Gasp! YouTube Shutters Account For Person Committing DMCA Takedown Fraud!

from the praise-be dept

It should come as no surprise to regular Techdirt readers that the DMCA takedown process is not only wide open to fraud and abuse, but that those avenues are regularly used in real life for just those purposes. Takedowns to silence criticism, takedowns to try to steal traffic from others, or takedowns or monetization claims just to get some paltry amounts of streaming revenue: the point is that this shit happens all the time. What absolutely does not happen with any frequency is the folks behind these bogus actions getting punished in any way for their behavior.

And so when it does happen, it's worth highlighting it, putting it on a podium, and trying to have it become the norm rather than the exception. To that end, let's highlight YouTube actually banning an account that appeared to be sending fraudulent DMCA notices.

Yesterday, the owner of the “Musical Creator” channel complained that their channel had been terminated after submitting a copyright takedown request. The operator of the channel doesn’t appear to be a native English speaker as the comment below shows, but it’s clear that they disagree with this decision.

“My youtube channel MUSICAL CREATOR has been terminated due to inlegal information copyright infringement. But I not violating any policy of youtube, I don’t know how my channel is terminated I filled out all the information legal. I want to get back my channel again,” the operator writes.

Now, a couple of things to say here. First, the channel's name is "MUSICAL CREATOR"? Hmm, okay, totally doesn't sound like the kind of thing you would create just to send DMCA notices and try to monetize others' content. And we don't have any details from YouTube as to what specifically was the issue with whatever takedown notice MUSICAL CREATOR sent. Instead, all we have is this from YouTube's notice directly.

“We are concerned that some of the information within this legal request may be fraudulent,” YouTube’s response reads. “Please understand that YouTube receives a large number of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, and we take abuse of that process very seriously.”

While that doesn't tell us much or let us vet out whether fraud was actually committed or not, it's worth keeping in mind again that YouTube takes very little action on this sort of thing generally speaking. By which I mean that the fact it took action in this case leads me to believe YouTube thinks it's on very, very solid footing here.

As a result, the MUSICAL CREATOR account is down. Anyone going to its page is simply told that the account is offline due to "a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service."

Again, it's hard to be completely assured that YouTube's actions in this case are appropriate... but I suspect they are. And, purely as a matter of percentage cases, the fact is that YouTube and other platforms have historically been so vastly on the side of those issuing DMCA notices instead of the potential victims of fraud that it makes stories like this unique.

Even though they shouldn't be.

Filed Under: censorship, copyfraud, copyright, dmca, dmca 512, notice and takedown, takedown fraud, youtube
Companies: youtube

Remix Culture Done Right: Wes Tank Mashes Up Dr. Seuss With Dr. Dre (And So Far The Copyright Police Have Left Him Alone)

from the doctor-meets-doctor dept

A few days back I saw a friend share an incredible video on YouTube of a guy in Milwaukee named Wes Tank, rapping Dr. Seuss's "Fox in Sox" over Dr. Dre beats. Even if you think that sounds great, the final result is even better than you expect:

That video went super viral and is currently at over 3.5 million views on YouTube. Wes has since been adding more and more Seuss-over-Dre videos to his channel and each one is incredible. Because I can't pick favorites, here are a few. You'll want to watch them all.

Since seeing these videos (multiple times), I've read and watched a few different interviews with him and he says he basically came up with this idea on a whim five or so years ago, and did it at a live show, and got a tremendous response. Since then, he's done it a few times and it's a crowd favorite, but he never really had time to make the videos for it until, you know, the pandemic hit and the work he was planning to do with his recently created video production company, TankThink, got put on hold.

Of course, as someone who has promoted and supported the concept of mashup or remix culture for decades, this reminded me (yet again) of why being able to do this kind of creativity is so important. Wes himself has talked about the joy and value these videos are creating:

"I think this is helping families a little bit to cope and to have something positive that is going to make you laugh, and is not cynical, and it's not the news," Tank said. "There are so many kids out there who have no clue about what is going on in the world and that naivete is sort of fragile, and everybody's parents are a little tense. So when people send videos of their kids glued to the screen watching this, that just warms my heart."

