Viacom has backed off a request to gain access to all YouTube user histories after public outcry over privacy concerns, according to a YouTube blog post.
"We are pleased to report that Viacom, MTV and other litigants have backed off their original demand for all users' viewing histories and we will not be providing that information," YouTube said in a statement.
Earlier this month, Judge Louis Stanton with the U.S. District Court for Southern New York ruled that Google must provide Viacom with YouTube user histories in Viacom's ongoing $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against the video Web site.
That meant that Google had to hand over all the information contained in its logging database, including the login ID of the users who have watched videos, the time they started to watch the video, users' IP address, and the video identifier.
Privacy advocates were aghast and said the ruling threatened to expose the identities of millions of YouTube users. Viacom had argued that the information it requested would not contain personally identifiable data.
Whether or not an IP address contains such data has been a point of contention. Some argue that not much can be garnered from a bunch of numbers, but combine that with someone's search history or username, and a more industrious Web user might be able to piece some things together about that user's identity.
Under Monday's deal between YouTube and Viacom, YouTube will basically mask user IDs, IP addresses and visitor IDs and describe them in some other manner. The two parties have not yet agreed how that will happen, but under the agreement, YouTube has seven days after the court approves the deal to come up with a workable plan.
Viacom also agreed not to circumvent any encryption techniques YouTube might put in place to protect user identities.
Viacom is apparently still seeking to evaluate the activity of YouTube employees and agents on the site because the masking technique they agreed upon for the average users does not extend to employees and agents, according to the filing. Viacom and YouTube plan to meet on that issue in the next 14 days, it said.
YouTube said Monday that it remains "committed to protecting your privacy and we'll continue to fight for your right to share and broadcast your work on YouTube."
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Some jitters about the trust vote
In case the motion of the government under Rule 184 gets carried through, it does not give immunity to the government for another six months from the Opposition, which is free to move a motion of no-confidence under Rule 198 any time — even on the same day itself.
The political crisis created by the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement may persist beyond July 22 even if the government is able to secure its vote of confidence. The evidence of the inappropriate manner in which the voting issue has been handled has exposed several inadequacies in the Congress think tank, which continues to put the continuation of the government in serious jeopardy.
On paper, the Congress and the UPA may appear to have the numbers on their side at the moment, but what is in serious doubt is the ability of the Congress managers to ensure that the government gets the majority vote when it seeks the trust of the Lok Sabha. All these years, political managers who have been running the show have not shown any evidence of their grasp over the rules and procedures of Parliament and have spent more time in manipulations aimed at keeping their detractors within the Congress at bay.
Their first litmus test could be as early as July 22 when the trust motion is likely to be put to vote. But the securing of the trust vote does not put the government out of danger. The Opposition can immediately move a vote of no-confidence. And if it picks up the issue of rising prices and inflation, the government may be in deep trouble.
The very fact that the government has decided to follow an irregular precedent of seeking the trust vote is proof enough of how the political managers have not been able to see an ambush that may be lying ahead. As per the conduct of rules of business of the Lok Sabha, there is no provision for a trust vote. G.V.G. Krishnamurty, one of the foremost experts on parliamentary procedures and constitutional matters, has pointed out that as per the rules of business, only a no-confidence motion can be moved under Rule 198 to dislodge a government. There is no provision of a confidence motion under the current rules, which could have been amended to include such a provision. But they were not.
Now the situation is such that the government citing past precedents dating back from the time of Charan Singh and later V.P. Singh and some others has decided to go in for a confidence motion under Rule 184 of the Lok Sabha. Under this rule, any motion can be moved and thus a confidence motion may be legal, but, as Krishnamurty opines, it is highly irregular.
The logical corollary of this is that in case the motion of the government under Rule 184 gets carried through, it does not give immunity to the government for another six months from the Opposition, which is free to move a motion of no-confidence under Rule 198 any time — even on the same day itself. Therefore, if the government survives on the nuclear deal on July 22, the Opposition could easily trip it on some other issue like rising prices and inflation.
Even the Constitution does not have any mention of a confidence or no-confidence motion. The mention of no-confidence motion is there only in the conduct of business rules of the Lok Sabha. What the Congress and government managers have failed to comprehend are the circumstances under which the confidence motion was moved for the first time under Rule 184 in 1979. President Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy had appointed Charan Singh as the Prime Minister after the fall of the Morarji Desai government, preferring him to Jagjiwan Ram. Charan Singh never faced the House and resigned shortly afterwards.
In 1990, when the V.P. Singh government became a minority after the BJP withdrew support, he moved a confidence motion under the same rule. However, a no-confidence motion under Rule 198 was also moved but the Speaker, perhaps to oblige V.P. Singh, took up the first motion raising many eyebrows. Later P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and H.D. Deve Gowda also used the same irregular method.
In other words, the onus of proving that a government is in a minority is on the Opposition and those who move a motion of no-confidence. By withdrawing support from the government outside the House, the Left parties have proved nothing. It is on the floor of the House that the government’s strength can be challenged. The current presumption in some quarters is that some members of the Samajwadi Party may not vote as per the party line. This is equally applicable to the Left parties. So the floor test is the final test, but only after a motion of no-confidence.
