Surveillance State

Editors' note: Correction, March 3, 12:46 p.m. PST: This post, which originally carried the headline "White House ditches YouTube after privacy complaints," significantly misconstrued the White House's policy on and use of YouTube. In the interests of disclosure and transparency, we are leaving the contents as originally posted, with two subsequent update notes and with the exception of the headline change. See also our follow-up story, "No, the White House hasn't ditched YouTube."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Original story follows * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Updated at 5:50 p.m. PST March 2: The New York Times is reporting that the White House has denied any change in online video policy. While the White House spokesperson admitted to using an in-house flash based solution for the latest of the president's weekly video messages, he said the White House is just "experimenting" with different solutions.

Updated at 2:59 a.m. PST March 3: Late Monday, Google posted on its Public Policy Blog a rebuttal to this report: "White House videos on YouTube."

Responding to complaints by privacy activists, the White House has quietly abandoned YouTube as the provider of the embedded videos on the president's official home page.

With the release of the latest weekly video address, the White House has shifted to a Flash-based video solution using Akamai's content delivery network.

The White House's decision to move away from the Google-owned video-sharing site will likely be met with praise by privacy activists and could mark the beginning of a real backlash in response to Google's insatiable thirst for detailed data on the browsing habits of Web surfers.

Ironically, the decision by the White House comes days after YouTube began to roll out new policies to better protect the privacy of visitors who view videos embedded into federal government Web sites. The move by YouTube may prove to be too little, too late.

This is the new embedded video tool used by the White House.

(Credit: Whitehouse.gov)

The White House's decision to embed YouTube videos in the president's official home page drew instant criticism from privacy activists. In addition to several critical posts on my blog, by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (here and here), the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Center for Digital Democracy blasted the choice of video providers.

The focus of the criticism was on the use of long-term tracking cookies by the Google-owned video-sharing site. When the new White House site first went live in January, every visitor to the president's blog would be issued a tracking cookie, even those who did not click the "play" button to watch the video.

The White House acted quickly, and soon deployed a technical fix to the cookie issue, which protected Web surfers who did not click the play button. However, the tens of thousand of people who clicked play were still issued a cookie, and thus tracked by YouTube.

In an unannounced change over the weekend, the White House appears to have solved the remaining cookie privacy issue for those Web site visitors who wish to watch the president's weekly video message.

Out with YouTube, in with Akamai
As of Saturday, the White House seems to have ditched YouTube as its video provider. Visitors to the White House blog can now click play to view a Flash-based video that loads directly from the White House's own Web servers. This solution, which appears to use Akamai's content delivery network, does not make use of tracking cookies.

The president's tech team seems to have finally hit on an optimal solution--one which protects the privacy of the visitors to the White House site, while still permitting the president to spread his message.

The White House is still posting copies of the videos to its official YouTube channel. However, the president no longer provides free advertising to YouTube by embedding those videos on a taxpayer-funded site.

Furthermore, the White House has copied one of the coolest of YouTube's social features: the ability for users to easily share and embed videos on their own sites. Each of the White House-hosted videos includes an "embed" link under it that can be copied and pasted onto any other Web site or blog.

It is unclear whether this switch away from YouTube marks a permanent shift in policy for the White House, or whether the Oval Office geek squad is merely testing an alternate video provider. While the latest video is served using Akamai's servers, the older videos remain as embedded YouTube files.

YouTube's new cookie rules
The timing of the White House's decision to switch to Akamai is rather strange, given the recent moves by YouTube to offer a more privacy-preserving solution for videos used on federal government sites.

Within the last couple weeks, YouTube has silently rolled out its own updates in response to the cookie-related criticism. People wishing to embed a YouTube video can now select a delayed cookies option when copying the embed URL.

This is the new delayed cookies option for YouTube embeds.

(Credit: Screenshot of YouTube)

That choice will cause the embedded videos to be served from an alternate domain, www.youtube-nocookie.com, which registrar records reveal was first registered on January 23 2009, just one day after this blog first mentioned the White House/YouTube cookie issue.

New documentation on the YouTube site reveals:

Enabling delayed cookies means that the YouTube video player will not set any non-session cookies on the computer of a visitor (viewing the page on which the YouTube video is embedded). The YouTube video player may set non-session cookies on the visitor's computer once the visitor clicks on the YouTube video player.

