boycott-riaa.com - Article: Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on July 3, 2008 at 9:12 PM (printer friendly)

Source Link

Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom
By Ryan Singel EmailJuly 02, 2008 | 7:16:54 PMCategories: Copyrights and Patents

Youtubelogo2 Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

Viacom filed suit against Google in March 2007, seeking more than $1 billion in damages for allowing users to upload clips of Viacom's copyright material. Google argues that the law provides a safe harbor for online services so long as they comply with copyright takedown requests.

Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives.

The judge also turned Google's own defense of its data retention policies -- that IP addresses of computers aren't personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has already reacted, calling the order a violation of the Video Privacy Protection act that "threatens to expose deeply private information."

The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason.

Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema.

Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons.

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


independentm...	Date: July 3, 2008 @ 9:16 PM Google needs to tell the judge to go f**k himself when he gets done bending over and taking it up the arse from Viacom.

pessimist	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 12:01 AM Yeah, I'm really dismayed about why the judge is so partial to Viacom. I'm sure most of us would side with the EFF as they call this inappropriate judicial order "a violation of the Video Privacy Protection act". I certainly hope there's some follow-up litigation pursuing that very line of reasoning. "Google argues that the law provides a safe harbor for online services so long as they comply with copyright takedown requests." So, in effect, what is this judge doing -- taking it upon himself to unilaterally disregard safe harbor? His ruling must be challenged! (Pessimistically, though, I could anticipate a federal judge in some appellate court denying the appeal if he's partial to the pervasive push for intellectual property rights.) [exasperated grinding of teeth]

pessimist	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 12:02 AM I hope CodeWarrior drops by to render his take.

pessimist	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 12:27 AM I mean, here we have a judge saying Google was "allowing" users to upload clips of Viacom's copyright material, when, in actuality, Google issued take-down requests as soon as it was aware of copyright infringement, and there's supposed to be a safe harbor for online services, anyway, as long as take-down requests are honored promptly. How is THAT tantamount to "allowing copyrighted clips" to appear? I don't get it, dear dorky judge. What are you thinking of??? Don't you realize this unwise ruling has the effect of impinging on private information of users of online services? What a repressive perspective for his honor to take. Shame on you, judge! This (if not successfully challenged) could adversely affect online services, thus stifling the internet!

yddet1	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 12:42 AM In reply to independentmusician: He doesn't need to tell the judge to fuck himself, the judge just needs to use his (abused) power to force Viacom to commit suicide (or to force someone else to slit Viacom's throats).

pessimist	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 4:13 AM YouTube order: Does it threaten your privacy? Mercury News staff and wire reports Article Launched: 07/04/2008 01:30:32 AM PDT "A federal judge in New York has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom a database linking all users of YouTube, the Web's largest video site by far, with every clip they have ever watched there . . ." . . . [clip] STOP RIGHT THERE! I can't stand to read more; my indignant stomach is already churning. [reaching for a package of Tums] Y'know, it's still hard to believe we are supposed to be living in the land of the free and the home of the brave; but how can we be brave when we're not free??? (Free to have privacy, I mean.) Somebody tell me, am I off-base with such a strong reaction as you've noticed this damn thing has had on me?

pessimist	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 4:36 AM [continuation of indignant rant] Yeah, sorry, but this story really pisses me off alright. "The plaintiffs are trying to prove that YouTube could do more to stop copyright infringement. If their case is successful, it could weaken immunity protections that Internet service providers have when they merely host content submitted by their users." EXACTLY! And, really, this reminds me of how the RIAA has been so warped out about file sharing that they want to hold the P2P networks responsible for the content hosted on their servers! That's BEYOND unfair, because if carried to the extreme, it tramples on the very essence of the internet!! Just like this judicial ruling about YouTube, which risks putting our internet freedom in more jeopardy that it is already! Viacom, you and the RIAA and the MPAA -- I'm so furious at all of you, I could spit fire! (grrrrrr! .... snarl!) [reaching for blood pressure pill in medicine cabinet]

