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.

  • Gabu@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11828·
    8 months ago

    Why, would you look at that - apparently surveillance is fine and dandy, as long as it’s the US doing it. Fucking hypocrites.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafeEnglish
        528·
        8 months ago

        Someone with enough reading comprehension to take that tone would have understood it was criticism of the federal government’s hypocrisy and that critics complaining is not the same thing as a law or the courts agreeing.

        • pl_woah@lemmy.mlEnglish
          520·
          8 months ago

          You did not provide enough context in your original statement to distinguish between sarcasm and sincerity. Any sufficiently good old stupid statement is unrecognizable from parody.

  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    812·
    8 months ago

    Jokes on you I’m already on the DoD blacklist because I played War Thunder and got spammed with 40 year old “classified” NATOPs by the forums.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zoneEnglish
    731·
    8 months ago

    “But sir, downloading viewings for ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’ could blow up the entire Internet!”

    • shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
      852·
      8 months ago

      I dont think newpipe would protect from this since it still contacts the yt servers to pull the video. Peertube or a VPN would stop this though.

      • balancedchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        336·
        8 months ago

        I just found out that Lemmy is not allowing (or has rate-limited, or whatever) VPN connections to post or react.

        Not a fan of that at all.

        Edit: it’s my instance being on Cloudflare, not Lemmy as a whole. My mistake.

      • einfach_orangensaft@feddit.deEnglish
        123·
        8 months ago

        VPNs protect your from geting caught torrenting, but it cant protect you from the US-goverment.

        First of all most of the advertized VPN’s are Honeypots and/or back/bugdoored by the NSA.

        And even if they where not…so much of the internet runs on servers/services/isp’s that are related to american companys that Timing attacks are possibe (for example your ISP logs and shared your encrypted traffic and the NSA then compares Timing patterns of requests with other services).

        • shortwavesurfer@monero.townEnglish
          14·
          8 months ago

          Right, but if Google is collecting your IP address to give to the government, then using a VPN would put another step in their path, and they would have to go to the VPN provider to try to figure out who it was.As long as that VPN provider is in another country like proton VPN and does not keep logs Then there’s a good chance that they won’t know who it was that requested the YouTube video

        • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
          36·
          8 months ago

          You have no clue how vpns work and shouldn’t be giving anyone advice on tech. You are full of shit. I’m not even gonna be polite about it because you are spouting nonsense with complete confidence.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    10259·
    8 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.

    • metaldream@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      742·
      8 months ago

      It’s crazy to me that this got 61 upvotes while the main concern here, that 30,000 unrelated people had their data handed over to the government, is just an aside in point 1.

      It really concerns me that people think any of this reasonable. If this is “reasonable” then there’s nothing stopping cops from getting all of our data, whenever they want it. All they have to do is find one suspect who watched one video.

      That’s fucking crazy and clearly unreasonable. Take my downvote for having an exceptionally bad opinion on this topic.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        52·
        8 months ago

        30,000 unrelated people had their data handed over to the government

        It doesn’t say it happened. It said Google received a court order. People challenge court orders sometimes, there’s just a process you have to go through to do it.

        The whole article is honestly just weird. E.g. “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.” That is… that’s not what “unconstitutional” means at all. Sometimes cops will question innocent people or knock on doors when they’re investigating crimes. If they’re doing it without court oversight, that’s dangerous. If “crimes” include things that aren’t actually crimes, that’s dangerous. If “knocking on doors” includes more than just actually asking questions to investigate, that’s dangerous. But I’m a little doubtful that they showed up at anyone’s door just because that person watched a YouTube video and started asking them questions related or unrelated to the specific crime they were investigating.

        The article’s written in a way where you genuinely can’t tell some important details – they don’t say whether the video was public or unlisted, they don’t say whether the cops were the ones that uploaded it, there are important things like that that they don’t make clear. But the idea that the constitution says the cops can’t gather data under any circumstances to investigate a crime seems like just a knee-jerk “cops bad” reaction.

        I don’t even necessarily disagree with your broader point. If the cops took a publicly-listed YouTube video and asked a court for the identities of 30,000 people who happened to watch it, and then the court agreed, and then Google gave them the data instead of pushing back legally (which the article claims they do sometimes), then sure, that’s wrong. But literally every one of those elements is unclear from the article whether it happened.

        there’s nothing stopping cops from getting all of our data

        At the end of the article is an instance where the cops went to the court for a “geofencing” warrant and the court threw out their request because it was too broad. That’s the point of oversight and why having to get a warrant is an important step.

        Like I say I’m honestly not completely disagreeing with you here. I definitely think too much data gets harvested about what every person does online and the cops are too freely able to access it with too little oversight. Depending on the details, maybe that’s what happened here, or maybe it was legit. I’m just saying I’m don’t agree with the assertion that it’s always wrong.

      • RedFox@infosec.pubEnglish
        23·
        8 months ago

        It’s not terribly different from law enforcement getting a search warrant for a video feed covering the apartment of a known pedo video distributor and then tracking down everyone.

        The problem would be violation of privacy for everyone who went there who wasn’t a pedo.

        Obviously, that’s not a perfect comparison for the Internet because it’s acceptable from anyone, but they’re following the same playbook.

        How much privacy are you willing to trade to stop pedos from hurting kids?

        Edit: in thinking about this, the save the kids stuff has been worn out by a certain group that even I’m tired of. I didn’t really think about that when I came up with the example, not that I expect it would matter to people’s personal feelings on the matter.

