Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Ditches YouTube

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-i-thought-google-bought-and-paid-for-the-US-already dept.

Government 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fags. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045493)

The people of Doomed america eat their children every day like vicious, ravenous beasts; and worse and much more is coming. Watch for a widespread public service announcement with this theme: Have children so you can eat to survive; itâ(TM)s your duty as a patriot!

You must educate yourself on the abortion-promoting policies of Bloody Beast Obama. Remember, this wicked nation elected him; he will be the world emperor before he is done; and the bloody bastards of doomed america love him. He is the most aggressive advocate of abortion, including killing babies born alive, who ever drew breath. And heâ(TM)s just getting warmed up. Heâ(TM)s already proudly pronounced that if one of his daughters makes a âoemistakeâ and gets pregnant, he wonâ(TM)t âoepunishâ her, but instead will advocate (and really probably demand) for her killing his grandchild. Heâ(TM)s a blood thirsty monster whose cravings for evil and bloodshed will never be satisfied, and he is the perfect president for this evil nation.

In addition to the millions of babies this nation kills in the womb, or fresh out of the womb, they sacrifice their children to their filthy lusts; they teach them false religion and bizarre traditions; they do it all to justify their own sins. Further, this nation is famous for turning its children over to raping priests. Their children are fodder for their rebellion against God; they fuel their evil slow bellies every day, as they teach them God is a liar; itâ(TM)s OK to be gay; and every form of filthy manner of life imaginable. The bear children to vent their spleen against God and raise them for the bloody battle fields of their rebellion. And did I mention they are just getting warmed up good? They eat their children every day, in so many ways. And Godâ(TM)s wrath has barely peeked out from behind the clouds so far. Wait until he gets going good. They are going to literally chow down on their children.

Bloody Beast Obama will change times and laws, so that by that time, it will be good and fine with everyone for them to cook up their children and eat them. In fact there is probably going to be a law mandating that every seventh child (or some other figure they land on) is required by law to be used to feed the people. There will be a PR campaign that will knock your socks off, telling the people they are not true patriots if they donâ(TM)t bear children for dining. Theyâ(TM)ll gobble, gobble, gobble and slap each other on the back, waving their bloody flags, and call it great and good. You just watch and see. These are brutish people and God is going to deal with them. You have the solid promise of God for this fact. They have disobeyed him for generations; and now he is going to curse them just like he promised. Check out these words:

Deuteronomy 28:
53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Magormissabib!

Barack Hussein Obama (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045771)

Hey guys I just found out that Barrack Hussein Obama is a nigger and he's Muslim. How the fuck did you american idiots vote this shitstain into office?

Re:Fags. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045957)

I strongly oppose abortion too!

I am all for killing babies! I fucking hate the little pieces of shit.

I also hate Jesus too so fuck off queer.

Re:Fags. (-1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046239)

A robust demonstration of the rationality enjoyed by religious people.

Thanks so much for that.

Re:Fags. (-1, Offtopic)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046391)

Wow. Who did you go to Sunday School with? The 'Children of the Corn'?

Your god is a psychopath.

Smoke some weed, you'll be less anxious. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046545)

Smoke some weed, you'll be less anxious.

first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045513)

First post!

Wise choice (4, Insightful)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045517)

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:Wise choice (0, Troll)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045563)

Well for one thing it cost the public nothing.
And it is a very popular site so a lot of people might see it. No different that letting networks cover speeches or news conferences.
Finally because it is free.
This new system will require the government to pay for the band width, development, and administration of the streaming site.
It still depends on Flash as well.
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.

Re:Wise choice (4, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045589)

Saving them possible thousands of dollars! While alienating the world outside the US even further. Brilliant.

Re:Wise choice (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045647)

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 somebody will post it on YouTube so people outside the US could view it if they really want to.
Now just why should the US Tax payers pay to let people outside the US watch this stream?
I say leave it on YouTube.

Re:Wise choice (4, Insightful)

Deag (250823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045673)

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 (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045793)

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 (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046077)

But this will probably end up costing millions all over a cookie.

      And it's not even chocolate chip.

Re:Wise choice (4, Insightful)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046127)

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:Wise choice (3, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046139)

While the BBC may do that the UK government does not. The difference, imo, is that the UK (and US) government get money from their tax payers who live around the world. The BBC does not. Its money only comes from UK tax payers so there is little room to justify letting everyone watch the content. Where as I'm an American and I live overseas. I still file my taxes so yes I have just as much right to watch the video. In fact I also got a stimulus check despite the fact there was little to no chance I'd spend it on the US economy. But I am still an American and tax payer so I get the same rights.

