No web for you, Army Boy!

May 14, 2007 12:10 PM

Soldiers may no longer use MySpace to communicate with family. The Defense Department will begin "worldwide" blocking access, as of today, to YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos, FileCabi, MySpace, BlackPlanet, Hi5, Pandora, MTV, 1.fm, live365, and Photobucket on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander. Note that most soldiers deployed in war zones don't have access to any network outside of the military network.
posted by dejah420 (76 comments total)

I can't help but think that blocking myspace is going to be incredibly unpopular.
posted by empath at 12:13 PM on May 14, 2007

Ground controlled, to Major Tom.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:14 PM on May 14, 2007 [3 favorites]

Did they need more reasons for people NOT to join the army?
posted by starman at 12:15 PM on May 14, 2007

Everyone knows that what soldiers need, is to be even more bored, and have less opportunity to express their feelings.
posted by parallax7d at 12:18 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]

They still blocking wonkette?
posted by delmoi at 12:18 PM on May 14, 2007

The sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos, and FileCabi, the social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5, music sites Pandora, MTV, and 1.fm, and live365, and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.

Coming soon: Sponsor a Solider on Flickr.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:19 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.
posted by wendell at 12:19 PM on May 14, 2007 [5 favorites]

It's not like people won't find a way to get on a mirror, or something. Prohibitions always lead to workarounds.

I used to use Outlook to surf at work when I worked somewhere with draconian IT policies like this...
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:19 PM on May 14, 2007

Did they need more reasons for people NOT to join the army?

Seriously, this made me think about yesterday's post on Blackwater. As if people needed another incentive to be a mercenary instead of a soldier...
posted by rxrfrx at 12:19 PM on May 14, 2007

LOLASSHOLEZ.
posted by miss lynnster at 12:19 PM on May 14, 2007

I guess not enough people hated us for our freedoms, so the Pentagon decided to do something about it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:22 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]

Just because you're fighting for freedom doesn't imply that you'll be getting any of that freedom.
posted by smallerdemon at 12:22 PM on May 14, 2007 [15 favorites]

This is a serious blow to Rupert Murdoch.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:22 PM on May 14, 2007

I heard if you work for Blackwater, you get unlimited bittorrents and 12 Mbps download.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:24 PM on May 14, 2007

It's a bit ironic since the US Military set up their own YouTube channel to show clips of soldiers killing insurgents.
Shooting themselves in the foot now.
posted by Webbster at 12:24 PM on May 14, 2007

This is good news for Vox, I guess.
posted by Mister_A at 12:24 PM on May 14, 2007

I weep for all the proud (.*) wives.
posted by brownpau at 12:26 PM on May 14, 2007 [4 favorites]

ATTN GI: STFU, GBTW.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:27 PM on May 14, 2007 [4 favorites]

I have to admit in taking great pleasure in blocking myspace whenever a client asks us to set up a content filter.
posted by odinsdream at 12:28 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nice Google-fu brownpau, I think we all learned a few things, well about search markup.
posted by parallax7d at 12:28 PM on May 14, 2007

We've always been at war with MySpace.
posted by psmealey at 12:29 PM on May 14, 2007

Maybe the gummint is building a social network for antisocial killing machines, seeing as how that's what we're turning these guys into.
posted by Mister_A at 12:30 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

I STILL C LOLCATZ ON OTHER SITEZ RIGHT OK
posted by poppo at 12:31 PM on May 14, 2007

LiveLeak has all the good killing anyway.
posted by four panels at 12:32 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why are they blocking MTV? That shit blocks itself.
posted by Mister_A at 12:33 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]

But what if the soldiers are MySpace Freaks?
posted by ND¢ at 12:37 PM on May 14, 2007

The Taliban blocked Metafilter so we had to strike back.
posted by mattbucher at 12:38 PM on May 14, 2007

In related news, the "moral" brigades defending soldiers from anything except bullets are nowhere to be found ! Rumor has it they are safely at home, plotting new ways to avoid future drafts.
posted by elpapacito at 12:39 PM on May 14, 2007

The military is a cross between a dictarship and socialism in order to protect democracy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:41 PM on May 14, 2007 [4 favorites]

Note that most soldiers deployed in war zones don't have access to any network outside of the military network.