It really is quite wonderful.

But of course... the downside of paying attention to these kinds of things for decades has me wondering how this plays out in the long term... because copyright always has the ability to come in and create problems. In one interview he's asked if he'll be putting out an album of the tracks, and he implies that copyright might get in the way of any kind of official album release (though he is offering the MP3s to his Patreon supporters).

Still, we're talking about the notoriously litigious Dr. Seuss estate, which not only sued over a fun parody of Dr. Seuss's work, but is still fighting the fact that it has so far lost that case. Parts of that case just had oral arguments before the 9th Circuit a few weeks ago. In other words, the Seuss Estate doesn't seem all that keen on letting people create derivative works. And that's before we get into whoever holds the copyright on Dre's music. Getting both sides of the copyright equation to agree on allowing this would make sense in a sane copyright world -- but that's not the world we live in.

Hopefully, neither side gets upset with this and they let Wes continue doing such an amazing job -- but just the fact that we all know there's a decent chance these amazingly creative mashups might disappear because Dr. Seuss's estate doesn't get paid, should be yet another damning example of how ridiculous the state of copyright law has become today.

Filed Under: copyright, dr. dre, dr. seuss, mashup, remix, wes tank, youtube

YouTube Warns That, Thanks To Covid-19, It's Handing Over More Content Moderation To The Machines And They Might Suck

from the be-forewarned dept

Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well in the best of times, but the solutions that seem to at least keep it from devolving into a total mess almost always use a combination of humans and technology working together. But what do you do when the humans are sick, self-isolating, quarantined, etc? While I imagine some may be able to work from home, it's a difficult time to expect anyone to be at full productivity. So YouTube has made it clear that it's turning over more content moderation decisions to the machines knowing full well that some of those decisions are going to be bad:

Our Community Guidelines enforcement today is based on a combination of people and technology: Machine learning helps detect potentially harmful content and then sends it to human reviewers for assessment. As a result of the new measures we’re taking, we will temporarily start relying more on technology to help with some of the work normally done by reviewers. This means automated systems will start removing some content without human review, so we can continue to act quickly to remove violative content and protect our ecosystem, while we have workplace protections in place.

As we do this, users and creators may see increased video removals, including some videos that may not violate policies. We won’t issue strikes on this content except in cases where we have high confidence that it’s violative. If creators think that their content was removed in error, they can appeal the decision and our teams will take a look. However, note that our workforce precautions will also result in delayed appeal reviews. We’ll also be more cautious about what content gets promoted, including livestreams. In some cases, unreviewed content may not be available via search, on the homepage, or in recommendations.

And, of course, this is absolutely the right choice to make -- indeed, it's the only choice to make given the circumstances. But it's yet another reminder of how impossible and fragile the system is when people demand that humans review everything being posted to social media. Either way, don't be surprised to hear many more stories of bad content moderation decisions not just on YouTube but elsewhere in the coming weeks. Of course, I still imagine people will scream and yell and take it personally, but at least recognize that some of the issue may be that the humans are all kinda preoccupied with more important things right now.

Filed Under: ai, content moderation, content moderation at scale, humans, youtube
Companies: google, youtube

YouTube Takes Down Live Stream Over Copyright Claim...Before Stream Even Starts

from the precrime dept

It seems that the concern over how YouTube is handling its platform when it comes to enforcing copyright claims is reaching something of a fever pitch. Hell, in just the last couple of weeks we've seen a YouTuber have his videos demonitized over copyright claims to the numbers "36" and "50", rampant abuse of ContentID even as the EU edges closer to making that platform a requirement through Article 17, and wider concerns about YouTube's inability to enforce moderation at scale in a way that makes even a modicum of sense. The point is that it's becoming all the more clear that YouTube's efforts at content moderation and copyright enforcement on its site are becoming a nightmare.

And perhaps there is no better version of that nightmare than when one YouTube streamer found his live stream taken down when Warner Bros. claimed copyright on it... before that live stream had even begun. Matt Binder hosts the political podcast "DOOMED with Matt Binder." He also livestreams the show on YouTube. The night of the last Democratic Presidential debate, he scheduled a livestream to discuss the debate with a guest.

