Comments on: No web for you, Army Boy!

No web for you, Army Boy!

dejah420 — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:10:56 -0800

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.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:13:29 -0800

I can't help but think that blocking myspace is going to be incredibly unpopular.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:14:17 -0800

Ground controlled, to Major Tom.

By: starman

starman — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:15:24 -0800

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

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:18:27 -0800

Everyone knows that what soldiers need, is to be even more bored, and have less opportunity to express their feelings.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:18:53 -0800

They still blocking wonkette?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:19:24 -0800

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.

By: wendell

wendell — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:19:25 -0800

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:19:34 -0800

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...

By: rxrfrx

rxrfrx — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:19:43 -0800

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...

By: miss lynnster

miss lynnster — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:19:53 -0800

LOLASSHOLEZ.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:22:29 -0800

I guess not enough people hated us for our freedoms, so the Pentagon decided to do something about it.

By: smallerdemon

smallerdemon — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:22:30 -0800

Just because you're fighting for freedom doesn't imply that you'll be getting any of that freedom.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:22:48 -0800

This is a serious blow to Rupert Murdoch.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:24:06 -0800

I heard if you work for Blackwater, you get unlimited bittorrents and 12 Mbps download.

By: Webbster

Webbster — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:24:09 -0800

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.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:24:19 -0800

This is good news for Vox, I guess.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:26:41 -0800

I weep for all the proud (.*) wives.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:27:11 -0800

ATTN GI: STFU, GBTW.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:28:22 -0800

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

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:28:25 -0800

Nice Google-fu brownpau, I think we all learned a few things, well about search markup.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:29:04 -0800

We've always been at war with MySpace.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:30:56 -0800

Maybe the gummint is building a social network for antisocial killing machines, seeing as how that's what we're turning these guys into.

By: poppo

poppo — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:31:12 -0800

I STILL C LOLCATZ ON OTHER SITEZ RIGHT OK

By: four panels

four panels — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:32:33 -0800

LiveLeak has all the good killing anyway.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:33:25 -0800

Why are they blocking MTV? That shit blocks itself.

By: ND¢

ND¢ — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:37:01 -0800

But what if the soldiers are MySpace Freaks?

By: mattbucher

mattbucher — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:38:54 -0800

The Taliban blocked Metafilter so we had to strike back.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:39:17 -0800

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.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:41:35 -0800

The military is a cross between a dictarship and socialism in order to protect democracy.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:44:30 -0800

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.

By: patr1ck

patr1ck — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:54:21 -0800

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

By: jfuller

jfuller — Mon, 14 May 2007 12:55:29 -0800

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.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:00:36 -0800

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.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:11:17 -0800

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!

By: zabuni

zabuni — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:16:10 -0800

NMCI already blocks youtube and myspace, and has blocked them for at least a year. This really isn't anything new.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:22:05 -0800

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.

By: 2sheets

2sheets — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:24:10 -0800

"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.

By: Fezboy!

Fezboy! — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:27:43 -0800

Surely this will be the policy that turns the corner in Iraq.

By: briank

briank — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:30:31 -0800

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

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:31:11 -0800

Happy Wiretap the Internet Day!

By: bhouston

bhouston — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:33:11 -0800

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.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:33:20 -0800

Plenty of proxy servers out there...

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:34:11 -0800

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.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:35:49 -0800

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?

By: jouke

jouke — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:37:10 -0800

Interesting comment jfuller; indeed this is nothing new. Indeed quite common.

By: phearlez

phearlez — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:42:01 -0800

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.

By: hypocritical ross

hypocritical ross — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:42:02 -0800

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

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:46:17 -0800

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."

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:54:41 -0800

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.

By: yeloson

yeloson — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:59:40 -0800

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...).

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:04:31 -0800

The Navy blocks access to metafilter.

By: absalom

absalom — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:05:12 -0800

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.

By: ztdavis

ztdavis — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:09:25 -0800

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

By: jimmythefish

jimmythefish — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:09:44 -0800

I think they wuz alarmd that they was in ther base, doin stuff.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:35:29 -0800

ztdavis said: How is this different than any large corporation blocking social networking sites? Erm...because soldiers don't go home at night?

By: dopamine

dopamine — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:46:04 -0800

fighting for freedom!

By: travosaurus

travosaurus — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:49:54 -0800

This is good news for Vox, I guess. Better news for Facebook.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Mon, 14 May 2007 14:57:09 -0800

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?

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:20:36 -0800

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.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:26:16 -0800

Hi5 Hi5?!?. What next? Separating soldiers from the WIGGLES? Have they no fracking shame?

By: joe lisboa

joe lisboa — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:43:08 -0800

You go to war with the "Which Golden Girl Are You? Quiz" you have, not the "Which Golden Girl Are You? Quiz" you want.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:43:21 -0800

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.

By: mdonley

mdonley — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:16:46 -0800

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.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Mon, 14 May 2007 16:24:59 -0800

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.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 14 May 2007 17:07:04 -0800

Andrew Bacevich's son has been killed in Iraq.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Mon, 14 May 2007 17:26:17 -0800

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.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:47:49 -0800

It's a giant surge protector!

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 14 May 2007 19:05:56 -0800

“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.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 14 May 2007 19:25:58 -0800

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.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 14 May 2007 20:57:38 -0800

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.

By: Vorteks

Vorteks — Mon, 14 May 2007 23:28:57 -0800

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.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Tue, 15 May 2007 06:06:35 -0800

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"?

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 15 May 2007 06:13:48 -0800

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.

By: fizzix

fizzix — Tue, 15 May 2007 06:59:40 -0800

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.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:42:11 -0800

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.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:50:06 -0800

Yeah, well youTube now gets 0% of the bandwidth. Efficient.