Way to engage in ad hominem rather than address the point -- you know, the screen capture of Fox identifying Sanford as a democrat, or the side by side video clips proving footage was used out of turn.

From TFS:

Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative"

Speculative? IANAL, but isn't the disclosure of personal information without that person's knowledge or consent the pretty close to the very definition of a violation of privacy?