White House Ditches YouTube 204
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that in an apparent response to privacy complaints, the White House has quietly moved off of YouTube as a method for serving the President's weekly video address. Choosing instead to use a Flash-based solution and Akamai's content delivery network, this comes just days after YouTube began to roll out their own new policies regarding privacy of visitors.
Wise choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Wise choice.
I never understood why they would choose YouTube over other Internet "channels". It is not exactly a "neutral choice".
If the president would like to speak to the American people, why not choose something not affiliated with any company.
But, as a non-American, what do I know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a response to a legitimate privacy concern.
Saying, "The government should be forced to re-invent the wheel instead of using a popular free service" is silly. YouTube is perfectly acceptable in most respects.
If they had stayed with YouTube, despite privacy concerns, that would have been bad. But there is nothing wrong with starting out using a popular free site.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It is a youtube link. Who doesn't go to youtube?
2. Turn on reject cookies.
I mean really just how big of a problem is this?
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Funny)
1. It is a youtube link. Who doesn't go to youtube?
I guess you've never been to xHamster.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's your choice, then, isn't it?
Of course it is. I'm not complaining about it.
I was merely answering the question; the parent to my original post said 'Who doesn't go to Youtube'? Being one such person, I replied, with the said reason I don't use it.
I don't think that he understands that if you want something on demand in this way, you're going to pay for it; either you're going to pay for the hosting yourself and ensure that no data gets kept or anything like that, or you pay the cost in the users privacy, farming them out as eye
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, because you lose freedom by using a freely usable (yes, freely,, fuck Stallman, fuck Bush, and fuck anybody else who wants to co-opt the word to means something that it does not mean) plugin that works just fine. OH NO I CANNOT RECOMPILE IT WHATEVER IS THE WORLD COMING TO
Zealots of all stripes are equally heinous.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, there is one reason to reject non-open source software: Lack of trust. Due to the code not being publicly accessible you have no way to tell what the software might do and no way to tell it doesn'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying, "The government should be forced to re-invent the wheel
They dont have to re-invent the wheel. They merely have to buy a copy of the wheel.
instead of using a popular free service" is silly. YouTube is perfectly acceptable in most respects.
Youtube isn't "free" in any sense except that the video watchers don't have to pay money directly to google.
The government should be providing access to its video content for "free" in a much broader sense. We are paying for through our taxes after all. We shouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
>>>We shouldn't be subject to corporate sponsorship, corporate data-mining/tracking etc.
Yes because the corporations have the power to suck money from our wallets, throw us into jail if we smoke a certain plant, or send us off to foreign countries to die a horrible mutilation.
Oh wait. They don't. I hate corporations as much as the next guy, but to fear corporations is silly. Their ads are very easily ignored, and their products too. I've watched Obama on youtube, and it was no big deal. I don
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait. They don't. I hate corporations as much as the next guy, but to fear corporations is silly. Their ads are very easily ignored, and their products too. I've watched Obama on youtube, and it was no big deal. I don't have to hide in fear.
Strawman argument. This has nothing to do with fear.
Its the principle of the thing. As a free society we should have the right and ability to directly access our government records from our government, without being subject to interference or terms of any sort whatsoever by 3rd party companies, no matter how benign the terms or how popular their website is.
If the government wants to outsource hosting to another company that's fine, but then its still on our terms of service. To submit to -their- terms is absurd. Eventually that will bite you in the ass.
Whether its because google becomes capital-E evil, or it simply goes bankrupt, the government shouldn't rely on a 'free service' for the retention and public distribution of its records.
As I said, I have no problem with the video being available on google, but if I don't want to patronize youtube to view my governments records/correspondance/etc I shouldn't have to.
Its essentially the same argument for why governments should use open formats for documents.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Its the principle of the thing. As a free society we should have the right and ability to directly access our government records from our government, without being subject to interference or terms of any sort whatsoever by 3rd party companies, no matter how benign the terms or how popular their website is.