Earlier in the evening, I'd scheduled a YouTube livestream, as I always do the night of a debate, in order to discuss the event with progressive activist Jordan Uhl after CNN's broadcast wrapped up. I'd even labeled it as a “post-Democratic debate” show featuring Uhl's name directly in the scheduled stream title. These post-debate shows consist entirely of webcam feeds of my guest and myself, split-screen style, breaking down the night's events. Shortly after setting up the stream, which wasn't scheduled to start for hours, I received an email from YouTube:

“[Copyright takedown notice] Your video has been taken down from YouTube.”

The notice informed me that I had received a copyright strike for my scheduled stream. That one copyright strike was enough to disable livestreaming on my channel for the strike's three-month duration. If I were to accumulate three strikes, YouTube would just shut down my channel completely, removing all of my content.

Reasonable people can disagree on just how much collateral damage is acceptable when enforcing copyright. What no reasonable person can agree with is the idea that a livestream ought to be taken down and a 3 month stream ban be put in place over copyright on content that hasn't even been created yet. In fact, were there a perfect antithesis to the entire point of copyright law, it certainly must be this: the prevention of valid content creation via copyright claim.

So, what happened? Well, it appears based on the notice that Warner Bros., parent company for CNN, issued the copyright claim. CNN hosted the debate and Binder's reference in the title of his stream may have caused someone at WB to think that this was either the stream of the event, which would be copyright infringement, or a stream of CNN's post-debate commentary, which would also be copyright infringement. This was, after all, a manual block, not some automated system. But, mistake or not, this shows a glaring flaw in CNN's enforcement of copyright.

“Your case is the most extreme I’ve heard about. Congratulations,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Manager of Policy and Activism, Katharine Trendacosta, said to me in a phone conversation on the issue. “This is the first time I've heard about this happening to something that didn't contain anything. And I have heard a lot of really intense stories about what's happening on YouTube.”

If there were any question that there are serious problems in YouTube's enforcement mechanism, this situation answers those questions. YouTube ended up reversing the copyright strike, of course, but the damage in this case had already been done. Binder was unable to stream that night, all because YouTube is so bent towards claimers of copyright rather than its own content producers that its enforcement cannot possibly work without massive collateral damage, such as this.

I suspect we're going to continue to see these situations arise, until YouTube takes a hard look at its policies.

Filed Under: matt binder, pre-crime, stream, youtube
Companies: warner bros., youtube

Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Newly Public Domain 'Yes! We Have No Bananas'

from the yes,-we-have-no-public-domain dept

As you're probably aware, on January 1st of this year, we actually had a public domain day in the US for the first time in over two decades. Prior to that Congress (with the help of Hollywood lobbyists) had worked to continually extend copyright law whenever new works were due to go into the public domain. These extensions still seem to violate the spirit of the copyright clause in the Constitution, given that it is granting Congress permission to create such monopolies only so much as those monopoly rights "promote the progress." Any reasonable interpretation of that clause means that copyright law should be allowed in cases where it creates the incentive to create. But it's difficult to see how extending copyright law decades after the work has been created does anything to incentivize that work in the first place.

Nonetheless, this year, Hollywood finally realized that it was probably too much to ask to get another copyright term extension and finally let works from 1923 enter the public domain. One of the signature works of the public domain class of 1923 was the song Yes! We Have No Bananas by composers Irving Cohn and Frank Silver. As of January 1st, anyone was free to make use of that song. Indeed, in our own Public Domain Game Jam competition, we actually had not one, but two separate game entries based on "Yes! We Have No Bananas."

But, of course, even if Hollywood wasn't going to push for term extension, that doesn't mean it won't do what it always does, and pull other levers. Glenn Fleishman had posted a video of the song to YouTube in celebration of it entering the public domain earlier this year. He even titled it "Yes! We Have No Bananas, now in the public domain." The video is of him and friends/family singing it at a New Year's Eve Party:

However, that video has now been "claimed" by Universal Music and various subsidiaries, meaning that they could "monetize" it or force it offline, despite them literally having no rights to speak of.

