Feds Ordered Google To Unmask Certain YouTube Users. Critics Say It’s ‘Terrifying.’
www.forbes.com
The federal government asked Google to turn over information on anyone who viewed multiple YouTube videos. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional.

If the linked article has a paywall, you can access this archived version instead: https://archive.ph/zyhax

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.

“This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s 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. I’m 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.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    193·
    9 months ago

    Well… the part they quoted is a little misleading.

    The two situations they talked about at least on the face of it were:

    1. An undercover agent was in contact with someone, and sent them a link to something in the expectation they’d click it and then that undercover agent could track down what was the IP/identity of the person who clicked the link. Pretty standard stuff. The only weird part is that it was a stock Youtube link and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after (and that for whatever reason there were 30,000 people who watched the video and they asked for the info about all 30,000).
    2. Law enforcement got a bomb threat, then they learned that there had been a livestream of them while they were looking for the bomb. That doesn’t automatically mean anything about the person who was livestreaming (maybe they just saw something exciting happening?), but wanting to talk with that person makes 100% sense to me.

    So, to me both of those seem pretty reasonable. But of course the on-the-face-of-it explanation for #1 doesn’t completely make sense for a couple of different reasons. But I wouldn’t automatically class either of these as abuse by law enforcement without knowing more.

    • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.netEnglish
      3·
      9 months ago

      My theory for #1 is that it’s an unlisted video targeted at extremists or maybe a “How to make an illegal item” guide

      Which I also think can be reasonable

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        2·
        9 months ago

        Sounds like it wasn’t really illegal (just a mapping / drone thing), as well as the behavior they were looking into wasn’t something that was for-certain illegal (just trading cash for crypto, which is I guess “illegal adjacent” but not in itself illegal). IDK. The story as it was told was a little confusing / didn’t completely make sense to me on the face of it as the complete story.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    9 months ago

    The headline made me think of back when phone networks were just starting to be fast enough to watch YouTube on data, a guy at the job I was working was caught watching videos of young girls in supposedly lacking state of dress splashing in inflatable pools or something along those lines. Dunno what happened to him but everyone thought he was a nice guy the day before and then suddenly everyone was grossed out by his mere existing.

    My immediate concern though is do they account for people who were tricked into watching like with Rick rolling?