I saw the other day that YouTube now will start to allow "private" videos which means videos which are unlisted in the search result.
Now - this seems like a good idea, but I foresee two major problems with it.

1) How will this work with copyrighted material.
Google have gotten a lot of flak from copyright holders since they bought YouTube and many clips are pulled from YouTube due to infringement.
How will these companies who like to complain about copyrighted material handle the new unlisted service? If the movies are unlisted, how will companies be able to uphold the copyright?

One could imagine that perhaps the movies aren't as unlisted as claimed and certain individuals are allowed to search through them for material - or one could imagine that these companies aren't allowed to search them and the clips then will be a haven for copyrighted material.
Which is more likely? Well - given Google's behavior lately, I'd say scenario one is most likely.

2)  People have a strange tendency to share .... let's say rather private material online, thinking nobody but them in the world ever uses that strange thing called the internet.
My guess is that many people will use these unlisted postings for private - perhaps even rather much private - material and be very surprised that it finds itself publically all of the sudden.
Because you see - the privacy is just it is unlisted. If you have the URL you can still view it. That means you can basically just make a crawler and wade through content if the URLs follow a naming logic.
Given the lawsuit happy country - that might result in "funny" situations.

Well - time will tell.

Update: I've just noticed a "put porn on YouTube part 2" campaign. The jist of it is that people will swam YouTube with porn. This is now made much easier with these unlisted "private" services as people can upload their movies now, make them unlisted, to avoid getting them flagged too soon.
And then when the go-word is given, they can make all the clips public and listed and presto - YouTube can/will be full of pornography.

I got a call from one of our clients today that the design of the website we had made for them, was being ripped off almost entirely by a Chinese based company.
And sure enough; entering the url of the offending website into my browser, it was all but an exact copy of the site I had made for the client. 
Strangely enough, in the footer the rip-off artists had entered “copyright” and “all rights reserved” and nonsense like that, but had been so lazy that the HTML header which stated our company as developers was still present .... I mean, how obvious can you get?

This caused much amusement in-house and apparently our client wasn’t terrible worried as well, despite the site selling copied versions of some of their products.

The most fun part for us was however, when we afterwards discovered that the offending website was utilizing resources still located on the original site, such as the CSS files and stuff like that, and also the JavaScript file.
They had been so lazy they didn’t even move those files to their own site.
That meant we suddenly had a measure of control on that site via those resources.

There were many suggestions on which course of action to take. There were suggestions to redirect them to “Free Tibet” sites (it being a Chinese site it would likely have been blocked anyway), to interjecting various forms of scripts to bog down clients, or just redirecting to something plain disgusting or pornographic … or simply change the CSS to display all sorts of things on the website.
But common sense prevailed (it was work related after all, so I didn’t’ want to be too offensive) and I choose to redirect incoming traffic to http://bsa.org as it was the only anti-piracy organization I could think off at the moment.

I wonder how long it’ll take them to fix that, given how lazy they were to begin with. Guess I’ll have to check tomorrow to see. And if they haven’t changed tomorrow, it might be time to interject some snowflakes on the website instead.