internet browsing and related data. Did you think that everything you did on the internet was beyond the reach of law enforcement?

You mean before opening this topic you thought that a federal judge would allow the government to compel Google to hand over the personal information of every person who watched a legal Youtube video?

The video in question was perfectly legal, the police just had reason to believe that a suspect had viewed the video so they wanted information on everyone who watched it to try and find this person. They could do this for any video or content at any time. That shouldn't be possible.

What if you were not on trial, were totally unrelated to the case, and didn't even know it was happening? Would you be still be completely unsurprised that youtube was handing over your address, phone number and all your browsing history to the police?

I'm sure this is a "slippery slope" that people are complaining against, but what actually happened versus what people are claiming has happened are two very different things. The government isn't just getting warrants for any video they want to know who watched it. They sent a specific target some links to specific videos and they know the subject of the investigation watched them within that specific time frame.

So the ask was for anyone who watched all of the videos they sent the target during the exact time frame.

Personally, I think even then my issue is, How is this any different than "We(government) want to know who checked out these books in this time span" because I'm pretty sure my reading habits are none of the governments business either. What I watch, what I read, what I listen to. None of this is any of your business.

This is just a continuation of that, and I didn't like that back in the day, and I don't like this now.

No they didn't. Read the article slowly and more carefully.

What they actually did is entrapment.

In conversations with the user in early January, undercover agents sent links of YouTube tutorials for mapping via drones and augmented reality software, then asked Google for information on who had viewed the videos

I read the article. I am not sure what you are getting at.

That isn't entrapment. They sent the links to elonmuskwhm. They were after him because they believed he was selling Bitcoins for cash. The videos aren't the crime. Nor are the videos trying to get him to commit a crime. They are trying to ID him off this information. I don't think it would ultimately work, and I still say it should not be allowed. But not due to entrapment or anything of the like.

Please, highlight what you think I am missing from the article. I reread the entire thing, and you didn't give me anything specific to go by, so I can't correct any error I may have snagged.

They clearly uploaded it themselves and then had people find the videos.

"then asked Google for information on who had viewed the videos"

They clearly uploaded it themselves and then had people find the videos.

it reads more to me like they found existing videos that were of interest to the person, linked those videos (the way you might share videos with a friend) and then asked google who had viewed them

You are mistaken.

This.

The government isn't just getting warrants for any video they want to know who watched it. They sent a specific target some links to specific videos and they know the subject of the investigation watched them within that specific time frame.

Did you think that everything you did on the internet was beyond the reach of law enforcement?

Browsing history is not a crime. Specific patterns that show a consistent interest in criminal activity, can damage a defendant's credibility though.

The government can get data from all our online activities and searches. And all those apps where you have to give them permission to access your contacts and photos? They got that too. Nothing's really private anymore. Any dick pics you've taken with your phone are sitting in some database waiting to be accessed.

The government can get data from all our online activities and searches. And all those apps where you have to give them permission to access your contacts and photos? They got that too. Nothing's really private anymore. Any dick pics you've taken with your phone are sitting in some database waiting to be accessed.

Nope.

I dont upload anything to YouTube and rarely use it unless Im looking for something comedic or informational. Not sure what they could get on me.

Perhaps your tastes, upvotes, viewing times, and comments

"You and hundreds of others technically drove somewhat nearby when a crime was committed" is the scenario in which they are gathering this info.