>>>
Boy you're misinformed. There are LOTS of third-party agencies standing between you and your government:
- The people who build the roads are third parties.
- The people who design t
Re: (Score:2)
The government should be providing access to its video content for "free" in a much broader sense. We are paying for through our taxes after all. We shouldn't be subject to corporate sponsorship, corporate data-mining/tracking etc.
Well, the thing is we are not paying for it with anything, that's why it was hosted on a free service. We did pay for the content to be created, and we can pay more so they can host it somewhere, but that's not the case right now. Your phrasing makes it sound like there is a distribution setup in place and ready to use at no additional cost, and I'm pretty sure that's not true. I have never heard anything about the office of the President of the United States had a high bandwidth, high availability video on
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply about offering Flash videos on the governments website and not YouTube. How is having links to Flash videos off your own web site "reinventing the wheel" exactly? How is YouTube or Akami or anything else a better "distribution channel" than downloading directly from the source?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me cynical, but Obama chose YouTube because it's "what young people use". That was his campaign's primary target demographic, so it's what he used. I doubt it had anything to do directly with Google's ownership of the site, but who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
You're cynical. Is there a different popular video hosting site that old people use? Seems to me YouTube isn't what young people use, it's what everyone uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a different popular video hosting site that old people use?
I bet if there was, he would've concentrated on YouTube more than that.
I'm in Obama's target demographic, and he was marketing towards my peers and me. When it came to older people, Obama was like "Oh yeah, sure, they can vote for me too." He really wanted the votes of young people.
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish. Some people use YouTube. Some use Facebook, some use MySpace (still), some use torrents, some simply email. Oh, you and yours use YouTube. Well I guess that's everybody who is important then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Korea, only old people use YouTube.
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe so, but do if you are hoping to get young people - people who wouldn't otherwise notice you - to notice you, then maybe you would post it to some place they go right? I'm wondering why they can't just post them to multiple places - now that seems a more reasonable question to me.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm wondering why they can't just post them to multiple places - now that seems a more reasonable question to me."
I would rather they simply make the videos available on their own servers for anyone who is interested in watching and distributing them. Rather than spend tax payer money on a team who will distribute them to various free sites.
Free sites are free in terms of bandwidth, but the companies have their own business interests in mind. Only a contract with the government would force the company to k
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Not affiliated with any company? Your only choices are pay to self-host (and that means affiliating with a hosting provider), or go P2P.
Remember, Akamai is a company, too.
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you forgot, this is the US Federal Government we're talking about here. It has ample bandwidth and as much access to the Internet Backbone as it needs. All they need to do is dedicate some servers in some government datacenter to this and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle!
Re: (Score:2)
and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle!
I'm a troll you insensitive clod!
Uh... wait.. /Pratchett
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not forget the obvious part, here: Akamai is already done. It works. It is the most efficient way we have (network-wise) to broadcast video across the current[1] Internet. Reinventing that wheel, and probably doing it badly, isn't going to save a dime.
[1]: I've been waiting for eons for multicast IP to become a reality for the general population, but it seems unlikely to happen any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
If President Obama wants bandwidth, bandwidth is what President Obama is going to get. It may take a little while to set up, but believe me, he's not going to be told he can't have it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wise choice.
I never understood why they would choose YouTube over other Internet "channels". It is not exactly a "neutral choice".
If the president would like to speak to the American people, why not choose something not affiliated with any company.
But, as a non-American, what do I know.
Because youtube's a trendy, high-traffic site with a lot of hip factor and buzz?
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understood why they would choose YouTube over other Internet "channels". It is not exactly a "neutral choice".
