Google Sold Us Out: The Viacom Decision

I have read and re-read Judge Stanton's decision in the Google/Viacom suit more times than I really should have. At first, I was as outraged as everyone else, assuming that Judge Stanton was one more government figure without a clue how the Internet even works.

So I called my mother, who works in the courts, and ran it by her, and she pointed out two things to me: one, any Judge has a stable full of much younger and savvier law clerks who research this stuff to death, and two, everything a Judge does is based on precedent. So I went back and read the decision a few more times.

One thing keeps coming back when you look at it: the precedent cited in the decision was Google's own virtual flapping lips.

Google, you see, claims that they shouldn't have to turn over 12TB of data about who watched YouTube videos because user data, including IPs, is private user data. The decision sites an entry on the Google Public Policy Blog from February, in which Google Software Engineer Alma Whitten states:

"the IP addresses recorded by every website on the planet without additional information should not be considered personal data, because these websites usually cannot identify the human beings behind these number strings."

And, quoted in the decision:

"We . . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot."

Google can't play it both ways. Either our IP addresses and user data ARE private (in which case we should have a LOT more protection from our Moutain-View-based Big Brother) or they aren't. You can't say that they aren't protected when it comes to selling targeted advertising, and then claim it's private information when getting sued for copyright infringement on YouTube. Google needs to have a consistent policy when it comes to privacy and simply adding a link to a policy on their entry page doesn't cut it.