Huh? Where is this information coming from? Lots of military networks provide access to the internet, even if they are in a sense private intranets. For example, NMCI (Navy/Marine Corps Intranet) allows for internet access, it just locks down lots of ports and refuses a number of protocols. NIPRnet net allows access to the internet as well. In fact, plenty of DOD intranet sites provide for internet access.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:44 PM on May 14, 2007

Hahaha, thank you for linking to all those sites except Hi5.
posted by patr1ck at 12:54 PM on May 14, 2007

The National Archives - Mail Censorship in WWII:

after declaring a national state of emergency when Hitler's forces rolled into Poland on September 1, 1939, Roosevelt was presented with several proposals of civilian and military plans for wartime censorship based upon the work of the architects of censorship in the previous world war. On June 4, 1941, he approved a plan for national censorship of international communications and ordered the U.S. Army to develop a modern program for censoring the mails entering and leaving the United States. He also charged both the FBI and the Office of the Postmaster General with concurrent planning and directed the U.S. Navy to begin formulating a plan for censoring cable, radiotelegraph, and radiotelephone circuits.

PBS War Letters - Censorship:

When were the first soldiers' letters censored in the United States?
We do not believe it was done in an overt manner before the Civil War. It might be that most of the troops before then were illiterate and officers were largely trusted, so they didn't bother.

There was some censoring in the Civil War because letters sometimes had to cross enemy lines. Most of the censoring comes from the prisoner-of-war camps. For example, if someone was writing a letter from Andersonville [a Confederate prison camp where many Union soldiers starved] those at the camp didn't want people to know what was happening, so the prisoners wouldn't be allowed to say anything bad about a camp. The first heavy censorship of U.S. soldiers took place during World War I.

What were the censors looking for?
The censors were looking out for two things in World War I and World War II. They didn't want the soldier to say anything that would be of value to the enemy, such as where they were. They always wanted to camouflage how strong the troops were. "Loose lips sink ships" was the phrase that was very prevalent in WW II and that was the theory in WW I as well.

Officers also were looking to see any weakening of desire among the troops. It's very important in wartime for officers to know about morale issues.

Were the letters ever censored for moral reasons?
One of our researchers recently found over 500 confiscated and condemned letters at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. They included letters that used graphic language dealing with sex. Our member also found that in some cases the same writer would keep having his letters confiscated and apparently didn't get the message. These letters were never delivered and apparently the sender was never sent a notice of the offense.

Were other types of letters confiscated?
Letters that were sent in foreign languages were also intercepted. Many members of the armed forces were immigrants or the children of immigrants and they were more comfortable communicating home in their native language. A letter written in Polish or Italian usually wasn't delivered because the typical censor didn't know what it said.

posted by jfuller at 12:55 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Disturbing but not surprising.

Marines stand post in 120 degree heat that is in the middle of a secured base. Mental meltdown. Unable to watch Hi, I'm a Mutant...and I'm a DC.
posted by nickyskye at 1:00 PM on May 14, 2007

SweetJesus : "Huh? Where is this information coming from? Lots of military networks provide access to the internet, even if they are in a sense private intranets."

I think that's exactly what the comment was in reference to. That is, people in warzones only have access to the internet via military networks. Hence blocking viewing via the military network effectively equals blocking viewing period.

odinsdream : "I have to admit in taking great pleasure in blocking myspace whenever a client asks us to set up a content filter."

You're just a cog in the military complex, man!
posted by bugbread at 1:11 PM on May 14, 2007

NMCI already blocks youtube and myspace, and has blocked them for at least a year.

This really isn't anything new.
posted by zabuni at 1:16 PM on May 14, 2007

patr1ck said: Hahaha, thank you for linking to all those sites except Hi5.