YouTube's statement is fairly vague in its own right:

Dear Glenn Fleishman,

Your video "Yes! We Have No Bananas, now in the public domain", may have content that is owned or licensed by UMPG Publishing, Shapiro Bernstein, EMI Music Publishing, and UMPI, but it's still available on YouTube! In some cases, ads may appear next to it.

If this is your performance of a 3rd party song then you can still make money from this video. Click here to change your monetization settings.

This claim is not penalizing your account status. Visit your Copyright Notice page for more details on the policy applied to your video.

- The YouTube Team

From that, it appears to be the publishing arms of Universal Music, meaning that it's a claim on the underlying composition itself. And that is, definitively, in the public domain. At first I thought maybe they'd be claiming the specific sound recording, which might have been made at a later date, but since this is Glenn's own recording, and all of the listed companies are from the publishing (composition) side of things, it appears that it's just possible (if not likely) that Universal never took this work off its own books (perhaps it has no method of removing public domain material).

What's possibly troubling is that YouTube doesn't even seem to offer up an option for you to point out that the work is in the public domain, and even if these entities might have once had a claim on the song, a few months back the "for limited times" part of the Constitution finally kicked in and they have no legitimate claim any more.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright claim, ownership society, public domain, yes we have no bananas, youtube
Companies: universal music, youtube

German Political Leader Questions YouTubers' Right To Tell Fans Not To Vote For Her Party, Urgently Summons Her Advisers In Response -- By Fax

from the doof-doof-doof dept

One of the many ugly aspects of the Article 13/17 disaster is the way that politicians not only ignored the concerns of millions of EU citizens, but actively insulted them, describing them as "bots" or Google "astroturfing". As Mike noted at the time, treating people with contempt, shortly before the main elections for the European Parliament, was not a wise move. German politicians were particularly contemptuous of young voters, and the latter did not forget. The mainstream German political parties -- the center-right CDU and CSU, and the center-left SDP -- were trashed in the recent elections, largely because very few young people voted for them. The German Greens, by contrast, had their best results yet.

One person who may have helped to bring that about is the YouTuber Rezo. Shortly before the EU vote, he released a 55-minute "personal rant" entitled, "The destruction of the CDU" (in German). In its first week, it had been viewed over 12 million times, and attracted over 180,000 comments. Despite its title, it is not just an anti-CDU polemic, but details the failure of all the mainstream German parties to address key issues -- notably the climate crisis, but also poverty, German support for US militarism, and Article 13. It urged German viewers to vote -- but not for the CDU, CSU, SDP or the extreme right-wing AfD. A few days later, over 90 fellow YouTubers joined Rezo in making the same call in a shorter video (in German).

The general view seems to be that the action of these top YouTubers probably caused many more young Germans to think and talk about the issues raised by the elections for the European Parliament, and then to go out and vote, than anything in the country's history. Against a background of general cynicism and lack of political engagement in the EU, you might expect this initiative to be celebrated as an amazing achievement, and something to be emulated in future elections.

Nope.

Here's what Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, leader of the CDU, said about those YouTubers who offered their views on which party people should vote for:

What would actually have happened in this country, if a group of 70 newspaper editorials had made a joint appeal two days before the election: "please do not vote for the CDU or the SPD". That would have been a clear case of spin before the election, and would have led to heated debates in this country. And the question arises with regard to the issue of spin: what exactly are the rules from the analog domain, and which rules apply to the digital sector, yes or no? That's a question we will discuss. And that's why this discussion will be very aggressive.

In other words, how dare these impertinent youngsters criticize what their elders and betters are doing? Let's bring in some new rules for the Internet to stop that happening again.

