Egypt Edition 
UAE Edition 
Saudi Edition 
MENA <> India Corridor 
Logistics (MENA) 
Climate (MENA) 
Share
Big Brother is alive and well: US courts have granted federal agencies orders to ask Google to provide the personal data of individuals who have viewed or interacted with potentially compromising YouTube videos, according to Forbes. The outlet says it has reviewed two cases in which the US government asked Google for the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and user activity of all Google account users and non-account holders who had accessed YouTube tutorials — for mapping using drones and virtual reality software — and live streams transmitting video of bomb searches. Google was reportedly told to keep the government’s request secret and it is nor clear whether the tech giant provided the data.
The risk outweighs the breach of privacy, agencies argue: “There is reason to believe that these records would be relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation, including by providing identification information about the perpetrators,” federal authorities reportedly said in the case.
On the randomness of the algorithm and freedom of speech: “No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up,” says executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Albert Fox-Cahn — particularly since we have no control over videos or posts on our social media feed that don’t match our search habits or profiles. These kinds of investigations also threaten individual’s freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, privacy experts think. “Government agencies [are] increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets,” Fox-Cahn said.
Does Google have its users’ backs? “With all law enforcement demands, we have a rigorous process designed to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement,” said Google spokesperson Matt Bryant. He added that Google verifies the requests for “legal validity” and sees if they align with case law. They also resist exaggerated or “otherwise inappropriate demands of user data” while shutting down some demands completely.