This option is rather similar (yet still inferior) to the technical fix that was previously used (and since disabled) by the White House, as well as the open source MyTube tool developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

A prominent privacy policy
In another new move by YouTube, the site now appears to be directly embedding a link to its privacy policy in all videos that are played from government sites.

This is the new privacy policy link in .gov-hosted YouTube videos.

(Credit: Whitehouse.gov)

When those same videos are viewed at YouTube.com, or when embedded in a blog or other non-.gov site, the clickable link to the privacy policy is gone.

Webmasters for various state agencies seemed to notice the new policy last week and initially complained to YouTube, thinking that the new youtube-nocookie.com was a phishing site.

A representative from YouTube told the Webmasters:

The privacy policy link you see on your embed player is in response to federal regulations regarding privacy on embed players. We're working to remove it from state and local .gov sites as soon as possible.

Still not perfect
While the decision by the White House to ditch YouTube is a good one, unresolved issues remain.

First, as previously noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the White House Web site makes use of an "invisible pixel" style Web bug/tracker on every page on the site, hosted by WebTrends.com.

Ideally, the White House should take its Web analytics technology in-house and abandon the use of this third party tracking technology. Otherwise, at the very least, the White House privacy policy should be updated to note the tracking cookies used by WebTrends.

Second, the White House still has not published the waivers it issued to YouTube (and potentially other third parties), which permitted the sites to use long-term tracking cookies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has repeatedly asked for these documents-- requests that the White House has ignored.

Given the president's much-publicized commitment to transparency, it is time that the White House publishes these documents.

Third, in its recent move to include privacy policy links in videos embedded at .gov Web sites, YouTube has clearly demonstrated that it has the ability to modify the services it provides depending on the referrer information associated with incoming requests. YouTube should build on this and adopt a policy of not logging any data associated with .gov-referred requests.

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.

While the White House seems to understand the cookie privacy issue, it is unlikely that members of the House and Senate are equally as tech savvy. After all, some of them can barely figure out Twitter.

YouTube videos are heavily used on the Web sites of those in the House and Senate. YouTube should adopt sane logging policies for visitors who view these videos, so that we don't have to wait for the House and Senate to fix the problem themselves.

YouTube did not return a request for comment, while a representative for the White House Web team declined to speak on the record.

Someone at the White House appears to be listening to those of us in the privacy community.

For the third time in just six days, the Obama administration has modified the White House Web site privacy policy in response to criticism from the blogosphere.

When the site launched on January 20, it exempted YouTube from federal anticookie tracking rules that would have otherwise cast a legal shadow over the use of embedded videos on the White House blog.

Reacting to criticism from the blogosphere, the White House first modified its Web site on Friday to limit the cookie exposure to only those users who clicked on videos. Then, on Sunday, the White House again tinkered with its privacy policy to scrub YouTube's name from the cookie exemption.

The original YouTube-specific exemption stated:

For videos that are visible on WhiteHouse.gov, a "persistent cookie" is set by third-party providers when you click to play the video.

This persistent cookie is used by YouTube to help maintain the integrity of video statistics. A waiver has been issued by the White House Counsel's office to allow for the use of this persistent cookie.

However, by Sunday evening, the exemption had been edited to remove all mention of YouTube:

For videos that are visible on WhiteHouse.gov, a "persistent cookie" is set by third-party providers when you click to play the video.

This persistent cookie is used by some third-party providers to help maintain the integrity of video statistics. A waiver has been issued by the White House Counsel's office to allow for the use of this persistent cookie.

The decision by the White House to revisit the cookie exemption does not come as a complete shock. The YouTube rule had in just a few short days generated both bad press and direct criticism from several public-interest groups.

It should be noted that this change is, for the most part, cosmetic. YouTube continues to be the only company whose video content is embedded within the White House Web site. Furthermore, the Google-owned video-sharing site is the only one that has received both official legal clearance from the White House Counsel and direct assistance by the White House tech staff (who embed the YouTube content) in planting tracking cookies within the Web browsers of millions of Americans.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has advised President Obama and who personally donated $25,000 to the president's inauguration celebration (out of a total of $150,000 by six Google executives) must be rather pleased.

Still no transparency
In spite of Obama's much-publicized commitment to transparency, the White House has yet to actually provide a copy of the waiver (something this blogger has requested from White House officials informally, as well as via the Freedom of Information Act).