But this isn't cynical "spin": it's just Rezo offering his opinion -- take it or leave it. It's what newspaper editorials and columnists do every day, and everybody accepts that as a useful and valid part of political discourse. What Kramp-Karrenbauer is really complaining about is the fact that YouTube represents an alternative to the established media outlets she knows how to handle. Frighteningly for the CDU, YouTube is not only a medium that it and the other parties can't control, employing the usual political and economic levers, it's one they struggle even to understand. For example, as the Guardian reported, one CDU supporter tweeted about Rezo: "This young man is spreading an endless stream of fake news and is populist down to the tips of his blue hair" (original in German). But Rezo's video is not only a brilliant demonstration of how to use YouTube in an extremely persuasive way, it also comes with a Google document containing hundreds of references and citations of scientific literature backing up his claims, making it the diametric opposite of "fake news".

It's clear the traditional politicians and their old friends in mainstream media simply don't know how to counter this kind of sweary but fact-based attack, using a powerful medium that costs practically nothing to produce and that can reach and influence a million people in a few hours. So, in order to discuss this troubling new high-tech threat that contributed to the humiliating drubbing her party received in the European Parliament elections, the CDU's Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has organized a meeting of her most trusted political advisers.

The invitations were sent by fax.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: afd, annegret kamp-karrenbauer, cdu, csu, eu, eu parliament, germany, rezo, sdp, videos, voters, youtube
Companies: youtube

YouTube Copyright Filters Suck: The 'Beat Saber' And 'Jimmy Fallon' Edition

from the beat-down dept

At this point, it's plainly obvious that YouTube's ContentID platform for doing automated takedowns of videos that supposedly infringe on copyrights is a full on mess. That mess is multi-pronged. The filters themselves suck at identifying actual infringement, and throw up all kinds of false positives. The filters are also so broadly applied that building any nuance into what is blocked and what isn't is basically impossible. Finally, the whole system is so wide open for abuse that it's laughable.

The latest iteration of this concerns Beat Saber, a virtual reality rhythm game where you essentially wield two lightsabers to match the beats and rhythms that go along with the music. The game has become so wildly popular that it was recently featured on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. That's where things went sideways.

Brie Larson played Beat Saber on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon which resulted in the video being uploaded to the show’s YouTube channel. Unfortunately, subsequent uploads with similar gameplay are getting copyright strikes because it appears to share similar gameplay footage, possibly from the same levels as played on the show.

Here is one of the tweets that highlighted the issue about the Beat Saber copyright strikes:

In case you can't see that tweet, it's essentially Beat Saber's team responding to one of the many people who had a let's play video taken down due to a takedown notice... from Jimmy Fallon's show. Confused as to why NBC is taking down videos that include only game footage of Beat Saber? Well, Fallon and his guest played those same levels on his show, leading the ContentID filters to think that the let's play videos were playing part of Fallon's show, when it was actually the other way around: Fallon's show included game footage. In other words, ContentID got it exactly backwards.

And, it should be noted, the folks behind Beat Saber absolutely do want you to upload video of game footage to YouTube.

“This was not planned by anyone, that’s just a really messed up youtube algorithm,” stated a subsequent tweet on Beat Saber’s account. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Jimmy’s team didn’t even know about the fact that this is happening. I will reach out to Jimmy’s team. Maybe they can help, but I am not sure about that. :(”

The Beat Saber team has turned off ContentID detection for the track, but this particular situation is somewhat out of their hands. Fortunately, the developers may have a solution underway for the Beat Saber copyright strikes. A follow-up tweet states that the people behind The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon are working with YouTube to resolve the issue. In the meantime, the developers advise that it may be helpful for uploaders to dispute the claim should they be one of the affected videos.

And, yet, there are hundreds of these takedowns. No, Beat Saber folks aren't being copyright jerks. No, NBC wasn't trying to takedown let's plays of Beat Saber. Instead, everyone is relying on an automated system that fully sucks at getting copyright questions correct. It sucks so bad, in fact, that they get the order of operations here backwards.

If you need another example that automated filters can't do copyright enforcement, you will never be satisfied.

Filed Under: beat saber, censorship, contentid, copyright, jimmy fallon, takedowns, youtube
Companies: youtube

YouTube And Demonetization: The Hammer And Nail Of Content Moderation

from the not-so-easy dept

Last week we had a story about a bunch of Pokemon YouTubers discovering their accounts were dropped after YouTube confused their discussion of "CP" (Combat Points), thinking it might actually refer to a different "CP": child porn. The accounts were reinstated after a bit of an outcry.

