In two recent incidents, US federal investigators reportedly asked Google to hand over personal information like the names, addresses, and phone numbers of users who watched certain YouTube videos and livestreams.
DuckDuckGo’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
US federal authorities asked Google for the names, addresses, phone numbers and activity of users ofaccounts who viewed certain YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023, according to.... #authorities #Google #identities #ordered #reportedly #Reveal #videos #Viewers #YouTube
Authorities reportedly ordered Google to reveal the identities of viewers of some YouTube videos. | Technical Terrence
https://technicalterrence.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Public privacy concerns are often overlooked by those in power. Recently, courts have ordered Google to share personal information about some YouTube users, highlighting the government's desire to control companies. Read more about the issue here: https://lnkd.in/gb5F2nJw #privacyconcerns #governmentcontrol #googleyoutube #personalinformation #onlineprivacy
Courts Demand Info About People Who Viewed Specific YouTube Videos
pcmag.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
[X Tells Brazil Court 'Operational Faults' Allowed Blocked Users to Remain Active] Lawyers representing X in Brazil told the Supreme Court on Friday that "operational faults" have allowed users who were ordered blocked to stay active on the social media platform. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week had asked the social media giant to explain why it allegedly did not fully comply with earlier rulings ordering the company, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, to block certain accounts. In a 20-page legal document, X's lawyers said the owners of the accounts had sought to circumvent court-ordered restrictions to continue using the platform by making new accounts. It added it has not reactivated any of these users. A report by Brazil's federal police seen by Reuters last week showed accounts on X that top courts had ordered blocked were still active on the platform by early April, being able to gain new followers and to live-stream videos. X said on Friday that the police report had tracked six accounts, from a total of over 200 accounts Brazilian top courts have ordered it to block since 2022. The company added these users were owned by people who have a history "of incessantly trying to break imposed security measures", saying they took advantage of "operational faults" and "systemic vulnerabilities" within the platform to keep using it. One of the strategies used by these users was putting on their profile bio links to external sites where they stream videos, according to X. X said an operational failure made it possible to see the users' profile bio on X when logging on through the app, though the accounts appeared blocked when accessed through the website. The company also dubbed these cases "unusual" and said it had fixed the issues as soon as it had detected them. Moraes, whose decisions regarding X Musk had called "unconstitutional," opened earlier this month an inquiry into the billionaire after Musk said he would reactivate accounts on X that the judge had ordered blocked. The judge is investigating so-called "digital militias" that have been accused of spreading fake news and hate messages, along with illicit practices on social networks, during the government of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, and is also leading an investigation into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro. Source: https://lnkd.in/eZGqAQJm #galaxytechnews #technology #technews #techtips
X Tells Brazil Court 'Operational Faults' Allowed Blocked Users to Remain Active
usnews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Roiling uncertainty about TikTok’s future and the powers of the federal government make this a vulnerable time for the social media giant. Even one Shark Tank billionaire is licking his chops and preparing a buyout offer. U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, think the app’s users might the ones be swimming with sharks. On March 22, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal and Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn officially called on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information about the platform’s threat to national security and make the concerns known to the public. “We are deeply troubled by the information and concerns raised by the intelligence community in recent classified briefings to Congress. TikTok is a weapon in the hands of the Chinese government, and poses an active risk to our democratic institutions and national security,” the Senators wrote. “As Congress and the Administration consider steps to address TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government, it is critically important that the American people, especially TikTok users, understand the national security issues at stake. We therefore urge you to declassify information about TikTok and ByteDance, and their ties to Chinese governments’ influence and espionage activities, to better educate the public on the need for urgent action.” For the last week, various government leaders and members of the intelligence community have hinted at potentially damning information shared with them amid debate around TikTok’s ownership and its threat to American users. But for all the grandstanding, no specific information has been released, and other Senate and House members