Because the White House (from Mr. I-Want-My-Blackberry on down) is now staffed by your basic Web 2.0 geeks who are used to doing everything with certain widely used platforms: YouTube, FaceBook, Blackberry, etc. They're having a hard time adapting to life in a big organization with an established federal IT infrastructure that doesn't know how to support their Macs, is suspicious of any application that hasn't been vetted by their bureaucracy, and is more about security than about communication. It's why whitehouse.gov is still such a mess: the people who are running it are just now learning that there's more to creating a government web site than opening a Blogster account.
I think this Clash of Civilizations, snafus and all, is actually a healthy thing. It will force Obama's tech geeks to think things through and understand the real-world perils of the technology they love so much. And it will force the IT people to adapt the federal infrastructure to a world where online communication has become a central way of getting things done.
Re: (Score:2)
"Character assassinate"? Please. The O guy is the politico I respect more than any other (and his competition is way, way behind!). Pointing out screwups is a long way from accusing people of incompetence.
Anyway, one big reason I voted for the guy is that he knows that his shit smells.
The problems with whitehouse.gov have and that the Obama people have had adapting to life as federal employees are widely documented. You can find them if you want. Check out the 44 Blog in at washingtonpost.com and various ot
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Funny)
Gov't is good at exploitation:
1. Use youtube to aggregate and host videos initially. Exploit Youtube's excellent distribution model for short term content.
2. After a month, back them up on your own storage server (i.e. US library of Congress). Exploit your excellent archival infrastructure. Convert from flash to something like Mpeg-4 too. That will built up the LoC's site and pump more cash/need/better use cases into it.
3. profit! well maybe not as gov't is not suppose to profit remember!
.
.
. Done and thank you too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the president would like to speak to the American people, why not choose something not affiliated with any company.
You mean... like Akamai?
Re: (Score:2)
Does Akamai say "we own your content" ?
You may as well say the president's affiliated with Ford or GM or whoever, just because he might use their products. Google on the other hand do claim to have complete control over any content you provide them with.
Why Not - (Score:2)
Since the address is an official communication, why can't it be hosted on "whitehouse.gov"?
The President can't get enough bandwidth for it? The FedGov has bandwidth out, as Zappa would say, "the provervial wazoo"!
Jeez, this is actually pretty easy to fix. Just ask the tier-1 providers to provide no-cost peering to the whitehouse.gov site.
(Unless, of course, they want to face:
while (investigation.practices) == false {
if ((cash_in > 1000000000) || (good_press > $0x1000000)) && (
Re: (Score:2)
Wise choice.
I never understood why they would choose YouTube over other Internet "channels".
According to Alexa, youTube is the third most popular website in the whole wide world.
Not the third viedo content delivery website. The third most visited site overall.
Reach is what they were after.
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well we could just keep it on YouTube.
And why should it alienate the world outside the US? If you find it really important get one of you local national news service to cover it. Or read it on line.
The BBC doesn't stream it's content outside the UK so why should US taxpayers pay for people outside the US to view the stream. If it only a few thousand dollars then maybe it is worth it because it would probably cost more to block it than it saves.
Hey I am all for keeping it on YouTube and I am sure that somebo
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC streams some things - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/also_in_the_news/7919495.stm [bbc.co.uk]
I also think there is a big difference between a television station broadcasting something and what amounts to a press release.
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to agree. The thing is that the government doesn't pay for the broadcast of the press release.
I would have no problem with the BBC streaming the addresses themselves. Or CBS, NBC, Hulu, PBS, NPR, or any other news service.
Just for the US me as a tax payer to pay for it. As I said at the start I so don't have a problem with it being on YouTube at all. But this will probably end up costing millions all over a cookie.
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Funny)
But this will probably end up costing millions all over a cookie.
And it's not even chocolate chip.
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we didn't have to pay for the broadcast of the radio address at all; there are many outlets that carry it, even on TV.
Now, if you want it available on-demand, when you want it, that will cost you. Either in tax dollars, so we can accomodate an on-demand generation, or in privacy when you let them use something commercial and sponsored by ads.