The text of the original privacy policy implied that a specific waiver had been issued for the cookies forced upon end users who intentionally viewed YouTube videos embedded within the White House Web site. The text now implies a far broader waiver for multiple video-sharing Web sites. However, it remains unclear if a new waiver has been issued, or if the old waiver was broad enough to cover multiple sites.

When I first wrote about the privacy policy text last week, I criticized the White House for providing YouTube with a specific exemption. At the time, I noted that no other company had received such special treatment.

The motivation of my criticism was to try to shame the White House staff into doing away with the exemption--as cookies are in no way required in order to serve online video. Instead of recognizing the need to protect consumer privacy, White House officials reacted by expanding the exemption to other companies.

In many ways, the current policy is actually worse than before: non-tech-savvy consumers now have no idea how many companies might be forcing their Web browser to accept tracking cookies. At least up until last week, visitors could take some comfort in the knowledge that only one company might be invading their privacy when they visited the White House Web site (and then only by a firm that had pledged to "do no evil"). Now, at least according to the White House's wide exemption, there could be many.

Last week, I said we should be reasonable and give the White House Web team a bit of time--after all, it is in a brand-new office, managing a new computer network, and scrambling to meet the demands of a very busy boss. However, if the team has had enough time to tinker with the privacy policy at least three times in the past six days, then it has more than enough time to post a copy of the waiver.

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.

Update: 12 hours after posting this story, the White House (partially) reversed itself. The rather dubious YouTube-only waiver from federal Web privacy rules has been maintained, but the White House Web site has been updated to limit the exposure of visitors to YouTube's tracking efforts to only those people who actually click the "play" button on a YouTube video. For more details on the new changes, read this blog post.

The new Web site for Obama's White House is already drawing attention from privacy activists and tech bloggers. While the initial focus has been on the site's policies relating to search engine robots, a far more interesting tidbit has so far escaped the public eye: the White House has quietly exempted YouTube from strict rules relating to the use of cookies on federal agency Web sites.

The new White House Web site privacy policy promises that the site will not use long-term tracking cookies, complying with a decade-old rule prohibiting such user tracking by federal agencies. However, the privacy policy then reveals that Obama's legal team has exempted YouTube from this rule (YouTube videos are embedded at various places around the White House Web site).

While the White House might not be tracking visitors, the Google-owned video sharing site is free to use persistent cookies to track the browsing behavior of millions of visitors to Obama's home in cyberspace.

No other company has been singled out and rewarded with such a waiver.

In a blog post back in November, I criticized the Obama transition team's Change.gov Web site for its use of embedded YouTube videos. At the time, I stated that the practice might violate long-standing federal rules that forbid federal agencies from using persistent tracking cookies on their Web sites. It turns out that I was wrong: the transition team was technically not a federal agency and thus not bound by the anti-cookie rules.

Now that Obama is president, his official Web site is required to abide by the cookie regulations. Furthermore, as of Wednesday afternoon, several YouTube videos have been embedded on the White House blog. As soon as a visitor surfs to one of the blog pages that contain a YouTube video, a long-term tracking cookie is automatically set in the user's browser--even for those users who do not click the "play" button.

Someone on the Obama legal team seems to have read my previous blog post, as they've modified the White House privacy policy to specifically exclude YouTube's tracking cookies from federal rules that would otherwise prohibit their use:

"For videos that are visible on WhiteHouse.gov, a 'persistent cookie' is set by third party providers when you click to play the video.

This persistent cookie is used by YouTube to help maintain the integrity of video statistics. A waiver has been issued by the White House Counsel's office to allow for the use of this persistent cookie."

YouTube and cookies
Each time a new user visits YouTube, a unique permanent tracking cookie is issued by the Web site to the user's browser, which it stores. Whenever the user later revisits YouTube, that cookie is transmitted to the video-sharing site, allowing it to identify users and monitor their video viewing habits.

YouTube is also able to set and access a user's tracking cookie when she visits a third-party Web page that has embedded a video stored on the YouTube site (such as a blog or other Web site), even if the user never clicks the play button.

The moment that the flash file containing the video player is downloaded from YouTube's servers and displayed in the user's browser as part of another Web page, the cookie is transmitted to YouTube's servers. Considering how widespread the practice of embedding YouTube videos has become, this gives Google an amazing amount of data on the Web-browsing activities of hundreds of millions of Internet users--many of whom may not realize that such tracking data is being collected.