gdZiemann	Date: July 4, 2008 @ 10:31 AM YouTube is not an ISP. It is a web site. Their ISP provides them access to the Internet, but YouTube is hosting their own servers. This case has nothing whatsoever to do with ISPs hosting content submitted by their users, much less the status of any "immunity protections" that ISPs have. If a newspaper or magazine commits copyright infringement, no one in their right mind would try to twist it into a discussion of the responsibility of the companies that sold them a printing press, paper and ink. There would not be a call to ban newspaper vending machines. This is about YouTube's responsibility for the content they publish on their web site. Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos Again, an unfortunate choice of words by the author. I'm sure that it is accurate. That's what Viacom wants the data to prove. My version of the same paragraph, which may or may not be true because I'm assuming what was not included as fact: Viacom wants the data to determine the validity of their theory that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos. It would actually be interesting to see the results if it was done objectively. Of course, it'll take them forever to analyze it. There's also the problem that Viacom's going to be the one analyzing it and we already know what they want the data to prove.

CodeWarrior	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 1:02 AM Well, there are several issues here, and as a Johnny come lately today, the fine regular posters have already raised many. First off, how poorly is Viacom running their company and how impoverished are they, that they have to file such an outrageously frivolous "BILLION DOLLAR" lawsuit. Paramount is the same company that cancelled Star Trek because they thought there was no interest in the series. Someone needs to start a "boycott Viacom" site (hmmm....maybe if I get a few minutes it will happen).... Of course, central to the debate is this whole "privacy" thing. It begs several questions. 1) Is there a legal "right to privacy" and if there is, where in law is it established. 2) If the answer to number one is yes, and a legal right to privacy exists, what are the parameters, and to what extent can one exert this right. For example, is it a violation of a right to privacy for a website to collect information about the identity of every visitor who visits a page? The truth is, companies like Google have Google Analytics that one can use to monitor traffice, and one that I have used in the past, ExTReMe tracking, tells me the IP address, the operating system, what site they went to to get to mine, and what keywords they used to find my site. These are just SOME of the metrics I get about visitors. I know their operating system, settings for their display adapter...etc. So, would THIS be a violation of privacy? I think a gut reaction for ALL of us who regularly use the Net, and believe we have a reasonable expectation of some anonymity, and the naive belief that our net activities will not have legal implications and that our names will not show up on legal paperwork, are immediately upset and repelled that a court will order that some a-hole who has no legitimate right to know our specific identity, can get a court to order release of it. For example, for Viacom to gauge how frequently content which they allege to belong to them is viewed , relative to other content, they DO NOT NEED TO KNOW the specific identities, IP addresses, screen names , etc. , of invitiees and visitors. This is unduly burdensome, overreaching, and unreasonable, and goes beyond their purpose,and violates the release of personal identification for NO REASON. They only need gross numbers of visits to their claimed content relative to gross numbers of visits to other content for their state purpose. The ONLY, and I repeat the ONLY legitimate reason they would have for gaining information about the specific identity of individual visitors, along with their IP addresses, is the same reason the RIAA wants IP addresses, to go after the folks for receiving copyrighted material without the authorization of the copyright owner...i.e. a lawsuit. Screw VIACOM, and from now on, I will personally research any entertainment content coming out (movies, TV shows, etc) and will avoid ALL patronage of these bastards. "Living the Code" ~CODE PS Props and full respect to all those in our military services (except puppy killers, who should roast in HELL forever)

Maximara	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 3:17 AM Given the amount of videos posted on Youtube and Google how the sam hill is Viacom going to know what are copyright violations? Also since Youtube has actively make downloading harder than all get out viacom is going to lacking the one thing RIAA had to push up is cases: download. There is NOTHING about viewing improperly copyrighted works that is sueable--only making copies. Also Youtube has had some really flaky take down policies taking down AMVs while leaving up entire episodes of series up. That is going to totally screw up Viacom.