I vote for the tax dollars. My privacy is valuable. The Administration got this one right.
YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, et al are not free, not even as in beer. They cost more than we dare think. Like when your credentials get cracked and you have to change passwords all over...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to ever log into Youtube to watch the videos...
No credentials needed.
Re: (Score:2)
True: From YouTube...
"3. YouTube Accounts
In order to access some features of the Website, you will have to create a YouTube account."
Some features...
"Account-Related Activity. Certain other activities on YouTube--like uploading videos, posting comments, flagging videos, or watching restricted videos--require you to have a YouTube Account or a Google Account. We ask for some personal information when you create a YouTube Account or a Google Account, including your email address and a password, which is used
Re: (Score:2)
Duh.
The last time I found an account (not on youtube) compromised, I had to change all my passwords. Just the way it is.
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK goverment doesn't broadcast anything.
I simply feel that the US government should allow anyone to host the file that wants too and should just post in on the free sites that are available.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.number10.gov.uk/number-10-tv [number10.gov.uk]
Both Labour and the Conservatives also show video on their sites and, in the case of the conservatives, allow you to embed the videos elsewhere.
I think it would have been better if Obama stuck with YouTube but if they can't then it's unfortunate but not allowing anyone to view the video goes against the idea of the internet, imo, and it's makes it worse for those tax payers who live elsewhere.
I doubt there are that many foreigners watching th
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Informative)
It still depends on Flash as well.
If you actually visit the site you'll see an HTTP link to an MP4 of the video. So they did this right.
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Informative)
Nice so it can be re posted on YouTube with little effort. Still think using a free service that everybody and their dog uses makes a lot more sense than paying for it.
Yes it Can... be reposted to Youtube or Vimeo, or Archive.org or Blip.tv or even your preferred P2P network, you can even host it yourself because as far as I know this videos are all public domain.
But you don't need to re-post them to Youtube and Vimeo at least, because whitehouse folks already do that for you:
They only stopped embedding youtube videos on the whitehouse gov site (maybe to stop advertising google's service for free on a tax-payer funded website, although the link to Vimeo is still there), but they are still publishing copies of the weekly videos on youtube and other free services that everybody and their dog uses...
Parent quoted for truth! GET YER FACTS HERE! (Score:2)
They only stopped embedding youtube videos on the whitehouse gov site
THANK YOU!
Stupid misleading headlines and summaries... grrr
Re: (Score:2)
Damn.. I sure wish more online video joins offered RSS feeds. It makes it easy to play video content where it belongs--streaming on my SageTV (think MythTV, only it actually works) with my skinny ass parked on the couch holding a beer and a remote. Streaming video on a computer is for suckers only.
Re:Wise choice (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I'm not sure if there's some crazy DNS/softlinking stuff going on that the bandwidth isn't being taken from whitehouse.gov, but it looks like the technology is being provided by Vimeo [vimeo.com], whoever they are.
And if you want to download the video, it's in .mp4 format, with AVC1 and AAC-LC codecs. Personally I'd rather see H.264/Vorbis .MKVs, but...
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yes, and I'd also like to see a .torrent on the site, but I know that'll never happen.
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps you've not heard, p2p is illegal, even if the content holder uploads the torrent themselves...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoosh...
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot or troll?
I don't know which you are, cause the GP's sig clearly indicates sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wise choice (Score:5, Insightful)
...I just hope they block overseas views so our taxes don't pay for that bandwidth. Just like the the BBC does with it's feeds.
I am an American citizen but I live overseas, I wouldn't like having it blocked, I try to stay up to date on things happening in the US and I still have to pay US taxes on all of my income.
Re: (Score:2)
you do get a nice big expat standard deduction though
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course you want them to waste even more money to develop a system that determines if someone is a tax payer and allow them to view the video no matter where they live.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope they block overseas views so our taxes don't pay for that bandwidth.
Can they block all the garbage coming out of Hollywood too, please?