The White House policy is not being followed
The YouTube-related text in the new White House privacy policy implies that not all users will be tracked by YouTube. The policy notes that:

"If you would like to view a video without the use of persistent cookies, a link to download the video file is typically provided just below the video."

As of Thursday morning, this statement is false.

In multiple tests by this blogger with both Internet Explorer and Firefox, merely visiting pages on the White House blog causes YouTube to set a long-term tracking cookie in the browser--even if the user does not press the play button to start the video. After eight months, this cookie will be automatically deleted by the user's browser--unless, of course, the user visits another Web page somewhere else on the Internet containing a YouTube-embedded video, in which case, the eight-month cookie clock is reset. Given how widespread YouTube video embeds have become, this cookie essentially lasts forever.

While it is obvious that I am rather critical of this entire affair, I am willing to give the Obama Web team the benefit of the doubt in one area: the fact that their current Web infrastructure does not deliver on the promises made by their privacy policy.

The Obama White House Web site is only two days old, and so it is certainly possible that the team simply hasn't gotten around to deploying a more privacy-preserving system for YouTube video embeds. Protecting users who do not click "play" from automatically receiving a cookie is certainly possible; the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2008 released a wrapper script for YouTube videos that provided this very feature. Let us hope that the Obama team deploys such a technology in due course.

Can YouTube be justified as a "compelling need"?
For the past 10 years, federal agencies have been prohibited from using tracking cookies on their Web sites, except in a few special cases. The Office of Management and Budget rule M-03-22 states that:

"Agencies are prohibited from using persistent cookies or any other means (e.g., web beacons) to track visitors' activity on the Internet except .... [when there is] a compelling need."

The question we must now focus on is this: Is the need for Obama to use embedded videos hosted by YouTube (and not, say, another company's video-streaming platform that does not force cookies upon its users) a use that can be reasonably described as compelling?

Presumably, this has been justified on the basis that YouTube forces cookies on the visitors of any Web site that embeds one of its videos. However, while Joe or Jane blogger has no bargaining power with YouTube/Google, the federal government certainly does.

In just the past couple weeks, YouTube has launched dedicated pages for both the House and Senate to show off their own videos, and the site also recently started allowing users to directly download copies of some videos. This latter feature has not yet been widely deployed across the site, and is seems to be limited to videos posted by Obama's team.

Given the famously close connections between Obama and Google, you'd think his tech team could negotiate for a cookie-less way to embed videos. At a technical level, this would be an easy enough change, even if it would deny Google the ability to collect even more information on millions of Americans.

Cookies and other federal agencies
Finally, the new White House YouTube rule may have a far broader impact on the way that federal agencies use Web 2.0 content. Simply put, if another federal agency embeds a YouTube video in its Web site without first having the agency's legal team issue a waiver, have federal rules been violated?

Up until this week, federal agencies have been free to embed Web 2.0 content in their own sites without any real need to consider the privacy risks posed to end users. The fact that the White House Counsel has felt it necessary to issue such a waiver for YouTube videos appearing on the White House Web page could be reasonably interpreted to mean that such a waiver is now required for all embedded Web 2.0 content that might force cookies upon end users. This is certainly new legal ground.

Consider, for example, the Transportation Security Administration, which has posted YouTube videos to its blog numerous times over the past year. Its privacy policy makes no mention of YouTube cookies. Could this lead to issues for the TSA Web team, or perhaps even congressional investigations? Given my own history with TSA, I certainly hope so.

Update at 9:30 a.m. PST: Video audience figures have been updated.

President-elect Barack Obama has now posted his second weekly address to YouTube, and it has already gotten more than 411,000 views. A week ago, I criticized the use of YouTube by Obama's transition team, calling it a no-bid giveaway to the Google-owned video-sharing site.

The solution I called for then--the adoption of BitTorrent as the official distribution platform for Change.gov--was, admittedly, a pipe dream.

In this post, I'll explain why the government needs to step up and host its own videos and why it is simply improper to rely on YouTube to foot the bandwidth bill for Obama's messages to the people. I will also make the case that the use of YouTube and Google Analytics by the Obama transition team violates the privacy of Web site visitors and possibly even violates federal rules banning the use of permanent tracking cookies on government sites.

YouTube as the platform of choice
The announcement a couple weeks ago of Obama's decision to use YouTube for his weekly addresses led to headlines across the world. The president-elect's use of streaming video technology was hailed as revolutionary or, as one transition team rep gushed, "just one of many ways that he will communicate directly with the American people and make the White House and the political process more transparent."