It appears that this was part of a larger effort by YouTube to deal with a variety of problems on its platform (and, yes, its platform has problems). But some of the resulting stories suggest that YouTube is so focused on "demonetization" as a tool that it's losing sight of alternatives. The Pokemon story appears to have actually been part of a larger effort to respond to claims that child predators were using the comments of certain, perfectly normal videos of kids to, well, do bad stuff. The whole thing is pretty sickening and horrifying and I have no interest in going into the details.

As the controversy over this -- quite reasonably -- gained attention, some pointed out that these videos with exploitative comments were, in many cases, being monetized with big brand name ads appearing next to them. This type of complaint is... not new. People have been complaining about brand names appearing in ads next to "bad" content or "infringing" content for many years. Of course, it's pretty much all matched by algorithm, and part of the problem is that because people are gaming the system, the algorithm (and YouTube) hadn't quite caught on to what was happening. Of course, the outcry from the public -- especially about the monetization -- then resulted in advertisers pulling all their ads from YouTube. And, whether it was the advertisers leaving or the general public outcry (it was almost certainly both, but I'm sure most people will assume it was the advertisers bailing that really made the difference), YouTube went on a big new effort to pull ads from lots of videos.

And in doing so, it created a brand new controversy. Just as this started, a mother named Jessica Ballinger complained on Twitter that YouTube had demonetized videos of her 5 year old son. YouTube responded on Twitter, noting that it was because of the comments on the video, obliquely referencing the stories discussed above.

Of course, this immediately created a new kind of backlash as people (rightfully!) pointed out that disabling monetization of a video based on the comments on that video just seems to empower and encourage trolls. Want to harm a YouTuber you don't like? Just post a sketchy comment on their videos and, boom, you can take away their money.

And, to be clear, this is not a new thing for Google. Just last month we noted that the company has a similarly silly policy with Adsesnse and blogs that have comments. If Adsense decides that some of your user-generated comments are "bad" they might demonetize the page that hosts those comments. As with the stories above, this is mostly to appease advertisers and avoid the sort of (slightly misguided) screaming about "big brand ad appearing next to awful comments." We found that policy to be silly in that situation, but it's even more ridiculous here.

As Dan Bull noted in response to all of this it seems that a much simpler solution compared to demonetizing such videos is to just remove the sketchy, awful, predatory comments.

That doesn't work in the Adsense context, where the comments are out of Google's control, but on YouTube it's their own damn platform. Of course, the reality is probably that YouTube freaked out following the initial reports about the predatory comments, and then did what it could do most quickly -- which was to demonetize any such video that might possibly have such content, before doing a more thorough sweep of the awful comments.

Still, this once again highlights the difficulty, perils, and trade-offs associated with content moderation on a massive platform. Every choice has trade-offs and creates different kinds of problems. And between the speed with which people freak out about stuff and the scale that this is happening, you get situations like this where people (rightly!) freak out about the awful thing some people are doing in the YouTube comments (with the associated freak-out about how the videos are monetized) leading to YouTube to rush to demonetize... leading to a freak-out from others who were demonetized for totally innocent videos, where they had done absolutely nothing wrong. You can see how these choices may get made to deal with that situation, and still end up in a kind of messed up position.

Of course, demonetization is a perfectly reasonable tool for YouTube to use in some cases. Soon after the mess described above, YouTube also demonetized a bunch of quack anti-vaccine videos, which had also resulted in people being reasonably upset about the kind of nonsense that was showing up in their YouTube feeds (and making these anti-science quacks money). But, again, it's likely that there's a cat and mouse game going on here, and filters of questionable quality. It won't surprise me to find out that (1) anti-vaxxer conspiracy nuts figure out ways to get around this monetization block and (2) perfectly innocent videos get de-monetized (while I haven't heard of any yet, it wouldn't surprise me if -- for example -- a legitimate news report about the anti-vaxxer movement might get caught up in the flow).