All that the US is very good at exporting nowadays is debt, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which costs very little, considering that half of that is already in place (a web server is already online). The amount of money spent on this is a fraction of a percent of what we just spent bailing out the banking industry.
"It still depends on Flash as well."
Which is unfortunate. The Library of Congress should host Ogg encoded files for each of these videos, for people
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When Ogg Theora stops sucking, they can entertain the idea of using it.
(I'm sure a mod's already going for "Troll", but keep in mind that Theora really does suck, on many technical levels. Start with being about half as efficient as H.264 and move on from there. It's bad. Vorbis, on the other hand, is quite nice.)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that nearly four million Americans live overseas [overseasdigest.com], don't you?
-Grey [silverclipboard.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the White House bought them and controls them, I'm sure the camera vendors don't have the legal power to control in any way your footage. Opposed to Youtube, which has full control on the uploaded videos: that's even said in TFA, which refers their changes to their Privacy Policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras? cables, routers, programmers, artists, production software?
No, but the White House bought them and controls them
Last I checked, people aren't really for sale in the US. (Although if the economy gets any worse, indentured servitude might get back in style).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, OK, sweet. MP4 and other options ARE available...
Stupid me. THIS is why slashdotters should RTFA, FIRST, heheheh....
What's the Secret Service's problem! (Score:5, Funny)
That is, the site would be free to keep logs on the videos viewed by visitors to its own site as well as those embedded on blogs, but it would opt to immediately forget all identifying information associated with requests from government sites.
First I watched some hairy milf porn, then some stuff on how ot win on "Call of Duty", then I watched some heavy metal and cop killing rap music videos, a Joel Osteen sermon, then I watched this guy with an Uzi with a silencer knock off a bunch of targets (way cool!), and then I watched Obama's weekly address.
A few hours later, this black helicopter lands in my front yard and a bunch of guys kick my door down! I mean, WTF!?!
Re: (Score:2)
The ones circling may house are in whisper mode and cloaked, but I know they're still up there!
Watching...waiting..
Re: (Score:2)
On Soviet Internet, hairy milf porn emails to you.
<video> (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but they want something they can use for THIS presidential term.
Thank you! Thank you! I'm here all week! Try the veal!
Re: (Score:2)
When HTML 5 is done they can use the <video> tag.
Yes, but they want something they can use for THIS presidential term.
It works in my browser. Maybe the government should promote standards by using the new technology and directing users to a browser that is innovative and current and supports the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as it's a standard perhaps that would be a valid criticism. That's not the case right now. According to the document itself, it's not even in the candidate stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is a tag any better than the tag used now? The browser will still load Flash, because it will be a Flash file that is offered. It will be Flash file because everybody - and on Slashdot everybody means "at least 0.1% of the population" - and I mean everybody (ie, maybe 0.2% of people) uses Flash and only Flash.
The tag will just tell the browser to load a Video. It won't - and can't - mandate which client to use.
Have you even *used* the video tag? (Score:2)
The <video> tag doesn't work like that. You reference a video file directly, such as: <video src="http://videos.example.com/the_video.ogg"></video>
Your browser displays the UI for the video -- Flash isn't involved at all. (Unless Adobe made Flash interpret the <video> tag while running in IE, which would be cool, but at the same time contradictory to their lock-in philosophy.)
Grab a copy of the latest Firefox 3.1 beta and start playing with it. Without Flash installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I understand the video tag downloads the video just as it does for images. But then it will hand off to a video player to play. By default (and most users use defaults) Flash videos (mime type "video/shockwave-flash" I think) will play in Flash.
The OGG file you referenced will be played in your OGG compatible video player, which could be just about anything if you have the OGG codecs install
Re: (Score:2)
No, it won't. You're getting confused with the <object> tag.
Okay, I haven't tested this to back up my statement, so I am as bad as you, but AFAIK Flash won't play FLV videos directly. If it did, then nobody would be making all these .swf applets to do the job, such as the JW FLV Player.
