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.
Within a day of the fact going public, the White House partially reversed itself:
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.
That’s a step in the right direction, but the original policy was better. If persistent cookies are bad (generally they are), then why should Google get a special dispensation?