have clarified that they believe the security warnings presented to them apply across a slew of apps. Examples given included app permissions like keystroke tracking and microphone access — Senators like Blackburn and Blumenthal hint to greater “espionage” attempts. SEE ALSO: Instagram just limited the political content you see. You can change that. The Senate body is deep in discussion on the Protecting Americans from Foreign Advisory Controlled Applications Act, a so-called national security effort to limit U.S. distribution of foreign country-owned apps that may pose cybersecurity concerns. The bill, passed by the House on March 13, has been decried as a violation of free speech and commerce protections by TikTok users and civil liberties leaders alike. Should it pass another vote, the bill would force TikTok to divest from its parent company ByteDance in favor of ownership by an entity that isn’t a foreign adversary (read: non-Chinese). In response to the House’s consensus and general confusion over the bill’s potential impact, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew took to the app to clarify his stance: “This legislation, if signed into law, will lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States. Even the bill sponsors admit that that’s their goal. This bill gives more power to a
TikTok takes on U.S. Senators and billionaires as ban looms
https://news.gictafrica.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Board & Strategic Advisory on Growth | Innovation | Cyber Security | Data Protection 🇪🇺🇬🇧🇺🇸🇩🇪🇵🇱🇺🇦 🇨🇿Invite me 🫴 AI 🧠 Defense In Depth 🏰 Growth🌱Startup🦄Critical Infrastructure🛰️Investments💪EMEA🌍US🌎
One of the internet milestones: will propaganda be a government or corporate function? Both options are really bad. Is sending spam a free speech right? Many issues, no good solution. I see the privacy, spying on users and selling the data or providing them as a service as more critical, as that provides the spying and targeted propaganda tools to anybody with $. https://lnkd.in/eHs3CYAa #socialmedia #internet #freespeech
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
I have been building large internet platforms for decades now, and over that time I have seen over and over again that the actions of a few people steal value from the majority of the users platforms seek to serve -- stealing money or attention, weakening value propositions for legitimate users, even driving platforms out of business. Here, Matt Motyl, Ph.D. and take the example of social media companies to look at just how high the cost of underinvesting in platform safety can be. Yes, "Trust and Safety" can be viewed as defensive -- but it's also an implicit and explicit part of the core value proposition of every business, and I urge all companies to treat it as such! https://lnkd.in/dbbpc4Ni
The Unbearably High Cost of Cutting Trust & Safety Corners | TechPolicy.Press
techpolicy.press
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
PRIVACY ALERT: Advertisers like Google are always looking for new ways to get access to your information. If you don’t want your information being sent to potential advertisers on Google, turn the settings off. Follow me for more tech tips @burtonkelso or @callintegralnow
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Risk Management Advisor, business insurance professional, business crisis planning and resilience. Help clients develop Trust & Safety Teams and provide Expert Witness and insurance litigation consulting services.
Trust and Safety at my clients all have the same goal - keep customers and other platform users safe. This is because the costs of NOT doing so can be high. Here’s some examples of such costs: https://lnkd.in/eaUYsCpV
The Unbearably High Cost of Cutting Trust & Safety Corners | TechPolicy.Press
techpolicy.press
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
As a person that's pretty active in various forms of social media, I think about this pretty often. There are a lot of services where the "verified" mark means little more than "pays a subscription", rather than actually verifying any kind of identity. I'm not active on Bluesky, but I do rather like their DNS-based approach -- you are someuser.bsky.social... or you can be whatever.example.com (or just example.com) with a domain that you control, with a TXT record for verification. Sure, that still doesn't verify an actual identity, but at least it's some form of actual verification -- do you trust that domain to be controlled by me? (Discord also has this system.)
X’s blue checkmarks are deceptive, rules EU
theverge.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Blackmail can be a very serious offence... and X has to prove it… yes, European citizens should know the details of this matter... What is the definition of a reliable/credible/trustworthy source of information/data? Does any social media platform fit this definition? ‘BlueCheckmarks’ -> What does this have to do with 'trustworthy information source'? The blue checkmark means „that the account has an active subscription to X Premium and meets our eligibility requirements” https://lnkd.in/dBgzKEYY Why are users with a blue checkmark considered "trustworthy" and users without a blue checkmark not? Respect all users, not divide them! Marking and dividing people is never a good idea... "and blocks access to data for researchers" - why do you think this happens? https://lnkd.in/d_G5EERG
EU offered 'illegal secret deal,' Musk claims as X found to breach DSA
euronews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in