Oops! That was unintentional.

SweetJesus said: Huh? Where is this information coming from?
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant was deployed soldiers, unless they are using the military network to get to the internet, cannot get to the internet. I realize there are many paths to the internet from within the system, but this command blocks all access to those sites from every one of those paths.

In other words, enlisted soldiers in Iraq can't just hax their personal laptops into the Blackwater bluetooth network so that they can still get to MySpace. This regulation, for all intents and purposes, makes these sites almost inaccessible to the common soldier on the ground anywhere where traditional internet access may be difficult to get. I mean, the soldiers in Iraq are hardly likely to pop into a cybercafe in downtown Baghdad. As to where that's coming from, it's both from the article linked in the headline, and from friends who are currently deployed in fields of action.
posted by dejah420 at 1:22 PM on May 14, 2007

"It's not like people won't find a way to get on a mirror, or something."
And end up with some kind of espionage charge for 'hacking', I would imagine. Probably not a good idea.
posted by 2sheets at 1:24 PM on May 14, 2007

Surely this will be the policy that turns the corner in Iraq.
posted by Fezboy! at 1:27 PM on May 14, 2007 [3 favorites]

I can't go to any of those sites when I am at work, either. I guess I'm not very sympathetic.
posted by briank at 1:30 PM on May 14, 2007

Happy Wiretap the Internet Day!
posted by homunculus at 1:31 PM on May 14, 2007

2sheets, I agree, going against direct orders isn't a good thing unless every soldier is doing it. It's much like the anti-blogging edict that was announced a few weeks ago. Lots of information control efforts going on right now, but its like the cat is out of the bag with regards to Iraq given that approval ratings for the war are already horrible.
posted by bhouston at 1:33 PM on May 14, 2007

Plenty of proxy servers out there...
posted by LordSludge at 1:33 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]

briank said: I can't go to any of those sites when I am at work, either. I guess I'm not very sympathetic.

Well, yeah...except that I bet you get to go home more than once a year. This order means that deployed soldiers can't access these sites on their off hours either.
posted by dejah420 at 1:34 PM on May 14, 2007

I can't go to any of those sites when I am at work, either. I guess I'm not very sympathetic.

You don't live at your job, though, right?
posted by Mister_A at 1:35 PM on May 14, 2007

Interesting comment jfuller; indeed this is nothing new. Indeed quite common.
posted by jouke at 1:37 PM on May 14, 2007

Did they need more reasons for people NOT to join the army?

Shit, I think being blocked from MySpace seems like a good reason TO join the Army, but maybe I'm the only person who doesn't like pink-on-green color schemes with multiple competing mp3 clips.
posted by phearlez at 1:42 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Couldn't they save bandwidth by limiting the number of glitter gifs each soldier can use on a weekly basis?
posted by hypocritical ross at 1:42 PM on May 14, 2007

In related news: Soldier Wins Blog Book Prize for Iraq Memoir.

"An American soldier's violent and darkly comic account of fighting in Iraq has won the Blooker Prize for best book that began as a blog on the Internet.

Colby Buzzell, whose Internet diary became the book My War, started posting online from a Sunni triangle frontline Internet tent as a way to 'kill time.' he book won the second annual $10,000 prize sponsored by publishing Web site Lulu.com.

His blog allowed him to explain the war to readers back home with an immediacy he couldn't have matched in a 'regular' book written after he returned, he said by phone from Los Angeles.

'I would come back after missions, my ears still ringing from the firefight, and sit down and write about it,' he said. 'I've been back two years. If someone told me to write a book about Iraq now, I wouldn't know where to start.'

While he was still in Iraq, the military, citing security, ordered Buzzell to stop posting his notes on the Web.

'A soldier writing on a blog for the whole world to read made them extremely nervous. This was the first war where the Internet was such a part of it, and they were nervous about that," he said of his commanders who ordered him off line.

But he said other soldiers are still posting on the Web."

posted by ericb at 1:46 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]

Couldn't they save bandwidth by limiting the number of glitter gifs each soldier can use on a weekly basis?

