In case anyone had any delusions, we certainly can't trust any of Viacom's promises about not using the information to go after end users. For instance, even if the court order does - as some reports have indicated -- have a secret ban on such use, how would end users accused of copyright infringement at some unknown future point prove that these records weren't used to make the case against them? After all, the RIAA sends out sweeping accusations of copyright infringement by end users all the time without detailing their sources of information. And in my next story we'll look at another outfit that's made a lucrative business out of threatening end users with very dubious copyright claims.

But this case is really all about Google and how much we can trust that company. Since the order does violate existing privacy laws, there's got to be plenty of ways Google can find to defy it. Hey, if you have enough money behind you, you can eventually get the courts or Congress or the Attorney General or somebody to give legal benediction to what you did. Google has enough money.

If this court order is complied with in any non-transparent way, the victims are you and me. Even if they have to risk losing this particular case because of it, Google must realize that there's a lot more at stake here than one measly multibillion-dollar lawsuit. Not one bit of YouTube data should be given to Viacom unless we can all clearly see it contains no personally-identifiable information. The time has come for Google to show us whether it really can be trusted with all the deeply personal stuff it collects and saves about us all.

Post your comments about this story below or write Ed Foster at Foster@gripe2ed.com.