Obama's team uploaded his first video address to YouTube (928,000+ views), AOL (220+ views), Yahoo (8,400+ views), and MSN (545+ views)--all figures as of Monday morning.

In keeping with the spirit of this posting, the above video is not embedded.

(Credit: YouTube)

For his second weekly video, the Obama team seems to have ditched AOL and only uploaded the video to YouTube, Microsoft's MSN, and Yahoo. Web 2.0 start-ups such as Veoh, Vuze, Revver, and Blip.tv have not gotten any love.

While the transition team should be commended for uploading the video to multiple sites (albeit all owned by multibillion-dollar tech titans), the difference in the number of views is rather startling. Without access to accurate stats (which are not public), it is tough to know how many YouTube views came from people viewing the video embedded into the Change.gov site, searching YouTube, or watching a copy embedded into a personal blog or other news site.

However, I do think it is fairly reasonable to assume that a decent percentage of those nearly 1 million views came from people visiting Change.gov, the taxpayer-funded, official site of the Obama transition team. It is those hundreds of thousands of viewers who clicked the play button to load and stream a video embedded from YouTube's servers that are the focus of this post.

Privacy risks
YouTube, like many other sites, uses persistent cookies to track repeat visitors. Thus, when a regular YouTube user views a video embedded in a blog or other third-party site, the user's cookie is automatically sent to YouTube's servers--even without the user clicking the play button. Given the widespread use of embedded videos, this gives Google, which owns YouTube, an even better idea of the surfing habits of millions of people around the world.

And even if you believe Google's "do no evil" motto, it seems at least a little bit creepy for the company to track each time someone visits Change.gov--especially when that person doesn't actually press the play button to watch Obama's latest message to the people.

The privacy risks associated with the widespread use of embedded videos is something that has caused significant concern for privacy activists--enough for the folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to develop the privacy-preserving MyTube tool for Webmasters. If the Obama team insists on sticking with YouTube embeds, perhaps it will at least consider deploying MyTube to protect the privacy of citizens who visit the official transition site.

The privacy risks aren't just limited to YouTube.

Just a week ago, Dan Goodin at The Register criticized the use of the Google Analytics Web-tracking code in the Change.gov site--which also sets a permanent tracking cookie. Although he mostly focused on security risks, and not privacy-related threats, he blasted Obama's Web design team, stating that:

The failure of Obama's Webmasters to follow anything remotely like best practices is more than a little troubling because it suggests they don't fully grasp the security realities of living in a Web 2.0 world.

Eight years ago, the issue of cookies tracking users on government sites was a fairly big issue in tech policy circles, drawing the attention of those in Congress. Eventually, the Office of Management and Budget issued a directive that forbid the use of persistent cookies on federal agency sites.

The Obama team's use of both YouTube and Google Analytics raises serious privacy concerns and likely clashes with the OMB directive.

If Obama's transition team can afford to lease a jet for the president-elect and to pay for staff salaries, BlackBerrys, and hotel rooms, why can't it also pay for a few Web servers capable of serving up Flash video?

(Credit: Change.gov)

To be clear, Change.gov is not creating or requesting its own persistent cookies. However, due to the embedding of YouTube videos and Google Analytics Web-tracking code in the site, visitors will be transmitting cookies to Google's servers. Since the YouTube cookies are not set directly by the Change.gov servers, it is unclear whether the Google cookies violate the specific OMB directive. Even if they do not, they clearly violate the intention of the rule--which was created in the days before embedded videos or third-party-hosted Javascript.

The official privacy policy listed at Change.gov makes no mention of cookies, nor of the collection of visitor information by Google's servers. The privacy policy does, however, pledge "not to make personal information available to anyone other than our employees, staff, and agents." At best, the Obama team copied a boilerplate privacy policy from somewhere else and overlooked the use of YouTube and Google Analytics. At worst, it seems pretty deceptive.

When reached for his thoughts, Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center told me:

On the upside, the transition people have done a good job with the ethics in government rules for transition team members. Now they need to revise the Change.Gov Web site and respect the rights of citizens who are seeking information about the new administration.

Lots of traffic
The low-quality video YouTube video embedded into the Change.gov blog is 7MB. When multiplied by more than 900,000 views, we find out that Obama's first video led to the consumption of over 6 terabytes of bandwidth. If the Obama team had to pay for the data, instead of getting it for free from YouTube, it would have cost nearly $1,000, at least if it used Amazon.com's S3 cloud-hosting service.