As far as the Left goes, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have been very gracious in praising their role in the running of this government. They, unlike some others in the Congress, have not said anything that may burn bridges with the Left. Similarly, veteran CPI(M) leader Jyoti Basu is more pragmatic and has asked the Left not to bring down the government as it has already expressed its opposition to the deal. And voting along with the BJP may send the wrong signals.
Indira and Rajiv Gandhi’s political adviser M.L. Fotedar, too, has reiterated that leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet understand that their biggest enemy are forces represented by the Sangh Parivar and the BJP — and not each other. It is this spirit that should be understood by the Left leadership and Congress office bearers who have been speaking against each other publicly and, therefore, burning all bridges.
And even as politicking among friends-turned-foes appears to be at its peak, the outcome of the July 22 confidence vote is eagerly awaited. Between us.
The political crisis created by the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement may persist beyond July 22 even if the government is able to secure its vote of confidence. The evidence of the inappropriate manner in which the voting issue has been handled has exposed several inadequacies in the Congress think tank, which continues to put the continuation of the government in serious jeopardy.
On paper, the Congress and the UPA may appear to have the numbers on their side at the moment, but what is in serious doubt is the ability of the Congress managers to ensure that the government gets the majority vote when it seeks the trust of the Lok Sabha. All these years, political managers who have been running the show have not shown any evidence of their grasp over the rules and procedures of Parliament and have spent more time in manipulations aimed at keeping their detractors within the Congress at bay.
Their first litmus test could be as early as July 22 when the trust motion is likely to be put to vote. But the securing of the trust vote does not put the government out of danger. The Opposition can immediately move a vote of no-confidence. And if it picks up the issue of rising prices and inflation, the government may be in deep trouble.
The very fact that the government has decided to follow an irregular precedent of seeking the trust vote is proof enough of how the political managers have not been able to see an ambush that may be lying ahead. As per the conduct of rules of business of the Lok Sabha, there is no provision for a trust vote. G.V.G. Krishnamurty, one of the foremost experts on parliamentary procedures and constitutional matters, has pointed out that as per the rules of business, only a no-confidence motion can be moved under Rule 198 to dislodge a government. There is no provision of a confidence motion under the current rules, which could have been amended to include such a provision. But they were not.
Now the situation is such that the government citing past precedents dating back from the time of Charan Singh and later V.P. Singh and some others has decided to go in for a confidence motion under Rule 184 of the Lok Sabha. Under this rule, any motion can be moved and thus a confidence motion may be legal, but, as Krishnamurty opines, it is highly irregular.
The logical corollary of this is that in case the motion of the government under Rule 184 gets carried through, it does not give immunity to the government for another six months from the Opposition, which is free to move a motion of no-confidence under Rule 198 any time — even on the same day itself. Therefore, if the government survives on the nuclear deal on July 22, the Opposition could easily trip it on some other issue like rising prices and inflation.
Even the Constitution does not have any mention of a confidence or no-confidence motion. The mention of no-confidence motion is there only in the conduct of business rules of the Lok Sabha. What the Congress and government managers have failed to comprehend are the circumstances under which the confidence motion was moved for the first time under Rule 184 in 1979. President Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy had appointed Charan Singh as the Prime Minister after the fall of the Morarji Desai government, preferring him to Jagjiwan Ram. Charan Singh never faced the House and resigned shortly afterwards.
In 1990, when the V.P. Singh government became a minority after the BJP withdrew support, he moved a confidence motion under the same rule. However, a no-confidence motion under Rule 198 was also moved but the Speaker, perhaps to oblige V.P. Singh, took up the first motion raising many eyebrows. Later P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and H.D. Deve Gowda also used the same irregular method.
In other words, the onus of proving that a government is in a minority is on the Opposition and those who move a motion of no-confidence. By withdrawing support from the government outside the House, the Left parties have proved nothing. It is on the floor of the House that the government’s strength can be challenged. The current presumption in some quarters is that some members of the Samajwadi Party may not vote as per the party line. This is equally applicable to the Left parties. So the floor test is the final test, but only after a motion of no-confidence.
As far as the Left goes, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have been very gracious in praising their role in the running of this government. They, unlike some others in the Congress, have not said anything that may burn bridges with the Left. Similarly, veteran CPI(M) leader Jyoti Basu is more pragmatic and has asked the Left not to bring down the government as it has already expressed its opposition to the deal. And voting along with the BJP may send the wrong signals.
Indira and Rajiv Gandhi’s political adviser M.L. Fotedar, too, has reiterated that leaders like Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet understand that their biggest enemy are forces represented by the Sangh Parivar and the BJP — and not each other. It is this spirit that should be understood by the Left leadership and Congress office bearers who have been speaking against each other publicly and, therefore, burning all bridges.
And even as politicking among friends-turned-foes appears to be at its peak, the outcome of the July 22 confidence vote is eagerly awaited. Between us.
