zlacker

If it is an order by a court, then i think it is ok. Then it is no mass surveillance and for solving a crime it is useful.

I wonder what kind of video it is. Maybe a shared link, so only people who secretly know about it knew about it, and they have become suspects. Is it mentioned in the forbes article?

And i wonder if people abuse videos on youtube by encrypting the content with a key and the key is then shared.

>>okr+(OP)
> If it is an order by a court, then i think it is ok. Then it is no mass surveillance and for solving a crime it is useful.

Why can't a court order be mass surveillance? In these cases, the videos were viewed 30,000 times and more than 130,000 times (if I understand the latter correctly). How is that not mass? Nobody suggests that more than a few of those people are suspects.

>>wolver+F4
My understanding of mass surveillance is, that masses are surveilled. :) But here its a court, that allows extracting log data for a specific case and it happened after the fact.

I make a difference between leaving loggable traces of living (which we leave all the time, no matter what) and sometimes filtering to recapture the past.

>>okr+fb
That's right even if the sample size N=30,000, it is still a one-time point event controlled/approved by the proper legal authority. There will be an audit trail of said approval and the process will be documented.

In contrast mass surveillance is just "oh, we have a BIG database, and we query whenever for whatever purpose, and nobody knows who searched for what and when and why, and nobody EXTERNAL TO THE AGENCY needs to approve it (lack of control). And today, Bob, who works for the police, background-searched his new girlfriend as well."

>>okr+fb
emphasis on "Specific". This doesn't feel specific at all. Mass surveillance or not, this feels like a failure of the warrant itself passing.