To play a Flash video in Flash, you must have a .swf, and either hardcode the .flv URL in the .swf,
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I yield as you are absolutely right. Thanks for enlightening me.
Odd... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Choosing instead to use a Flash-based solution"
Last time I checked, YouTube uses flash as well.
What privacy concerns? (Score:2)
What exactly are the privacy concerns that are valid at YouTube.com that aren't are *.gov?
Re: (Score:2)
US government sites don't use tracking cookies.
Re: (Score:2)
In grand scheme of the technologies that the US government has access to, tracking cookies seem pretty irrelevant.
OK, What Was That Reason Again? (Score:2)
Privacy? on the Internet? Time to wakeup and smell the coffee. If an Intelligence,(ignore the oxymoron), Agency wants to learn about you, they will; that's their job. I can think of some good reasons to put the presidents messages on youTube. Cost, zip. And if the president starts getting some hits on his submittals, then possibly he can have youTube add some advertising on the bottom of the video clip; and generate some money to ease the burden of us tax paying types. It helps get money flowing again,
Akamai, Google and privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Akamai is an odd choice of platform if The White House is concerned about privacy. Akamai serve about 20% of the world's Internet traffic and function as a "content delivery platform" for many big-name websites. Most of the work they do is in caching images and interactive media, as well as serving ads for many websites to improve loading speed. They are like Google in many ways, in that they have a massively distributed server network that spans 70 countries and are ingrained in many peoples' browsing experience.
One of the things they are best known for is Internet usage statistics. They provide good indicators of general Internet use and use of specific services.
Also like Google, they track users using various means, and use the details to profit. Most importantly, they use this information for advert targeting.
There are two dissimilarities between Google and Akamai (ignoring the obvious dissimilarity of the two companies' models): Akamai have spent most of their life trying to find ways to make a profit and Akamai receive a lot less public scrutiny because their services are transparent to the end-user.
If YouTube was abandoned due to Google's privacy practices, privacy advocates should be as concerned about the privacy practices of Akamai. Indeed, the extent to which Akamai tracks users needs to be investigated and exposed for the sake of public scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think it's in Akamai's best interests [cnn.com] to work with the government on privacy and security.
On the ball. (Score:2)
Great news, from what I hear under previous agreements, YouTube would have owned the rights to the bailouts, Citibank, holdovers from the Bush administration, the credit crisis, tainted peanut butter and America. I don't think my Google stock could have handled that.
White House Denies It Is Shunning YouTube (Score:2)
They were just experimenting with the latest video.
Source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/white-house-denies-it-is-shunning-youtube/ [nytimes.com]
Re:Distribute a File? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, so all I need to do now is pay my royalties to some big corporation to watch it. Wow, that's so much better than Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that they shouldn't use flash, although it certainly crossed my mind.
Why not? Personally, I find that any video I watch with flash is a much suckier experience compared to watching the same video in nearly any other format. But its not just video, I prefer websites to be flash free. Now if we're talking about some weird live content delivery application, with 200-way video/audio/whiteboard communication between peers and host... wow flash does that in a browser? sure, use it. But I guess for just video/audio, I'd like compressed video to be better on the video side rather t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What can Google do that the US government can't do?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If a video of someone's preschooler summarizing Star Wars requires a tracking cookie to access, well, if you want to stay completely private, you just go without the video.
If the President of the United States is using a service as an official distribution channel, though, it's not enough to say "If you don't like the policy, don't view the content." The President's official communication is, in essence, something that the American People have a *right* to view, and not to be tracked while doing it.
Let's j
Re: (Score:2)
> ...what's the big deal?
Back in ancient times when tracking cookies were invented there was a furor over them and the US government promised not to use them. That rule is still in effect. That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, so long as it's not posted by the White House, it's not violating their privacy rules.