Obama says Afghanistan 'a war that we have to win'
Contending that the U.S. is not pursuing a sound strategy for keeping Americans safe, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority after ending the war in Iraq.
"This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations, achieve "true energy security," and rebuild the nation's international alliances.
The speech sets the stage for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and offers a high-profile explanation of his opposition to the war and his pledge to complete a U.S. troop pullout within 16 months of becoming president. It also gives him a forum for criticizing President Bush and his rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact — as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
In a White House news conference shortly before Obama was to speak, a reporter asked President Bush what advice he might give Obama as he prepared to visit Iraq. The president said he would ask Obama to listen carefully to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
"It's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way, you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders," Bush said. He defended his policy and maintained that the effort in Iraq was succeeding and acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan remained "a tough fight."
Obama said the Bush strategy that McCain supports has placed the burden for U.S. foreign policy on American military. National security policy should go well beyond Baghdad, he said, and involve allies around the world. He focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying that if the U.S. were attacked again, it likely would be from the same region where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
"Sen. McCain said — just months ago — that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," Obama said.
Later in the day, Obama was expected to conduct a series of television interviews to bolster his remarks.
McCain planned to respond during a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., but his staff released his remarks before the event.
"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," according to McCain. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working." Over the weekend, the site was changed to describe an "improved security situation" at the cost of U.S. lives.
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi told the newspaper that Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
The flurry of activity comes a day after an Obama op-ed piece in the New York Times that called for the additional Afghanistan brigades and argued the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
McCain planned an address Thursday focused on Afghanistan. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the military's highest death toll there in three years.
While he has accused Obama of favoring surrender in Iraq by outlining a troop withdrawal timetable, McCain told reporters on Monday, "I think we need to do whatever is necessary (in Afghanistan) and that could entail more troops."
Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, has visited Iraq only once and has never been to Afghanistan. He plans to visit both during a trip that will also take him to Jordan and Israel in the Middle East, as well as European capitals in Germany, France and Great Britain.
He will be accompanied on the trip by Sens. Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, is a Vietnam War veteran, while Reed is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger. Both have been mentioned as possible Obama vice presidential running mates.
McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has lambasted Obama for his lack of travel in the region and for not meeting in Iraq with the top U.S. commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama has been trumpeting the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American forces included in a deal needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.
Bush opposes a withdrawal timetable, arguing it will embolden insurgents and prompt them to lay in wait for a U.S. departure.
"This is a war that we have to win," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.
In a major speech on Iran and national security, Obama said he would also secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations, achieve "true energy security," and rebuild the nation's international alliances.
The speech sets the stage for Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and offers a high-profile explanation of his opposition to the war and his pledge to complete a U.S. troop pullout within 16 months of becoming president. It also gives him a forum for criticizing President Bush and his rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain.
"By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe," Obama said. "In fact — as should have been apparent to President Bush and Sen. McCain — the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was."
In a White House news conference shortly before Obama was to speak, a reporter asked President Bush what advice he might give Obama as he prepared to visit Iraq. The president said he would ask Obama to listen carefully to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
"It's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way, you know, with the considered judgment of the commanders," Bush said. He defended his policy and maintained that the effort in Iraq was succeeding and acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan remained "a tough fight."
Obama said the Bush strategy that McCain supports has placed the burden for U.S. foreign policy on American military. National security policy should go well beyond Baghdad, he said, and involve allies around the world. He focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying that if the U.S. were attacked again, it likely would be from the same region where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned.
"Sen. McCain said — just months ago — that Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq. I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq," Obama said.
Later in the day, Obama was expected to conduct a series of television interviews to bolster his remarks.
McCain planned to respond during a town-hall meeting in Albuquerque, N.M., but his staff released his remarks before the event.
"Sen. Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," according to McCain. "And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reported that the Obama campaign altered its Web site to remove a statement that Bush's surge of troops in Iraq "is not working." Over the weekend, the site was changed to describe an "improved security situation" at the cost of U.S. lives.
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi told the newspaper that Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
The flurry of activity comes a day after an Obama op-ed piece in the New York Times that called for the additional Afghanistan brigades and argued the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
McCain planned an address Thursday focused on Afghanistan. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the military's highest death toll there in three years.
While he has accused Obama of favoring surrender in Iraq by outlining a troop withdrawal timetable, McCain told reporters on Monday, "I think we need to do whatever is necessary (in Afghanistan) and that could entail more troops."
Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, has visited Iraq only once and has never been to Afghanistan. He plans to visit both during a trip that will also take him to Jordan and Israel in the Middle East, as well as European capitals in Germany, France and Great Britain.
He will be accompanied on the trip by Sens. Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, is a Vietnam War veteran, while Reed is a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger. Both have been mentioned as possible Obama vice presidential running mates.
McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war, has lambasted Obama for his lack of travel in the region and for not meeting in Iraq with the top U.S. commander, Army Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama has been trumpeting the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American forces included in a deal needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end.
Bush opposes a withdrawal timetable, arguing it will embolden insurgents and prompt them to lay in wait for a U.S. departure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)