• On CHOW: Sexy vampire party
January 23, 2009 5:38 AM PST

White House acts to limit YouTube cookie tracking

by Chris Soghoian

Just 12 hours after this blog highlighted the privacy problems associated with the White House's use of embedded YouTube videos, the Obama team rushed to deploy a technical fix that significantly protects the privacy of many (but not all) of the site's visitors.

Since its launch three days ago, President Obama's White House Web site has included several embedded YouTube videos. While this certainly demonstrates that the 44th president is Web 2.0 savvy, the decision to embed YouTube videos has also enabled the Google-owned video-sharing site to sneakily collect data on the millions of people who visit Whitehouse.gov--even those users who never click the "play" button to actually watch one of the videos.

Change.gov, the Web site for the Obama/Biden transition team, also made extensive use of YouTube videos. This practice was something that I sharply criticized back in November, citing the cookie-related privacy risks as well as the decade-old rules prohibiting the use of long-term tracking cookies on federal agency Web sites.

Unfortunately, when the new White House Web site launched, rather than fix the privacy issues that had plagued the transition team's Web site, Obama's legal team instead opted to provide YouTube with an exemption to those pesky federal regulations, letting it use long-term cookies to track visitors to the White House Web site. No other company was singled out and granted such a waiver.

It seems that someone in the White House read my blog post yesterday--as within 12 hours of the story going live, Obama's Web team rolled out a technical fix that severely limits YouTube's ability to track most visitors to the White House Web site.

By late Thursday evening, each embedded YouTube video had been replaced with an image of a video player, which a user must click on before the real YouTube player will be loaded. The result of this change is that YouTube is now only able to use cookies to track users who click on the "play" button on an embedded YouTube video--the majority of people who scroll through a page without clicking play will not be tracked.

This is clearly a step in the right direction--and it is particularly interesting to see that the White House has essentially rolled their own version of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's MyTube privacy tool.

While this is great news (especially after just a few hours), it is by no means a comprehensive solution, but a Band-Aid. Those users who do click the "play" button will be secretly tracked as they navigate the White House Web site--and if those users have visited YouTube or any other Google-run Web site in the past, the fact that they watched an Obama video will be added to the existing massive pile of data the company has compiled on each of them.

Simply put, there is no good reason for Google to be able to data mine a citizen's interaction with the president--especially when watching a video that was produced and uploaded by the White House at the taxpayers' expense.

The White House is already making use of Akamai's commercial edge caching services, and the transition team made full use of Amazon's Simple Storage Service for the download-friendly version of Obama's weekly address. Rather than using YouTube, the State Department has for some time opted to pay for a commercial, flash-based video streaming solution provided by Brightcove for its propaganda information site America.gov.

If the Obama team is willing to pay for some of its Web 2.0 technology, why can't they also follow the State Department's lead and cough up a few bucks for a streaming video service that doesn't cross-subsidize its offerings by tracking the Web habits of users.

Finally, if the White House lawyers are going to waive long-standing federal privacy rules for YouTube, merely mentioning the existence of that waiver is not enough. Given Obama's much publicized commitment to transparency, I think it's quite reasonable to ask that the team post the text of each and every waiver to the federal cookie policy to its Web site. Members of the public have a right to know the reasons that were used to justify exempting YouTube's cookies from these otherwise strict rules. If the YouTube waiver cannot withstand the analysis of legal experts and the ridicule of tech bloggers, it probably shouldn't have been authorized.

The White House Web site has been live for just three days, and in just the past day, Obama's administration has given us some reason to believe that it takes Web privacy seriously. Over the next few weeks, it'll have a chance to prove it.

Christopher Soghoian delves into the areas of security, privacy, technology policy and cyber-law. He is a student fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society , and is a PhD candidate at Indiana University's School of Informatics. His academic work and contact information can be found by visiting www.dubfire.net/chris/. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Recent posts from Surveillance State
YouTube's new 'nocookie' feature continues to serve cookies
Is the White House changing its YouTube tune?
Recovery.gov blocked search engine tracking
Obama's BlackBerry brings personal safety risks
White House expands use of search-blocking code
Activists call for a mashup-friendly Recovery.gov
White House yanks 'YouTube' from privacy policy
White House acts to limit YouTube cookie tracking
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (4 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by ajhoughton January 23, 2009 11:43 AM PST
Don't you think this is all a bit silly? I mean, I bet Brightcove or whoever the State Department is using have log files, right? So in the oh-so-silly-and-oh-so-breathlessly-over-the-top sense in which the YouTube cookies are a serious issue, surely so are Brightcove's log files?

And have you checked that Brightcove's video player doesn't store cookies in your Flash player? As opposed to your browser?

(I don't really care either way about any of this, FWIW, I'm just pointing out that IMO the article and the complaint are perhaps a little out of proportion when compared with the actual problem, and that the proposed solution might actually very well not be.)
Reply to this comment
by csoghoian January 23, 2009 12:14 PM PST
I'm not pitching Brightcove per se -- more the idea of paying for video hosting.

If you pay a company for their services, you get to ask for features (such as pro-privacy defaults). If you use a free service, you have no real bargaining power.

And for what it's worth -- there is a big difference between an IP address in a log (which changes each time I go to a different starbucks), and a cookie, which stays the same across different sessions.
Reply to this comment
by SilverSteelWolf January 23, 2009 12:23 PM PST
I was under the impression that the Obama administration was also providing a downloadable version of the videos. That way, folks who are exceptionally worried about their privacy can watch the videos without being data-mined in any way by third parties. They also have the advantage of getting their own copy of the video to use however they wish.
Reply to this comment
by gggg sssss January 23, 2009 2:42 PM PST
of course all of those who use google to find thr gov site will be tracked anyway, especially those using chrome.

Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not whating you. The solution in EI7 is not to allow google cookies to persist. And get rid of teh google toolbbar whiel you are at it.
Reply to this comment
(4 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement
Click Here

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

advertisement

About Surveillance State

Christopher Soghoian delves into the areas of security, privacy, technology policy and cyber-law. He is a student fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and is a PhD candidate at Indiana University's School of Informatics. His academic work and contact information can be found by visiting www.dubfire.net/chris/. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Surveillance State topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right