Okay. Okay.. Seriously. What the fuck. What the fuck is wrong with people.
posted by odinsdream at 1:54 PM on May 14, 2007

As silly as Myspace might seem, you also gotta realize that in wartime, even things like ice cream can boost morale. Sadder still, is my friends who have family serving out there, who they actually USE myspace as the way to talk back and forth.

In general, taking away small stuff tends to create bigger backlash than taking away big stuff (such as the right to buy better armor...).
posted by yeloson at 1:59 PM on May 14, 2007

The Navy blocks access to metafilter.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 2:04 PM on May 14, 2007

jfuller: We also took Japanese-Americans and locked them into camps, forcing them to abandon all their worldly possessions except for what they could carry with them with little notice. (Or they were prohibited from carrying. Needless to say, it was a good week to buy antiques in SoCal.) Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that when we relocate Dearborn, MI to Fort Freedom, OK or some such place, you won't trot out the odious supreme court ruling that made it possible.

Needless to say, while World War II was roughly as noble as a war can possibly be, there was clearly a lot of room for improvement.
posted by absalom at 2:05 PM on May 14, 2007

How is this different than any large corporation blocking social networking sites?
posted by ztdavis at 2:09 PM on May 14, 2007

I think they wuz alarmd that they was in ther base, doin stuff.
posted by jimmythefish at 2:09 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

ztdavis said: How is this different than any large corporation blocking social networking sites?

Erm...because soldiers don't go home at night?
posted by dejah420 at 2:35 PM on May 14, 2007

fighting for freedom!
posted by dopamine at 2:46 PM on May 14, 2007

This is good news for Vox, I guess.

Better news for Facebook.
posted by travosaurus at 2:49 PM on May 14, 2007

Isn't it usually that the military tries different things and when successful, the corporate model follows suit? That sometimes you can watch military trends about how internal stuff is resolved, and if transferable to civilian life, companies do the same thing like a few years later?

Which came first? corporate blocking or military?
posted by ZachsMind at 2:57 PM on May 14, 2007

Honestly, this censorship of the soldiers really is an outrage. Apparently, soldiers are less inclined to be silenced any more, having been duped into being Big Oil pawns, either cannon fodder or slaughtering people who never made war on our country. This would seem to be an attempt to silence soldiers as this stage of the Bush junta comes into its last year and a half.

What is the military trying to hide more than before?

Watching that film yesterday, Iraq for Sale, I really felt so utterly disgusted by the Bush junta and the repulsive corporate profiteering the US government is committing, while murdering tens of thousand of United Stated citizens, soldiers, and who knows how many civilians in Iraq. I don't know another word for this, except to say what the Bush regime is doing is evil. In spite of my being non-theistic, what comes to mind is these corrupt officials and corporations are demonic. This depravity is camouflaged with slick Christian hype and pseudo patriotism.

At present, Americans are faced with an illegal junta which is repeating a vile era in American history: the seizure of all governmental powers by a single party-cabal during John Adams' presidency from 1797-1801. They are following in exact detail the monopolization of power practiced by the Federalist-Adams dictatorship.
posted by nickyskye at 3:20 PM on May 14, 2007

Hi5

Hi5?!?.

What next? Separating soldiers from the WIGGLES? Have they no fracking shame?
posted by Sparx at 3:26 PM on May 14, 2007

You go to war with the "Which Golden Girl Are You? Quiz" you have, not the "Which Golden Girl Are You? Quiz" you want.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:43 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

The Navy blocks access to metafilter.

Ah, but that would be an act of war. I think more appropriate terminology is "quarantine". Access to Metafilter is quarantined.
posted by psmealey at 3:43 PM on May 14, 2007

I was thinking about how to react to this. If you know someone over there, maybe take some time today to write them a letter, an honest-to-God on-paper letter, and let them know that just because their words are being ever more restricted by their higher-ups, we haven't forgotten them and their struggles off as well as on the battlefield, regardless of what we at home might think about the reasons they're in Iraq in the first place.
posted by mdonley at 4:16 PM on May 14, 2007

Did they need more reasons for people NOT to join the army?

