Even though I generally tend to agree that certain things shouldn't be recorded, if there is a particular reason why such a recording should be made, and the appropriate permissions are granted, I don't see anything really wrong with this. In the video in question, an archbishop led the rites, and presumably gave his permission (or at least didn't smack the cameraman in the face). But a lot of people would agree with the four people who commented on the sacredness of the moment being recorded. In every tradition, there are certain things which popular piety elevates to an especially high status. This popular piety often becomes part of the tradition, and is valid and good, although sometimes "popular piety" is just plain ignorance (and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but in a "theologizing what shouldn't be theologized" way).
But I do have a gripe. Several people have commented that this ritual is conducted in the altar, with the veil drawn across it, so that none in the congregation can see it. This is true; that's what the rubrics call for. Then why, as in four and half minutes into the video, do we see that the washing, anointing, and wrapping of the cross--which are part of this so-called ultra-holy rite that no one should see--are done with the veil drawn back, in plain view of the congregation? This is NOT what the rubrics call for, but if you are going to violate them and refuse to veil the altar at that holiest of moments, why blame a cameraman for recording it and putting it on Youtube?
And another clarification: what some posters here referred to as crawling behind the altar, out of sight, is not because no one should see the rite; in fact, it is because the washed, anointed, and wrapped cross is "buried" under the altar, and in a particularly symbolic way at that. I suppose if we had glass altars, you could see that too, but we don't. In this case, the explanation is practical, and has nothing to do with veiling.