Dreddsnik	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 4:33 AM " how the sam hill is Viacom going to know what are copyright violations? " Also, what are they going to consider violations. Keeping in mind the many times they have tried to sued Parody videos and other obvious fair uses as infringement, who exactly is going to keep them honest in their 'interpretation' of infringement. Does anyone really think they can be trusted to be honest and objective ? ( yes, that question was rhetorical ).

gdZiemann	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 8:42 AM ExTReMe tracking, tells me the IP address, the operating system, what site they went to to get to mine, and what keywords they used to find my site. These are just SOME of the metrics I get about visitors. I know their operating system, settings for their display adapter...etc. I get similar stats for my site. I find it handy to let me know when Warner Music or Universal stops by to see what I'm doing. Mention Sheryl Crow and the William Morris Agency will peek in. MIT is my largest college audience and the Army is the service branch most interested. Knowing where visitors came from helps if you're considering advertising. Knowing the keywords they used to find things helps you refine the keywords you offer on each page. As Maximara points out, there is nothing illegal about watching YouTube videos. I think that the worst-case scenario is to hunt for the uploaders, but YouTube is still the one responsible for their web content, not the uploaders. And I totally agree with Dreddsnick about honesty and objectivity. There are three categories to divide the videos into, not two, and the group Viacom left out may turn out to be very, very important. Some videos are obviously infringing. Some are obviously not. But there's a big 'ol batch of them that are in a gray area which Viacom is incapable of acknowledging. We've got Electric Gypsy's banned video which has a vocal riff from a Van Morrison song. But it's not Van Morrison singing it. Led Zeppelin's O2 concert last winter -- clips were taken down by Warner, but re-appeared because Warner really has no rights to a video you take on your cell phone. Just two examples. Takedown notices were issued. Viacom will count them both as infringing. The research should be done by an outside party with nothing to benefit from the outcome.

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 10:19 AM George wrote: "It would actually be interesting to see the results if it was done objectively. Of course, it'll take them forever to analyze it. There's also the problem that Viacom's going to be the one analyzing it and we already know what they want the data to prove." "The research should be done by an outside party with nothing to benefit from the outcome." That's it exactly. How can fairness occur any other way? I'll wait to see if his honor agrees; plaintiffs shouldn't have exclusive control over deciding what material has litigious value.

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 10:29 AM I mean, the judge should appoint an outside firm to at least oversee what Viacom's research team does with all this 12 terabytes' worth of material! (On another site, I recall reading how 12 terabytes of data is equivalent to 12 million books worth of words and images, can you believe it?)

teknosoul02	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 3:40 PM Will YouTube users be sued for copyright infringement? Since Viacom has all the IP addresses of every single YouTube user, will Viacom sue those who either uploaded or viewed copyrighted material? Should YouTube users who uploaded or viewed copyrighted material be sweating bullets?

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 3:57 PM Good questions that are worth fretting about. That's why I'm so strong on the side of CopyrightLawSucks and others sharing similar viewpoints. Privacy protection is less safe than ever.

independentm...	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 4:28 PM "Should YouTube users who uploaded or viewed copyrighted material be sweating bullets?" I suspect one of Viacom's desired goals of all this is that uploaders will be discouraged. Chilling effects man, chilling effects.

independentm...	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 4:29 PM Google may have a right to all the data for their own ad purposes, but Viacom has no damn right.

independentm...	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 4:35 PM Finding Fault With Google's Privacy Policy "Google are now asking Viacom if they can anonymize the logs before turning them over; Viacom hasn't responded yet. But this privacy nightmare could have been greatly reduced if Google had anonymized the data in advance. Google's privacy policy states that they keep personally identifiable information for 18 months. There is no real reason to do so; Google can achieve everything they need even if they anonymize their search logs after just one month, and it's time users told them to do so." --orenh at slashdot.

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 6:00 PM Google is not blameless in their management of customers' logs, as pointed out by Slashdot (duration of data retention). And, to complicate matters, Google seemingly had shot themselves in the foot when they previously maintained a position that an IP address does not personally identify an account. (Technically they don't, but what's happening is that Google is furnishing these IP numbers to Viacom together with all the associated keystrokes even; and most of us would consider this to be tantamount to an encroachment or breach of privacy.)