I really do NOT want to meet the bloke who has no problems travelling O/S to kill people he's never met, but draws the line at being denied access to Myspace.
posted by pompomtom at 4:24 PM on May 14, 2007

Andrew Bacevich's son has been killed in Iraq.
posted by homunculus at 5:07 PM on May 14, 2007

Andrew Bacevich's son has been killed in Iraq.

"Andrew Bacevich has become perhaps the leading critic of America's preoccupation with military power. As a former professional soldier, he writes with great understanding of the military as an institution and of the path its leaders have taken since Vietnam. Bacevich explains trenchantly how, over the past 30 years, America's political and intellectual elites have all contributed to this country's overemphasis on war, soldiers and military solutions."

How awful for Andrew Bacevich on so many levels... and his son.

"1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich, 27, of Walpole, Mass., died May 13 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit during combat patrol operations in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq."

"Bacevich [senior] is a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic.... He has thus earned the right to a hearing even in circles typically immune to criticism. What he writes should give them pause.... His conclusion is clear. The United States is becoming not just a militarized state but a military society: a country where armed power is the measure of national greatness, and war, or planning for war, is the exemplary (and only) common project."--

Wonder why his son joined the army? Had to be really hard for an anti-war father. And devastating now his son is dead.
posted by nickyskye at 5:26 PM on May 14, 2007

It's a giant surge protector!
posted by brain_drain at 6:47 PM on May 14, 2007

“How is this different than any large corporation blocking social networking sites?”

If you work for a corporation you have rights guaranteed to you by the constitution such as free speech. Military personnel have severely restricted constitutional rights when they serve.

If you violate the regulations set by your corporation they can fire you, they can’t imprison you. Firing you for looking at myspace might suck, but it’s not unconstitutional.
The military can however jail a servicemember who violates regulations.


“Apparently, soldiers are less inclined to be silenced any more, having been duped into being Big Oil pawns, either cannon fodder or slaughtering people who never made war on our country.”

While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, I disagree with the implication. What are they then supposed to do?

The military cannot - and should not - in any way resist civilian control. Ever.
Their access to information is restricted for good purpose and among those purposes is that they need to continue to have a will to fight.
They could get information that, say, they’re fighting for the wrong side, or someone at home is sleeping with their wife, etc. etc. - all manner of propaganda designed to sap their will to fight.

Now, this information might be entirely correct - the war, and specifically in this case the war in Iraq - might be wrong and thus not propaganda.
But again - they cannot decide that for themselves and they therefore can be deprived of any information along those lines.
Many people still seem to believe in the war in Iraq. Enough such that it’s still going on. It’s not for the military to determine which political faction to follow or to analyze policy, they only execute policy. And that’s all any military anywhere should ever do.

This is not to say they should be deprived of a choice to (or information related to) disobey what they believe is an illegal order - Lt. Watada for example refused to go to Iraq based on what he’d gotten from U.S. news outlets.

But it is to say that it’s irrelevent whether they agree with any given source or sources that the war is wrong/right/good/bad as a matter of policy - as any decision they have in the matter can only come from their superiors and - ultimately - from the civilians who are in control of their government.

It sucks that so many civilians believe we need to stay there - still - if/when they learned that there was no imminent threat.
Apparently many Americans believe in the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. And that sucks too.
But I suspect if many Americans understood their stake in the war - not even a blood relative or even the human costs - just that they knew their financial costs, they’d be howling for it’s end (and perhaps - one can hope - Bush & Co.’s asses in prison).

As it is - while servicemembers rights to view information are seriously curtailed by necessity - many civilians seem to think similar ignorance is a blissful option.

We have the luxury as well as the right to discuss policy and if we oppose it, act on it. So we can end the war, keep the military at home, change policy in how it’s to be run - etc. etc. And we can make other policy decisions regarding the military - e.g. whether the nat’l guard should be at home cleaning up after, say, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.
And their job is to do what we tell them to do.