Re:Wise choice (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046003)

Saving them possible thousands of dollars! While alienating the world outside the US even further.

Still better than spending a trillion dollars to piss off the rest of the world.

Re:Wise choice (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045637)

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 (0, Redundant)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045683)

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.

Re:Wise choice (0, Troll)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046007)

Still think using a free service that everybody and their dog uses makes a lot more sense than paying for it.

Only if you are a YouTube/Google fan boy.

Re:Wise choice (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046381)

option 1) post on youtube and discriminate against the alternatives
option 2) post on every single video site there is (not easy)
option 3) post on your own channel and let the videos be uploaded to all the other sites

Re:Wise choice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046471)

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.

Nearly right.

There are no rss feeds linking to the videos like in the TED talks feed [feedburner.com] .

Re:Wise choice (3, Informative)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045665)

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 (5, Interesting)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045713)

Oh yes, and I'd also like to see a .torrent on the site, but I know that'll never happen.

Re:Wise choice (5, Funny)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046279)

Perhaps you've not heard, p2p is illegal, even if the content holder uploads the torrent themselves...

Re:Wise choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046369)

Perhaps you've not heard, p2p is illegal, even if the content holder uploads the torrent themselves...

Idiot or troll?

Obviously if you're distributing copyrighted stuff, you need to have a license from the copyright holder. There are many commonly-used licenses that allow you to do that; some even make specific exceptions for peer-to-peer systems.

Re:Wise choice (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046501)

Whoosh...

Re:Wise choice (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046519)

Idiot or troll?

I don't know which you are, cause the GP's sig clearly indicates sarcasm.

Re:Wise choice (0, Redundant)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046521)

*whoooooosh*

Re:Wise choice (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046543)

He is probably talking about how we are suddenly seeing all of the stories about how "teh evils!" P2P is making everything more dangerous like exposing your medical records [slashdot.org] or even risking the safety of the president [slashdot.org] . And considering the fact that Obama put a bunch of *.A.As into power it does smell a little fishy to me that the stories always seem to blame P2P and not PEBKAC, which is what those stories really are.

Re:Wise choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046491)

Yes, god forbid you use a smart peer-to-peer system to save the government a little money on bandwidth...

Re:Wise choice (5, Insightful)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045787)

...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:Wise choice (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046063)

As an American who files his US taxes (as required by the government) despite living overseas, I'd say that the government can't do that and what a bout the non tax payers within the US?

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:Wise choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046453)

That's fine; just enter your US Social Security Number into their fine web site once it says it can't show the video to you because you are a bandwidth leaching foreigner. It will then apologize for calling you a leach.

Then it will show you the video just fine, and next thing you know your identity will be stolen.

Re:Wise choice (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046109)

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:Wise choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046449)

because if the BBC does it, it must be right!

Re:Wise choice (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046489)

But it creates jobs thus stimulating the economy!

Re:Wise choice (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045571)

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:Wise choice (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045729)

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 (1, Troll)

Celarnor (835542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045951)

1. It is a youtube link. Who doesn't go to youtube?

Me. A lot of other people I know who run Linux. It depends on Flash, and the GNU implementation of Flash is rather broken. I refuse to use the nonfree version, and it doesn't work with anything else, so...

I'm disappointed (0, Troll)

Celarnor (835542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046085)

Troll? For valuing my freedom above the ability to watch 3 minute segmented episodes of anime and the other things of critical importance residing on youtube, I get modded troll?

If Gnash worked with Youtube, I'd use it. But it doesn't, whether through some error of my own, mirrored across my circle of friends, or due to some defect. Since I refuse to install a nonfree application *just* to go to youtube, I don't go. Don't assume that absolutely everyone uses youtube.

Re:Wise choice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046167)

That's your choice, then, isn't it?

Re:Wise choice (2, Informative)

Celarnor (835542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046283)

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 eyes for advertisers and data for demographic mining.

I'd rather spend money and retain my privacy. My privacy is more valuable than I can put a dollar amount on.

Re:Wise choice (3, Funny)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046017)

1. It is a youtube link. Who doesn't go to youtube?

I guess you've never been to xHamster.

Re:Wise choice (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045813)

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't be subject to corporate sponsorship, corporate data-mining/tracking etc.

If the government wants to release copies to youtube, fox news, hulu, netflix, xbox live, and whatever else that's fine, but they should also be hosting and providing copies themselves, directly and freely.