Again, there's nothing wrong with YouTube or other platforms making these kinds of decisions, but they're not easy decisions and they (1) make mistakes and (2) have unintended consequences that are worth watching carefully as well. Right before YouTube did that demonetization, another story was making the rounds about how Pinterest took an even more extreme position in basically blocking all anti-vax content and searches on its platforms. Especially given the latest stories of measles outbreaks caused entirely by gullible anti-vaxxers, there's a perfectly reasonable argument that Pinterest is doing the right thing here. But... as others like Christina Xu noted, this kind of move is kind of difficult to separate from Chinese internet censorship.

Indeed, it would not surprise me in the slightest to see stories appear in the Chinese media before long pointing to these examples of why it is taking the right approach with the Great Firewall of China and its free speech suppressing censorship. After all, the Chinese have done it in the past with other, similar, stories.

And, thus, once again, there's a key point to make in all of this: anyone who thinks there are "easy" choices here is wrong. There is not. Almost any choice has massive problems and potentially huge consequences -- including the choice of doing nothing at all. And while many people use this to argue that it is a bad look for the internet platforms, it seems a stronger argument is that it's a bad look for humanity. These platforms are reflecting humanity, including some pretty awful humans. And society hasn't been able to stop some humans from being awful, terrible people with awful ideas, and it would be unfair to suggest that internet companies should magically be able to step in and solve that problem with hamfisted tools like "demonetization."

Filed Under: comments, content moderation, demonetization, free speech, youtube, youtube comments
Companies: google, youtube

To Prosecute A Single Bombing Suspect, FBI Demands Identifying Info On Thousands Of YouTube Viewers

from the general-warrants-are-back,-baby! dept

We waved goodbye to general warrants with the Fourth Amendment back in 1791. Now, thanks to tech companies collecting tons of info on site visitors and the FBI's apparent inability to craft a narrow warrant, it's the late 1700s all over again!

With a wealth of information a subpoena or warrant away, law enforcement is asking for everything and promising to sort it all out properly. This hasn't worked as well in practice as it has in theory. Investigators looking for evidence of one crime have found others to charge defendants with simply by sifting through the digital haystacks they're able to acquire with a single piece of paper.

In other cases, investigators have decided everyone is a suspect and that the massive amount of data obtained with this dubious legal theory will somehow point them to the real criminals. That's the theory behind law enforcement's "reverse" searches: ones where they demand all cell site location info from everyone connecting to certain cell towers before paring down the list of suspects from "everyone" to "everyone in certain locations at certain times."

A warrant requested by the FBI related to a bombing in New York last year is operating under this same premise. The search warrant ostensibly seeks to obtain information about defendant Victor Kingsley's YouTube viewing habits. Kingsley is facing federal charges for killing a New York City landlord with a handmade bomb. Kingsley was allegedly targeting a police officer who he thought lived at that address as revenge for his arrest by that officer three years earlier.

According to the affidavit [PDF], searches of Kingsley's computers revealed a slew of searches for bomb making materials and instructions. Many of these searches took him to YouTube videos. With this information, you'd think the feds would have plenty of evidentiary ammo to bring to court that would infer Kingsley intended to make a bomb. The FBI also recovered evidence on online purchases of items used in making explosives.

With this already in hand, it's hard to understand why the FBI is looking for more info. But what's harder to understand is why it's seeking more info in this particular manner.

The affidavit correctly points out Google collects a ton of info on YouTube viewers, whether or not they create a YouTube account. It also points out most viewers have accounts because without one, their actions (upvoting, downvoting, playlists, etc.) are severely restricted. It then details a long list of information the FBI believes Google can produce when served with a warrant (which also includes physical addresses, billing info, phone numbers, etc.).

As part of its business model, Google also collects a variety of data on YouTube videos. This includes information for each time a video was watched; the comments and shares of a video; the demographics of viewers; and the sources of traffic to the videos (i.e., the source webpages and links that a viewer used to land on the video).