        • systemglitch@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          8 months ago

          If I had my way, none, the pedo part is irrelevant. Save the kids mentality is not justification for draconian overreach

          • RedFox@infosec.pubEnglish
            3·
            8 months ago

            Yeah, I just edited the comment. That narrative is tired and political, and I honestly didn’t think of that at the time.

            Not that it really matters what the example is.

          • systemglitch@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            8 months ago

            You’re thinking and able to reconsider previous statements, I’d consider that a win. Far too I find we simply double down without the due consideration we owe ourselves.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
      53·
      8 months ago

      Neither of these is reasonable.

      1. There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it’s not nearly tailored enough.

      2. To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don’t see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

      These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people’s rights.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        8 months ago

        You don’t need probable cause that they committed a crime.

        You need probable cause that the search will result in evidence of a crime.

        Those aren’t the same thing.

        The first one is horseshit though.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, that’s probably worded better.

          Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn’t start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don’t see probable cause. It’s much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              8 months ago

              Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

              Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

              That warrant should absolutely be granted.

              Thoroughly disagree.

              It’s very different than geofencing an entire area. It’s specific…

              Ok.

              and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

              Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

              That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

              Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don’t see grounds for a warrant.

    • marine_mustang@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      18·
      8 months ago

      Seems to me the undercover agent made an extremely poor choice in links to send. If you expect to track down whoever clicked it, a link to a private video would be the obvious choice.

    • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.netEnglish
      2711·
      8 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

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        21·
        8 months ago

        It shouldn’t be illegal to learn how to make something illegal. I’m not allowed to build a nuke or a fully automatic assault rifle, but I should still be able to learn how they function.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        17·
        8 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.

        • OpenTTD@lemmy.zipEnglish
          11·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, this is hella sketchy. I don’t plan on ever using Google’s services again, but now I legit have to worry about all centralized websites in the US? I’ve been impressed with Biden at many points and screw Trump, but this is not a good look for the Biden Administration.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
      6·
      8 months ago

      and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after

      If it was a court order, then it’s much more than simply “asking them to be involved”.

      It’s literally a legal order requiring them to comply or face legal consequences.

      I don’t see Google being the ones we should be the most angry at in this scenario. They were obeying a court order.

  • mrmanager@lemmy.todayEnglish
    342·
    8 months ago

    Just another reason to not have a YouTube account. If you use Newpipe, you can subscribe to feeds anyway without any YouTube account.

    • devfuuu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      8 months ago

      Until youtube pulls a twitter move where eventually everything will only be available under a login. Wait and see.

    • AtmaJnana@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      8 months ago

      Isnt NewPipe still making calls to YouTube from your IP? I think you’d need to also configure it to use an Invidious or Piped instance.

    • Pantherina@feddit.deEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      And a reason for platforms to implement zero trust models. I mean they need to hand out data to 3rd parties, they dont benefit from that?

      SimpleX for the Win.

  • Wes_Dev@lemmy.mlEnglish
    32·
    8 months ago

    When companies tell you they respect your privacy and you should give them your data, you tell them it doesn’t matter. Because policies can change, and at the end of the day, your privacy isn’t always up to an single company.

    Wait. This was last year, so not the capitol riot. What happened in January last year? I’m in a decent mood today. Just going to skip looking deeper into this one. I have Factorio to play!

  • Grass@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    16·
    8 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?

  • CrypticCoffee@lemm.eeEnglish
    15·
    8 months ago

    Are the problem with the people who watch the video, or the people who create, or host the videos?

    • maniclucky@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      8 months ago

      A little bit of everyone? Watchers create demand for creators, which creates demand for hosts. If any link in this chain breaks, then the little ecosystem dies.

      Though that’s both difficult and reductive. Punishing hosts drives watchers to shadier hosts, with creators following. Punishing creators just creates space for other creators to fill the gap with unpredictable content (be it more of the same, better, worse, or other). Punishing watchers is resource intensive to do well, so the focus has to be on the really bad stuff to get anything done. And conjures articles like these when done poorly.

  • THCDenton@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    8 months ago

    Good thing I have history turned off so I can watch “How to make an AK47 from scratch” in peace :D

    • jinwk00@lemm.eeEnglish
      61·
      8 months ago

      They still somehow track your history despite that turned off

      Notably with recommendations

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    8 months ago

    For anyone wondering what the videos were:

    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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      95·
      8 months ago

      In the first line of the article

      Federal investigators have ordered Google to provide information on all viewers of select YouTube videos

      Federal, so yeah just the US for now.

      • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
        59·
        8 months ago

        The US isn’t the only federation in the world but it’s Forbes so yes of course it’s the US.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.worldEnglish
      233·
      8 months ago

      The videos are not very relevant to the topic of privacy and our freedom.

      Today it might be “extreme anarchy: how to make homemade bombs and guns”. On the surface, its a great idea, go stop those people.

      However, next year it could be something rediculous like “how to rip CDs”. Clearly you must be pirating, time to fine you $500 or put you through a more costly legal battle trying to prove grandpa’s 20 years of CDs were all obtained legally. Wow look at all the free money we just made because most will eat the $500 over hiring a lawyer. What else can we “fine” for?

      The idea that the government could use your internet history against you, with no other factors, is as absurd as wire tapping someone and waiting for them to say something they don’t like.