Re:Wise choice (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045885)

>>>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't have to hide in fear.

Re:Wise choice (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046083)

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:Wise choice (1)

rmerry72 (934528) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046179)

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.

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:Wise choice (2, Interesting)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045581)

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:Wise choice (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045879)

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:Wise choice (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045979)

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:Wise choice (1)

rmerry72 (934528) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046211)

Seems to me YouTube isn't what young people use, it's what everyone uses.

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:Wise choice (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045897)

YouTube is what *everyone* uses, you prick.

Re:Wise choice (4, Interesting)

PetriBORG (518266) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045587)

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:Wise choice (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045859)

"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 keep the videos online indefinitely and not change the URLs etc. A business would have little reason to enter into such an agreement if they didn't get something sweet out of it, like an exclusive distribution deal. They'll get an ad boost too. Which will indirectly affect natural market forces. Pushing up one company at the expense of it's competition.

If the government had a team of people distributing them to various free-sites full or part time that just seems like a waste of tax dollars. If the public is interested in watching the videos they'll distribute them themselves, and they'll get up on youtube (and it's competitors, without government interference) anyway.

Re:Wise choice (3, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045627)

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 (3, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045693)

Your only choices are pay to self-host (and that means affiliating with a hosting provider)

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:Wise choice (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046031)

and Bjorn Stronginthearm's your uncle!

      I'm a troll you insensitive clod!

      Uh... wait.. /Pratchett

Re:Wise choice (2, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045767)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045839)

"If the president would like to speak to the American people, why not choose something not affiliated with any company."

Cameras? cables, routers, programmers, artists, production software? Should all be homemade by the White house?

ok then.

Re:Wise choice (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045999)

You forgot about the electricity.
Get ol' Billy Clinton on an exercise bike/treadmill/hamster wheel and hook that shit up to a generator.

Re:Wise choice (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046039)

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:Wise choice (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045843)

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:Wise choice (1)

ral8158 (947954) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046445)

Um...[citation needed]?
I think it's highly unnecessary to character assassinate people that you have assumed are not good at what they do with no real rhyme or reason.

Re:Wise choice (4, Funny)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046175)

Think outside the box,

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:Wise choice ... JUST GREAT! (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046221)

I block the hell out of akamai, and now, it seems i have to let it all in just to get to see the Presidential Addresses?

Why not just post them to ads-free FTP sites. Put a link on the whitehouse page and let me run the thing in my local media player (xine, mplayer, kaffeine, etc, and if it's a DIRE situation, then, umm, ms media player...).

C'mon, Administration! Be platform/software/player neutral. Don't be a "player hater"...

Re:Wise choice ... JUST GREAT! (2, Informative)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046245)

Oh, OK, sweet. MP4 and other options ARE available...

Stupid me. THIS is why slashdotters should RTFA, FIRST, heheheh....

Re:Wise choice (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046289)

Perhaps it's because the Supreme Court is starting to use the service [nytimes.com] ...

So, maybe I'm missing something here... (1)

Adilor (857925) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045561)

...but what's the big deal? I did RTFA, for the record, and it just doesn't seem like it make a whole lot of sense. Visitors get a tracking cookie, which happens literally all the time when you visit websites. So why is this suddenly a big deal when it involves the President's blog? I...just don't get it. Why should someone care so much about such a trivial little thing like a tracking cookie? Anyone want to provide a poor user like myself with some enlightenment?

Re:So, maybe I'm missing something here... (2, Interesting)

Ironica (124657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046301)

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 just get a little 1984 here: What if it became, somehow, "right" to always watch the President's videos? Or wrong? And so, with the law behind them, the government subpoenaed those tracking cookie results, and determined who was being a good/bad little boy/girl?

Or more mundane: say someone works for Google, and has some access to that data. And has political differences from his/her spouse... so they look up the home IP in the tracking database for the President's videos. Domestic squabbles ensue because someone's listening to "that one" when they're not "supposed" to be.

Participation in the political process is both voluntary and an entitlement for most Americans between 18 and death. Tracking any part of that participation has the potential for abuse, and could have a chilling effect.

What's the Secret Service's problem! (5, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045591)

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:What's the Secret Service's problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045919)

Did they stay for a beer?

Re:What's the Secret Service's problem! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046361)

First I watched some hairy milf porn,

Link please

Re:What's the Secret Service's problem! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046403)

First I watched some hairy milf porn,

Link please

On Soviet Internet, hairy milf porn emails to you.