Further, Google typically retains certain transactional information about the creation and use of each account on their systems. This information can include the date on which the account was created, the length of service, records of log-in session) times and durations, the types of service utilized, the status of the account (including whether the account is inactive or closed), the methods used to connect to the account (such as logging into the account via Google's website), and other log files that reflect usage of the account. In addition, Google often has records of the Internet Protocol address ("IP address") used to register the account and the IP addresses associated with particular log-ins to the account. Because every device that connects to the Internet must use an IP address, address information can help to identify which computers or other devices were used to access the account.

In addition, Google collects device-specific information (such as a user's hardware model, operating system version, unique device identifiers, and mobile network information including phone number), which it may associate with a user's Google account. Google states that it may also collect and process information about a user?s location, based on information including IP address, GPS, and other sensors that may, for example, provide Google with information on nearby devices, Wi-Fi access points and cell towers.

Now, the FBI has device identifying info, IP addresses, and other information gleaned from the devices and accounts already searched/subpoenaed that could tie certain YouTube/Google activity to Victor Kingsley. But it inserts none of that here to limit the search. Instead, it asks for all of this info for every visit to a list of YouTube URLs.

This is only the first page of its YouTube URL demands. [Click thru for a bigger version.]

The obvious problem is these videos could have been viewed by thousands of viewers completely unrelated to the case. (Not to mention the fact that the first URL will never resolve...) And yet, the FBI agent thinks it's OK to demand a long list of identifying info, along with location/cell tower data on each of these viewers from Google. Supposedly, this is being done to sort the righteous from the wicked… or whatever.

As explained herein, information stored in connection with a YouTube video and Google account may provide crucial evidence of the "who, what, why, when, where, and how" of the criminal conduct under investigation, thus enabling the United States to establish and prove each element or alternatively, to exclude the innocent from further suspicion.

That's not how warrants work. This is like demanding Amazon turn over account info, location data, etc. on everyone who's ever viewed a page for items that can be used to create bombs. And this request is being made despite the fact the government already has plenty of identifying info it could use to narrow the request.

If Google chooses to hand this over, it's not a question of if the government will get tons of data on innocent YouTube visitors. It's only a question of how much. It appears every URL targeted by this warrant has already been neutralized by Google. Typing in these URLs will either bring you to a deleted video or a dead page that feeds you absolutely zero information. (This is likely meant to keep users from adding to the data pile the FBI wants Google to produce.)

Here's just one of the URLs targeted, as it appears at the Internet Archive:

It's a Science Channel video titled "Building a Starship." As of its archive date (August 6, 2016), it had 222,000 views.

Here's how that URL looks now:

So, for just a single URL, there are at least 222,000 "suspects" the FBI wants Google to hand over info on. Then it will apparently work its exculpatory magic, travelling backwards by process of elimination to data linked to accounts owned by Victor Kingsley, matching YouTube visits with identifying info the FBI already has on hand.

This isn't a fishing expedition. This is dynamite tossed into a stock pond with the FBI promising to kick any surviving fish back into the water following the explosion. Somehow, this warrant was approved by Magistrate Judge Lisa Bloom and handed over to FBI Agent Lawrence Schmutz to forward to Google.

Hopefully, Google's fighting this request. The affidavit goes long on the evidence the FBI has already obtained to be used against Kingsley before throwing it all out to demand Google hand over as much as it can on as many YouTube viewers as possible. This is shoddy work. And it definitely appears to be unconstitutional. A warrant is the Fourth Amendment-approved gateway for unreasonable searches. But there's a limit to how unreasonable a search can be, even with a warrant.

If this is challenged by Google, it seems unlikely to withstand further scrutiny. It's a general warrant seeking to rummage through numerous people's belongings that happened to be housed at Google. Warrants aren't supposed to be used to separate the innocent from the guilty. That's not probable cause for a search. Probable cause may lead to the discovery of exculpatory evidence but that isn't its purpose. It's there to find evidence to use against a suspect using a search predicated on information the government swears in front a judge supports its need to perform an invasive search. The government has no probable cause to seek the info of YouTube viewers not directly accused of this crime. And it has no excuse to perform a search this way when it has plenty of information on hand that could have narrowed this request significantly before presenting it to Google.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, doj, fbi, general warrants, search, victor kingsley, youtube
Companies: google, youtube