independentm...	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 6:52 PM http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff128/lajimi/Political/missingsince911qg4-1.jpg

independentm...	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 8:16 PM By Kara Tsuboi, CNET Thu Jul 3, 4:44 PM ET A day before the United States celebrates its independence, we continue to question our individual freedoms online. In Thursday's Daily Debrief, CNET News.com Editor in Chief Dan Farber and I discuss a federal judge's recent ruling in the ongoing Google-Viacom lawsuit that orders Google to turn over YouTube user activity. This will include videos watched, IP addresses, and usernames as part of an ongoing copyright infringement case. ADVERTISEMENT Understandably, this news is disconcerting for YouTube users. Sources tell CNET News.com, however, that if Viacom uses this information for anything other than investigating piracy issues, it will be held in contempt of court. Regardless, Farber makes the point that this ruling could now set a precedent for other online privacy and security battles. Representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation agree, arguing that this court order will slowly erode the online rights we have come to enjoy and appreciate. Sounds like fireworks of a different kind this Fourth of July.

independentm...	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 8:21 PM New British ad campaign targets downloaders A grubby man in the pub named Nigel who buys counterfeit DVDs is being replaced by a sheepish young office worker named Nigel who downloads movies and music illegally at his desk in a new British ad campaign against piracy.

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 11:28 PM Internet freedoms being compromised by judicial fiat!! CNET News.com Editor-in-Chief Dan Farber, along with representatives from EFF (the Electronic Frontier Foundation), assert that the court order making Google turn over all YouTube user activity will gradually erode the online rights people have come to enjoy and appreciate!!! Yep, and it should beg the question of this horrific result is about to happen for whose benefit??? What the hell can be that important to sacrifice internet freedom??? More and more people need to become informed and get involved, start visible protests, etc., to stir some stronger national attention about how the freedoms of online activity are continuing to be under assault!! First, the concept of file sharing has faced withering attack by the RIAA, the MPAA, and others for years . . . and now THIS!!! [bulging veins on forehead; anguished face and wincing eyes; guttural sounds in throat; uplifted arms in abject dismay]

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 11:31 PM (accepting assistance from significant other to take blood pressure pill)

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 11:54 PM America, the land of the formerly free and the fewer brave . . . [significant other attempting to pry my hands from the keyboard]

pessimist	Date: July 5, 2008 @ 11:56 PM [scuffle ensuing]

pessimist	Date: July 6, 2008 @ 9:18 AM (regaining reasonable composure after a self-induced hiatus) This unprecented court order might be considered as violating the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 federal law passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental habits were revealed. And even though the judge exempted private video clips on YouTube from being accessed by Viacom, I'd be concerned that these may not be counted as part of the total non-infringing material to go along with the other non-copyrighted content that will be on those 12 terabyte hard drives going to Viacom. No report mentioned this aspect, as far as I know; that's just my analytical reflection at the moment! It matters, because, at the very least, there needs to be an accurate accounting, a fair ratio comparison. Also, as an aside, will the fox be guarding the hen house? Will there be any monitoring of what Viacom does with all that mountain of data? If not, then expect them to come to the statistical conclusion they want to have to serve their best interests! Did the judge think of that? If he didn't think of it, then why not? If he did think of it, but didn't make any stipulation, then that's even worse!! Wow. But even all that aside, folks, what the hell happened to the concept of SAFE HARBOR? WTF, why didn't YouTube/Google make a bigger fuss over the tradition of safe harbor to this judge . . . AND beseech the mainstream news media about it? And, finally, this judge ... I wonder if we can put him in a similar category as Judge Levy (the notorious guy who allows the RIAA to by-pass the discovery phase that could give the defendant a fair shake in a file-sharing trial)? [exasperated groan]