Delete the cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045605)

It's not that hard to uh, just delete the cookies. Not to sound drastic or anything.

<video> (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045609)

Flash? When HTML 5 is done they can use the <video> tag.

Re: (5, Funny)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045745)

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: (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046317)

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: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046069)

When HTML 5 is done

Yeah, I heard it's coming out the same day as Duke Nukem Forever.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046257)

That's not going to happen until the general American public moves off of MSIE 6 and 7, which will unfortunately take years. Sorry, but Flash video isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Re: (1)

rmerry72 (934528) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046259)

Flash? When HTML 5 is done they can use the tag.

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.

Odd... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045645)

"Choosing instead to use a Flash-based solution"

Last time I checked, YouTube uses flash as well.

Biden's doing (1, Funny)

Triela (773061) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045667)

Biden recommended the withdrawal after YouTube refused to give him their "number".

bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045739)

with youtube, there were a lot of people who weren't interested in politics that might stumble upon the video. This is the type of people who obama wants to target.

What they need to do is release the video at both the .gov site and youtube.

Video.gov? (1)

aoheno (645574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045855)

A fraction of the stimulus can have video.gov up and running in one week.

Don't successful websites always take about a week according to their founders?

Keeps the hordes from making useless comments because government can write the privacy policy and find out everything about anyone - except for WMDs. Imagine that - no YouTube comments like 'lol', or 'i mean dude'.

Distribute a File? (1, Offtopic)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27045863)

I'm not saying that they shouldn't use flash, although it certainly crossed my mind. Vendor lock-in is bad, especially for government services.

Re:Distribute a File? (4, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046171)

They include an MP4 and text so you don't even need a video player to know what was said.

Flash Video is for fucking stupid sheeple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27045891)

Why the fuck does the fucking businesses need to use fucking flash video. If someone can't use a fucking text browser to download a fucking video to watch then they are obviously too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a fucking computer. These people should committ suicide immedieately.

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY!

Good decision (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046019)

Good for the federal government. They shouldn't be picking certain video sites over others just because it's the cool thing to do. Particularly one that is owned by a powerful company like Google.

No doubt the videos will be quickly ripped in uploaded to youtube, and a zillion other video sharing sites so people aren't stuck with the government website if they don't like it. And it's all legit because the videos are in the public domain.

Re:Good decision (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046275)

What can Google do that the US government can't do?

ask biden (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046089)

what's the websites number again?

yeah cunts! it was funny when it was a republican but now that democrat shows that he doesn't know anything? eat up that shit sandwich bitches, there's a lot more of it coming you fucking cock smokers.

welcome to real exploitation- the gov't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046099)

WH political wonks that gave Obama his win exploited the commercial models of youtube, myspace, facebook, CNN, public donations and 527 groups, working around those that had the power: copyright, associations, agencies, and the state. F* protection of content/copyright they said (it was UGC anyway), and they got all the media coverage to raise money and win. It was a game of exploitation and did they exploit well.

.

They are now the state, to protect copyright, even those of their foes. Welcome to bureaucracy Obama policy wonks. Who wins in the end: Youtube. Really--cause if this continued the 1st SNAFU on youtube would have been blamed on Google and the big G would lose creditability--political wonks never admit blame nor fault. Wrong choices, maybe, but not blame.

.

And if gov't can build a better youtube (which I doubt), well then that's change I can believe in. Otherwise, all this political discussion of economy, jobs, and stuff is just to prop up the current system in order to support a political party's agenda--in other words, HYPE.

Public domain ftw (1)

GregNorc (801858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046287)

Anything the federal government creates is in the public domain anyways... I'm sure anything posted on whitehouse.gov will be posted on youtube by any number of bloggers.

Re:Public domain ftw (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046311)

That's fine, so long as it's not posted by the White House, it's not violating their privacy rules.

What privacy concerns? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046303)

What exactly are the privacy concerns that are valid at YouTube.com that aren't are *.gov?

Re:What privacy concerns? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046397)

US government sites don't use tracking cookies.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046329)

I guess the revolution will be televised after all.

Albeit with super spin put on it.

Relax. It's good for you!

Wait, wait, don't tell me...was that a (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046421)

U-turn on YouTube, or was it a low-blow/low-tech reach-around? LOL!

Seriously, though, YouTube just has wayyyyy to much distraction on it and maybe the viewers might get bored and click on another link in the side bars....

# of views (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046525)

Is it to hide the embarrassingly few number of views of the address?

OK, What Was That Reason Again? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27046555)

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, and "that's a lot of change."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?