While YouTube did not serve any advertisements within or around Obama's chat, each of those 900,000+ viewers did see YouTube's name prominently placed within the Change.gov site (as a watermark in the bottom corner of the video). Once the three-minute video is over, viewers are given the ability to watch other related videos (which might have advertisements) or, with one click, to navigate directly to the Google-owned video-sharing site, which certainly has advertisements.

Furthermore, I'm sure that Google's PR team was absolutely overjoyed with the thousands of newspaper articles that flatteringly tied the president-elect to the video-sharing platform. While all press is good press, it is likely such Obama-related press is even better.

Defaults matter
The Obama team's uploading of its weekly videos to YouTube is fine--providing, as it currently does, that it also uploads the videos to a few other places too. As the videos are not copyrighted, members of the public are free to redistribute them via other platforms (as the LegalTorrents P2P site has done), and even mash them up. This is great, and I support this embrace of Internet distribution by the president-elect's team of geeks.

I do, however, have a problem with the use of YouTube-hosted embedded videos on the official Change.gov site.

The transition team has a budget of over $12 million. If it can afford to lease a jet for Obama and to pay for staff salaries, BlackBerrys, and hotel rooms, why can't it also pay for a few Web servers capable of serving up Flash video? Isn't it a bit tacky for the federal government to be relying on Google to host its videos?

It's as if the entire Obama transition team has adopted Hotmail's free e-mail service for its daily communications--with each e-mail sent by an Obama adviser followed by a signature pitching one of Microsoft's products: "See how Windows Mobile brings your life together--at home, work, or on the go."

Obama raised half a billion dollars through online donations during his campaign. His was the first presidential campaign to employ a chief technology officer (a computer geek formerly at the travel site Orbitz). These guys know what they're doing when it comes to technology; they design beautiful, interactive sites and have relied upon complex data-mining algorithms to profile and target individual voters and donors. If they wanted to, they'd have no problem installing a few dozen Adobe Systems Flash streaming servers. However, since YouTube will gladly foot the bill, the Obama team hasn't felt the need.

During his campaign for the presidency, Obama didn't call for a Web 2.0 government, but for a Google government--something that CEO Eric Schmidt, who is now serving as one of Obama's economic advisers, was probably very happy to hear. While I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, I don't really see one here. However, given the close connection between Obama and several higher-ups at Google, it is better to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Thus, it is time to bring an end to embedded YouTube videos on Change.gov. By all means, use streaming video to reach the masses, but let the bits flow from government-owned servers (preferably without privacy-invading cookies). If bloggers wish to embed YouTube videos of the speech on their own sites, that is fine. But Obama shouldn't.

Disclosure: I was a technology fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in spring 2008 where I worked on social-networking-related issues. I also worked for Google as a summer intern in 2006, received two Google fellowships, and currently use Google Analytics tracking tool for my personal site.

Public interest groups, academics and members of the press have hammered Google for its lax privacy policies. The criticism has mostly focused on the log deletion practices and browser cookie policies at the search giant. Google claims that search quality and user privacy are a zero-sum game: deleting log data makes it more difficult to improve search results. Perhaps the company is right. However, there are several other pro-privacy steps that Google could take to significantly protect its customers--which it has not done, and continues to reject.

Over the last few months, a number of Google's engineers have issued public statements on the company's public policy blog to defend its much criticized log data retention policies. The company claims that the data can be used to hunt down malware, to catch people defrauding its advertising system, and can be used to improve search results.

These high-profile Googlers make the case that user privacy and search quality are a zero sum game: deleting logs to protect customer privacy makes it far more difficult to provide a good search experience.

While I personally think this is a load of rubbish, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt today, because I want to focus on a different issue. Namely, that Google could take a few easy steps in other areas to protect customers from the prying eyes of AT&T, the NSA, or the pervert next door reading your e-mails sent over a wireless network.

Search terms

Imagine a normal search situation. A user will visit Google.com, type in a few words, "security blogs," perhaps, and click on the search button. From the search results page, a user will click on a link, taking them to www.some-website.com. Due to the way that Google has designed its search engine, Web site owners are given the search terms that brought each Web surfer to their site.

