Google was ordered to identify people who watched certain YouTube video

[Bud]

Subj says it all.
He-he, welcome to the new surveillance dimension! 

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/23/24109625/google-was-ordered-to-identify-people-who-watched-certain-youtube-videos

[Halcyon]

To be fair, if you're stupid enough to Google how to conduct criminal activity then carry out those actions, you deserve to be caught. It's akin to doing a burnout in front of police.

That being said, I guess you could say I'm biased because I have personally made similar requests to Google to determine the identity of people, for the purposes of assisting in the investigation of serious/major crimes.

[Monkeh]

To be fair, if you're stupid enough to Google how to conduct criminal activity then carry out those actions, you deserve to be caught. It's akin to doing a burnout in front of police.

The content of the actual article appears to have sailed on past you.

[Bud]

Such video could not possibly Ever popped up in your youtube suggested videos, could it? There would Never be anyone who clicked on one accidentally, right?

[SiliconWizard]

Nah, it's just some conspiracy theory.

[Stray Electron]

   It's absolutely stunning to me that the US Gov authorities are trying to ban Twitter in the US unless/until Twitter is sold outside of the control of the CCP when Google and most, if not ALL websites in the US, are already monitoring what you watch, who you talk to, what your political opinions are, sexual preferences, etc, etc etc etc etc, and reporting all of it to the US Gov or anyone else that is willing to pay them for your data.

[themadhippy]

  It's absolutely stunning to me that the US Gov authorities are trying to ban Twitter in the US unless/until Twitter is sold outside of the control of the CCP

do you mean tik tok by any chance?

[brucehoult]

  It's absolutely stunning to me that the US Gov authorities are trying to ban Twitter in the US unless/until Twitter is sold outside of the control of the CCP

do you mean tik tok by any chance?

Yeah, he may have missed that Twitter is owned by an African-American who strongly believes in free speech.

[Halcyon]

To be fair, if you're stupid enough to Google how to conduct criminal activity then carry out those actions, you deserve to be caught. It's akin to doing a burnout in front of police.

The content of the actual article appears to have sailed on past you.

Considering I only have the short snippet to go off since the rest is hidden by a paywall, I can only comment on what I can actually read. Feel free to share any specific points you're referring to in the forum so the rest of us can make a more considered response. Otherwise, I'm sticking to what I said earlier.

[Monkeh]

Yeah, he may have missed that Twitter is owned by an African-American who strongly believes in free speech.

Unless that free speech threatens his profit margins. Or challenges him personally. Or challenges his beliefs.

[BrokenYugo]

Look into geofence warrants if you think that's nuts.

[Halcyon]

Look into geofence warrants if you think that's nuts.

Those are good fun ;-)

[Monkeh]

To be fair, if you're stupid enough to Google how to conduct criminal activity then carry out those actions, you deserve to be caught. It's akin to doing a burnout in front of police.

The content of the actual article appears to have sailed on past you.

Considering I only have the short snippet to go off since the rest is hidden by a paywall, I can only go off what I've been provided. Feel free to share any specific points you're referring to in the forum so the rest of us can make a more considered response. Otherwise, I'm sticking to what I said earlier.

What paywall? It's a free article, or at least any attempt to make it not so is entirely ineffective against.. a totally bare browser with no plugins. But if you insist:

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.

In other words, they attempted to sucker someone into watching some videos, then attempted to gather the personal information of potentially thousands of unrelated parties.

E: So Forbes are really bad at the whole paywall thing, apparently. Who knew.

[Halcyon]

To be fair, if you're stupid enough to Google how to conduct criminal activity then carry out those actions, you deserve to be caught. It's akin to doing a burnout in front of police.

The content of the actual article appears to have sailed on past you.

Considering I only have the short snippet to go off since the rest is hidden by a paywall, I can only go off what I've been provided. Feel free to share any specific points you're referring to in the forum so the rest of us can make a more considered response. Otherwise, I'm sticking to what I said earlier.

What paywall? It's a free article, or at least any attempt to make it not so is entirely ineffective against.. a totally bare browser with no plugins. But if you insist:

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.

In other words, they attempted to sucker someone into watching some videos, then attempted to gather the personal information of potentially thousands of unrelated parties.

You're obviously seeing an entirely different page to me. I have no idea why, but what you quoted above is not visible.

OK, so it seems like a controlled operation. My comments still stand although based on that, however I acknowledge there is a lot more to unpack here. I'm going to reserve my full opinion as I fear it will just cause chaos. But I will say that in some limited circumstances, this kind of activity is completely justified morally and ethically (in my opinion).

[Monkeh]

You're obviously seeing an entirely different page to me. I have no idea why, but what you quoted above is not visible.

Try reader mode.

OK, so it seems like a controlled operation. My comments still stand although based on that, however I acknowledge there is a lot more to unpack here. I'm going to reserve my full opinion as I fear it will just cause chaos. But I will say that in some limited circumstances, this kind of activity is completely justified morally and ethically (in my opinion).

A controlled operation of the gathering of personal data having no bearing on the operation from innocent people. With little to no public awareness of this operation or oversight of the security of their data once forced out of the hands of those entrusted with it.

[soldar]

Info at https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/03/22/feds-ordered-google-to-unmask-certain-youtube-users-critics-say-its-terrifying/?sh=220c40ba1ca7

In other news, a Spanish judge ordered telecoms to block Telegram. The news is not clear because media reports are written by people who have no clue what they are talking about and have not the minimum required level to do their jobs but, as far as I can gather,

1- some media creators claimed Telegram was being used to distribute information on where to get pirated content without paying,
2- Telegram has no business or presence in Spain
3- The judge claims he summoned Telegram but Telegram did not respond
4- so he is ordering Telegram be blocked.

Details are mostly missing and what is known is very sketchy but
1- this judge has a long history of being the clown and doing outrageous things
2- to properly serve a summons in a foreign country requires a process which as far as can be discerned has not been followed
3- the judge is conducting an investigation because in Spain that is the way it is done which is outrageous in itself. Judges should not be judging and investigating because they are things with contradictory objectives.

My opinion is that the judge is a clown who does not know the first thing about how the Internet works and that this is the equivalent of shutting down the highways because they are used to move stolen cars.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/23/spains-high-court-orders-block-on-telegram-messaging-app-as-a-precautionary-measure

Spain's High Court orders block on Telegram messaging app as a precautionary measure

The ruling came after a complaint by media organisations that the platform was allowing its users to upload content without their permission.

Spaniards have been left without access to the instant messaging app Telegram, at least for the time being, after Spain's High Court ordered it to be blocked as a precautionary measure.

Judge Santiago Pedraz agreed to temporarily ban the platform after four of the country's main media groups - Mediaset, Atresmedia, Movistar and Egeda - complained that the app was disseminating content generated by them and protected by copyright without authorisation from the creators.

Access to the platform - which is the fourth most-used messaging service in the country - will be suspended from Monday but it was already being suppressed on certain mobile phone providers on Saturday.

The judge had asked the company that owns the application to send certain information in the framework of this case.

After Telegram did not respond to Pedraz's requests, he ordered it to be blocked.

[Halcyon]

A controlled operation of the gathering of personal data having no bearing on the operation from innocent people. With little to no public awareness of this operation or oversight of the security of their data once forced out of the hands of those entrusted with it.

I can certainly appreciate, even sympathise with that viewpoint in relation to this particular article. I'm not going to argue either for or against it as I fear my experience/opinions would be enough to set some people off, I can't share any specifics that might be protected or otherwise not public knowledge, and I'm cognisant of my own biases when it comes to this kind of stuff.

I'll just be a quiet observer and let others drive the conversation from here.