pessimist	Date: July 7, 2008 @ 1:08 AM Lately, it seems I'm carrying on a lone crusade on this thread. But here's a sampling of what's being said in editorials on other websites (as of yesterday and today): "Google seems willing to comply with the court order but did state that it will ask Viacom to respect users’ privacy. However, can we trust that this information will never be used in the future, and how can we tell if it does??" "Oh, well, guys, what’s a little privacy worth …. when a crucial, juicy $1 billion dollar pay-out is at stake? … and anyway, Google “will ask Viacom to respect users’privacy." Sweet! So, YouTube users, how happy will we be handing over even more access to our private information to enable some squillionaire media mogul to rake in an extra billion dollars? I’d say we would be just about as happy as knowing that a peeping tom has been given permission to view our private lives. To paraphrase George Orwell: Welcome to the brave new world of the future! The future is now, and it's not lovely or nice, especially if privacy advocates don't have enough clout." "Isn’t it a general principle that during discovery the least information required to fulfill the desired goal is what should be ordered disclosed?" [Amen! That's a well-stated principle. You hear that, Judge Levy -- you're the villain who relishes aiding the RIAA by allowing them to practically avoid the discovery phase, which they couldn't pass, in their litigation against file-sharing defendants.] "Some people say you can either have convenience or privacy, not both. Those are the same type of suckers who claim the fight against terrorism necessarily entails abridging of personal liberties. B.S.!! Who was it that said, way back in the 1700's, that those who sacrifice freedom for security will end up having neither?" "YouTube/Google's first response should have been to threaten to defy this court order (because it's in opposition to an existing privacy law)! Has it struck anyone else that Google has been rather weak-kneed in its response to the judge requiring it to turn over almost all of YouTube's viewing logs to Viacom? Google's entire business is built on our trust that the privacy of all that personal information they have about us will be protected. Yet, in this situation, one in which legal experts have pointed out that the judge is actually ordering Google to violate existing privacy law to our detriment, the company appears to be rolling over with a feeble plea that Viacom please allow some "anonymizing" of those terabytes of data they yield. Well, folks, that's just not good enough!" Pessimist's comment: Yes, indeed, that's just what I've been harping about! (Lately, either my plaintiff cries have seemingly been falling on deaf ears, or I'm preaching to the choir, or practically everyone around here has tuned out or doesn't give much of a damn. I'd really like to know which! So, until I do know, I'm giving up this crusade on this boycott-riaa website to focus my attention on other internet sites that are still actively pursuing this issue with vigor. Sorry, folks, but you're disappointing me around here.) [Over and out.]

CodeWarrior	Date: July 7, 2008 @ 3:38 AM I was thinking about this billion dollar suit and how Viacom thinks its content is so valuable, and to me, it brings up the issue of what is the most expensive coffee in the world. The MOST expensive coffee is kopi lupak, and comes from the Phillipines...well, to be more exact, it is coffee made from coffee beans that pass through the digestive system of the civet cat and get excreted in civet cat turds, festooning the turd with coffee beans. These beans are cleaned, dried, and sold as the most expensive coffee beans. Similarly, Viacom cleans up turds and wants a billion dollars for it. "So it goes."- Kurt Vonnegut (RIP) ~Code

pessimist	Date: July 7, 2008 @ 8:09 AM Thanks for your post, 'Code. I guess I'd be remiss not to finish up without touching on a few final key points, so I'll do that now and then make my final exit on this thread. According to the New York Times and other news agencies, one served subpoena is all it takes to reveal any of your online activity . . . and they're right. Whenever questions are raised about privacy, major online companies talk about how benign their plans are for using information about their customers: Much data is anonymous, they say, and even the information that is linked to individuals is ONLY meant to offer users a more personal experience tailored to their interests. (Basically, they prevaricate right out of the starting gate; your information is being kept in reserve as potential future assets to serve their bottom-line profits, directly or indirectly.) But even beyond that, they hardly ever mention subpoenas. Yet in the United States, one of the biggest privacy issues pertains to the information that can be revealed about people through a court process, either as part of a criminal investigation or in some sort of civil dispute. Internet companies are different from other businesses that keep records about their customers. A person’s activity online represents an unusually broad picture of his or her interests, transactions, and social relationships. Moreover, it is the nature of computers to store records of all of the bits of data they process. Much of this data is spread among various different companies and their servers. But these puzzle pieces can be put together. This is the key fact that so much of the discussion about IP addresses doesn't take into account. All this raises questions that internet companies, privacy regulators, and Congress should take serious stock of: How much data ought to be retained by internet companies, and for how long? What should internet users be told about the sort of information that could be disclosed about them in response to a legal action or government request? Shouldn't there be new laws that define more clearly what the standards are for disclosing online surfing and searching activity? There is certainly a history of laws that create special privacy regimes for various domains, such as financial and medical records. Congress even protected records about what movies you rent and television channels you watch. Aren’t the records of where you surf, including the videos you watch on YouTube, worth at least as much protection? That should virtually be a rhetorical question, but it isn't. In fact, never before in our history has so much personal data about us been collected AND at risk of disclosure.

independentm...	Date: July 7, 2008 @ 4:51 PM Benjamin Franklin's rephrasing of Blackstone's formulation: "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

pessimist	Date: July 7, 2008 @ 8:21 PM Very good concept. Comparing that to Viacom's unspoken premise: It is better that millions of innocent onliners risk having their personal data compromised than that one powerful company should suffer failing to capitalize on the opportunity to rake in an extra billion dollars with the judicial assistance of an oppressive court order.