A more technical explanation of this is as follows: Google embeds the search terms that the user issued into the Web URL of the search response page. That is, an example search URL will look like http://www.google.com/search?q=security+blogs . This is known as a HTTP GET request. When a user clicks on one of the search results on that page, the Web site owner will be told the exact address of the referring Web site. Due to the fact that Google embeds the search terms in its results URL, the Web site owner learns which terms lead a user to their page.

Google could very easily stop including the search terms in the URL and thus stop passing on the search terms to the Web sites that users click on from a Google results page. It could do so by requesting that the user's browser send the terms to a Google server in a more discrete way. Many Web sites do this, especially those dealing with private information. Amazon.com and other e-commerce sites do not transmit the customer's credit card information by sending it in the URL--even on a SSL-encrypted Web session. To do so would needlessly endanger the user.

A switch to this more privacy-protecting method of Web data submission, known as a HTTP POST, would be a trivial change for Google's engineers. Furthermore, it wouldn't lead to any additional data processing resources for its vast number of servers. For Google, such a change would cost the company essentially nothing yet it would give its customers an immediate increase in privacy.

The only downside to such a change, would be the loss of information for Web masters. Companies would like to know which search terms drew a customer to their Web site, especially if that visit resulted in a sale. While no doubt useful for marketers, this is not something they deserve to know. Furthermore, Google's responsibility is to the users with the eyeballs. At the very least, if a firm wants to know what people are searching for--let it buy an advertisement from Google. Right now, Google gives this data away to every Web site owner, for free.

Encrypted mail

By default, all Google searches as well as e-mail sent and read via Gmail are transmitted in the open, over an unencrypted session. What that means, is that the data can be seen by anyone with access to the network--anyone else using the Wi-Fi connection at Starbucks, your Internet service provider, or any government agency that has tapped the Internet backbone.

All Web browsers support the SSL encryption standard. Google even offers encrypted access to Gmail users, if they know to ask for it. Users simply need to visit https://www.gmail.com, and their e-mail entire session will be safe from prying eyes.

Unfortunately, encryption is expensive, at least in terms of computing power. Turning SSL on by default for the millions of Gmail users would mean that Google would have to dedicate more computers to the service. Those computers cost money. A Google spokesperson confirmed this, telling me that "we have not made SSL the default due to capacity and latency issues."

Google has made a shrewd business decision: Those users who care enough about their privacy to read the company's FAQ can get a bit of protection for their e-mail, while those users who presumably don't care, are left exposed to hackers and snoops.

Google should change its policies with regard to SSL and e-mail. At the very least, it should mention the secure Web mail option and provide a link on the main Gmail log-in page. This information is currently hidden in one of the help pages. In an ideal world, Gmail would enable SSL by default.

Searches, exposed.

While the company offers encrypted Web mail, it does not do the same for searches. Currently, there is no way to keep your search terms secret from those who might be watching the network. Could the company offer this? Sure, but it has chosen not to. Primarily, because of cost.

Luckily, someone else has taken steps to fill the search privacy gap left by Google.com. A Texas man named Daniel Brandt has created a Google-powered privacy-preserving search engine: Scroogle.org.

Scroogle submits search queries to Google on a user's behalf, scrapes the results, and displays them to the user. Scroogle's search data policies are fantastic: no cookies, no search-term records and all access logs are deleted within 48 hours. The site uses HTTP POST requests by default, which helps to keep the search terms a secret between the user and the search engine. Furthermore, for those users willing to put up with the 1- or 2-second delay required to initiate an SSL connection, encrypted searches are available to users via https://ssl.scroogle.org/.

Over 130,000 searches per day are made through the Scroogle site, 10 percent of which use SSL. In an e-mail conversation, Daniel told me that his "ultimate goal is for Scroogle to survive long enough so that the public sector gets the idea that all major search engines should be treated like public utilities."

Daniel Brandt seems like a great guy. He's doing this for free--and accepts tax deductible donations on the Scroogle site. However, for users who don't trust Daniel's claims, they may wish to use the anonymizing TOR proxy in parallel with Scroogle.

What Daniel's site shows, is that privacy preserving search is possible. While Scroogle doesn't show any ads, if Google offered this service, they could still make a buck on it. Imagine that--making money, while not being evil.

Disclosure: I'm paid as a technology policy fellow by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest group that has repeatedly criticized Google for its privacy policies. Furthermore, I interned for Google in 2006, and have received a $5,000 fellowship from the company, both in 2006 and 2007.