But when the military makes policy it’s called a coup and is a dictatorship - even if it’s done with the best intentions.

Plenty of static media for them to read. Books n’ such. I don’t particularly care whether Joe Grunt has web access or not. Communicating with home is great and they should be as comfy as possible, but beyond mail, it’s a luxury.

What bothers me is that WE’RE not getting the information direct from THEM.
And what that means is civilans are getting information from somewhere other than the most direct source.
Can’t say I care for that even without the implication of spin.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:05 PM on May 14, 2007

That is, people in warzones only have access to the internet via military networks.

Actually I've heard they just get satellite internet, since they have plenty of disposable income and it's not like the military ijs giving them a super-fast link anyways.
posted by smackfu at 7:25 PM on May 14, 2007

Wonder why his son joined the army?

nickyskye: Andrew Bacevich Sr. is a retired Army Colonel and a Vietnam vet, so I'd guess that his son was probably following in his footsteps.
posted by homunculus at 8:57 PM on May 14, 2007

Note that most soldiers deployed in war zones don't have access to any network outside of the military network.

Are you sure about that? One of my company's employees was a Marine that recently returned from a tour in Iraq. He managed to have several IM conversations with the office while he was there via MSN messenger. He told me that he had internet access, although it was extremely slow (worse than dialup). He could have been an exception, but I got the impression that the soldiers generally had internet access.
posted by Vorteks at 11:28 PM on May 14, 2007

Vorteks writes "He could have been an exception, but I got the impression that the soldiers generally had internet access."

Yes, but it would probably be internet access via the military network. The issue isn't "do they have access to the internet, or only the military network". It is "do they only have access to the internet through the military network, or do they have direct internet access as well"?
posted by bugbread at 6:06 AM on May 15, 2007

Apparently many Americans believe in the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.

I doubt that many even know that what they are supporting has a name. If they put a name to it, it would be something like, "USA is #1!" because they think war is some kind of football game. For them, the idea that the U.S. can squash some other country that we dislike is equivalent to the idea that the U.S. should squash that country.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:13 AM on May 15, 2007

I talked to my friend who's in the army last week on AOL instant messenger. He's the Kurdish region of Iraq (I forget the name of the town) waiting to be sent out to Kirkuk in 2 weeks. With the current task done (I didn't know what - I didn't want to prod him with questions about Iraq he's sitting at base, bored out of his mind, and spends a lot of the day online. He even downloaded Spider Man 3 (didn't say how fast the connection was or what p2p he used).

After talking to him, I understand how the higher-ups want to ban access to some of it, since all of the bandwidth that he and his comrades use can clog the bandwidth for times where a troop or brass need to get a large PDF or hold a video conference with others on an urgent call.

At the same time, However, I do see that the armed forces have went a bit too far because the soldiers need something (even if it's watching random crap on myspace or youtube) get their mind off the morbid realities that they encounter everyday.

If the armed forces would have banned less bandwidth-hogging things like blogs (especially more politically slanted ones like wonkette) blogging platforms, email, and aol instant messenger, than the intentions to suppress troops' communication would be more compelling.

Alas, the issue is muddy and requires multiple perspectives to understand it.
posted by fizzix at 6:59 AM on May 15, 2007

After talking to him, I understand how the higher-ups want to ban access to some of it, since all of the bandwidth that he and his comrades use can clog the bandwidth for times where a troop or brass need to get a large PDF or hold a video conference with others on an urgent call.

This seems like quite a cop-out. The military knows about QoS just like any network administration team does. A complete block just doesn't make sense - set up distinct subnets for the higher-ups who "need" things faster than everyone else, and prioritize their traffic. Give these subnets a larger percentage of the bandwidth.
posted by odinsdream at 8:42 PM on May 15, 2007

Yeah, well youTube now gets 0% of the bandwidth. Efficient.
posted by smackfu at 8:50 PM on May 15, 2007