CodeWarrior	Date: July 8, 2008 @ 9:40 AM I used to post a great deal of comment that I generated that ISPs should NOT keep activity logs beyond the legal minimum. http://codewarrior.greatnow.com/ Keeping logs that can be subpoenaed is ASKING for legal problems. If you keep records, AS A NORMAL PART OF YOUR BUSINESS, then they are discoverable (I suppose there are special circumstances with proprietary secrets that may not be, but I defer to leflaw). The point is, the more records and emails amnd crap you have around, the more that can be demanded from you in court, and if other folks have their names on those records, the more problems for them. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/09/preclusion-motion-filed-in-umg-v.html Ultimately, I blame the ISPs for keeping those damn activity logs too long. :) Link to this comment posted by Blogger CodeWarrior : September 30, 2006 7:16:00 PM EDT

pessimist	Date: July 8, 2008 @ 1:47 PM Yeah, it's almost as if there's been some sort of obligatory conspiracy . . . Perhaps they created Commandment #11: Thou shalt snare and hold records of keystrokes made by clients that thou host for internet service or who access thy website. I mean, it's STUPID and UNNECESSARY. I'll go even further; Bill Gates & Co. did NOT need to make their operating systems so intrusive, secretly logging so much of what a person does on their computer, but they did it anyway. Some say it was done to capitulate to businesses (managers) who then have convenient ways to spy on what their employees do when the former aren't around. I mean, it's so bad that some of those recorded files have been invisible or otherwise stealthly hidden from any "Search" function that a person can activate. That's nefarious. It takes special software to ferret them out and delete them! (To their credit, Apple/Mac did not go along with Windows' oppressive logging system.) And, just as 'Code said, Google's YouTube -- and various ISPs -- shouldn't have kept "those damn activity logs so long." If they weren't there, they couldn't used against them! It's almost as if Google made an unwise decision that ultimately resulted in shooting themselves in the foot. Wealthy, prominent corporations are supposed to be smarter than that. Hear that, you major web hosters and ISPs? I'm calling you out for being (partly) DUMB-ASSED! Take that.

RaidHHI	Date: July 10, 2008 @ 11:32 AM "I'll go even further; Bill Gates & Co. did NOT need to make their operating systems so intrusive, secretly logging so much of what a person does on their computer, but they did it anyway." Let's try to keep our discussions out of the field of sci-fi. Anyone who actually believes the sillyness quoted above is in dire need of basic computer lessons.

pessimist	Date: July 10, 2008 @ 1:20 PM Windows doesn't log stuff about where you go or what you do on their operating system? Maybe I just woke up from a long dream that isn't true, after all. :) I stand by my "intrusive" comment, because a number of things get recorded that don't have to be, AND typically without the average user's knowledge. Surely you know that, Raid.

pessimist	Date: July 10, 2008 @ 1:24 PM Just reading about the data that the program Evidence Eliminator can make disappear is enough get my attention. But there's more than that.

pessimist	Date: July 10, 2008 @ 1:29 PM Wait; perhaps I was misunderstood. I'm not talking about data necessarily being reported back to MicroSoft headquarters; I meant stuff that's logged to special files put on your hard drive about what you do.

pessimist	Date: July 10, 2008 @ 1:52 PM It's only fair to add that, around here, your technical expertise with computers and software is acknowledged and respected.

pessimist	Date: July 10, 2008 @ 2:40 PM I wanted to add that encrypting e-mail messages or using random proxy foreign servers might be considered paranoia by some people, but it depends on what level of peace of mind makes a person happy (especially if they don't have anywhere the superior skill level that you do). Okay, I admit: I use "Window Washer" program for a little bit of a security blanket, and also "Anonymizer".