US Subpoenaed All Visitor Logs From Online News Publication; Falsely Said Site Couldn't Tell Anyone

from the the-abuse-of-secrecy dept

We've seen it over and over again: when the government can hide behind the veil of secrecy, it can abuse its power. That's why we're supposed to have checks and balances on power, but all too often governments figure out ways to get around that. The latest example is that US attorneys issued a subpoena to the person hosting the news website Indymedia, demanding a logfile of all visitors from a particular day and ordered the woman not to reveal the existence of the subpoena itself. Indymedia doesn't keep its logfiles, so it simply had nothing to turn over, and after realizing this, the government withdrew the request. However, the requirement to stay silent about it still was there, and the woman asked the EFF for help. With the EFF involved, the government finally backed down and admitted that there was absolutely no legal basis for demanding that the woman not talk about the subpoena, and "chose not to go to court" over the matter, despite threatening to at an earlier time.

This is hardly the first time we've heard about the government using (and abusing) procedures like national security letters to not just demand all sorts of info, but also demand that the recipient not tell anyone about it. Every once in a while we're able to hear about these situations because a group like the EFF or the ACLU pushed back and were able to get the US government to back down, but that's likely only a fraction of the situations where this has happened. In many others, we likely don't even know at all, because the recipient gave in, either because they didn't realize their legal rights, or because it just wasn't worth the fight. But when the government thinks that it can demand certain data and cloak the demand behind a related demand for secrecy, it makes it way too easy for the government to abuse the process. It basically guarantees no oversight, so why not ask for way more than the law requires, knowing that most people won't push back and no one will ever find out about it?

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Swedish ISPs Decide To Keep No Logs To Protect Users

from the consumer-demand... dept

We recently noted that a Swedish ISP was advertising the fact that it doesn't keep log files of its users, following the newly implemented Swedish law, IPRED, that requires ISPs to hand over log files if users are accused of copyright infringement online. It appears that the attention generated by that one ISP has now lead multiple Swedish ISPs to also promise to delete all user data, so that there would be nothing to turn over. As a representative from Tele2 noted: "It's a strong wish from our customers, so we decided not to store information on customers' IP numbers anymore." Between this and the new interest in encryption and VPN software in Sweden, you have to wonder why the entertainment industry was so excited about the IPRED law passing in the first place.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Swedish ISP Starts Deleting Log Files To Protect Users From IPRED Law

from the and-so-it-goes dept

There's been plenty of attention paid to Sweden's new IPRED law, which requires ISPs to hand over identifying information on those accused of file sharing -- but we've already noted that all the law is really doing is driving people to alternatives, such as encryption. And, now, it appears that even ISPs are recognizing that it just makes good business sense to better protect their users. Broadband Reports points out that a Swedish ISP, Bahnhof, has started destroying its own log files, rather than hand them over to authorities. The company's CEO notes that nothing in the law requires ISPs to keep log files -- but only to turn over what info has been retained. It seems likely that Bahnhof may have just convinced a bunch of folks to see if they can sign up for new broadband from the company. Any bets on how long it takes Sweden to pass a new law requiring ISPs to retain data for a certain period of time? Even the CEO admits that's likely -- but notes that it will show this is nothing more than a witch hunt by the entertainment industry:

"And then the legislators will have to step up and say they want to have data storage, not to catch terrorists but to help record companies and the movie industry in the hunt for file sharers."

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Search Engine Ditches All Log Files

from the searching-blind dept

There's been a silly, and mostly meaningless, one-upmanship lately in the search engine world, concerning how long the search engines retain log file info on things like the IP address of searchers. Some privacy advocates have claimed that this is a big privacy issue, though the "threat" is significantly overblown. However, it's still interesting to see a Dutch meta-search engine now announce that it's ignoring IP addresses entirely. The site, Ixquick, which has always promoted itself as being privacy friendly, used to dump log files after 48 hours, but is now ditching them completely. That's great, as an option, but it hardly means that others should do the same. It gives ixquick a way to differentiate itself in the market -- and those who really are worried about their IP addresses being watched (and haven't figured out how to use an IP-anonymizing service yet) can go use that search engine. But for those who actually find benefits in sharing some data with their search engine of choice, they should be free to do so.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Viacom Gets To Find Out What YouTube Videos You Watched

from the not-good dept

In the ongoing trainwreck that is Viacom's misguided lawsuit against YouTube (the one they would be better off losing) a judge has come out with a ruling on evidence that Google has to hand over to Viacom -- and it's being portrayed in the press as both a win and a loss for Google. On the "win" side, Google does not have to hand over the YouTube source code (or the source code of its filtering system). This makes sense, as the source code is rather meaningless here, and this request was clearly a reach from the start.

However, much more troublesome is the judge's ruling that Google does need to hand over log files including the IP address and usernames of people who viewed YouTube videos. This represents a huge violation of privacy and a clear violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). This was the law we were just discussing, due to a lawsuit concerning Blockbuster revealing rental info via Facebook's Beacon program. It was originally passed after the video rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was released in the press. The idea is that what movies you rent should be private info not to be shared.

The court pretty much ignored this law, only mentioning it in a footnote, suggesting that it only applies to video tapes. But, as the EFF points out in the link above, the law actually says "prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials." But, more to the point, it is not at all clear why Viacom should need this specific information. If it wants to show numbers of people who viewed certain videos, it seems that aggregate info should be sufficient. Having Google hand over much more info doesn't seem to serve any purpose related to the legal questions involved in the case. Update: There are now claims that Viacom will be very limited in how the data can be used -- with the threat of a contempt of court charge if anyone other than the lawyers involved in the case and specific experts see the data, but that's really not sufficient for privacy purposes. There's no way to make sure the data only stays in those hands, and even so it's still a violation of the privacy of users.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA Would Rather TorrentSpy Spy On Users Than Stop Offering Service?

from the motivations,-huh? dept

TorrentSpy and the MPAA have been involved in a legal fight for quite some time. TorrentSpy is basically a search engine for files that are offered for download via BitTorrent. However, because the MPAA views such BitTorrent as a tool for unauthorized use, it's trying to sue the search engine, rather than go after those who are actually responsible for sharing unauthorized content. There was a slightly troublesome ruling earlier this year, where a judge ordered TorrentSpy to spy on its users -- violating TorrentSpy's own privacy policy. Rather than do so, TorrentSpy decided to block access to US users. Now, you would think this would make the MPAA happy. After all, the site they were so worried about was no longer an issue for the entire US market. Instead, the MPAA is back in court claiming that this action is merely another illegal move by the company. Apparently, the MPAA would rather have TorrentSpy keep operating, but spy on its users, than block access. That doesn't make much sense if TorrentSpy is really such a huge problem. Unless, of course, the MPAA doesn't have any real evidence that TorrentSpy is doing anything wrong -- and this is about the only way it hopes to prove its case.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..