backtop

Print 42 comment(s) - last by jcyeadon.. on May 28 at 3:24 PM

Morale-building videos such as this one on YouTube will no longer be available to military personnel using Department of Defense computers.
U.S. military personnel will no longer be able browse many popular websites the Defense Department has flagged as "security challenges" and bandwidth hogs

On Friday, a memo from General B.B. Bell, the commander of U.S. Forces in Korea, stated that 11 sites will be off limit to members of the military. YouTube and MySpace top the list of sites that pose a potential risk to information security. The memo also acknowledges that even though most of the traffic to these sites is benign, they place an unnecessary drag on the military's online infrastructure.

"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability," according to Bell's memo.

Although the new policy is in line with previous edicts barring military personnel from any form of communication that could jeopardize safety or mission security, some observers are crying foul because of the role MySpace and YouTube play in allowing overseas troops to stay in touch with their stateside family and friends.

Other popular Web destinations that will no longer be available from Defense Department networks include video-sharing sites Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos and FileCabi; social networking sites BlackPlanet and Hi5; music sites Pandora, MTV, 1.fm and live365; and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.

The ban went into effect worldwide today. The sites are blocked only from DoD computers/networks and do not affect home computers owned by military personnel. However, Bell warns that members of the military should “exercise caution in forwarding any links or files from these sites to DoD computers or networks. To do so could compromise OPSEC (operational security) and create an opportunity for hacking and virus intrusion."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The Military, Trolls, and a Solution
By Chocolate Pi on 5/14/2007 4:06:58 PM , Rating: 5
Obviously as unfortunate as this is, it's a problem that has to be fixed. The armed forces cannot monitor every bit of communication that goes out, and the most vague locational information could prove to be an asset to the enemy. Furthermore, YouTube is a bandwidth hog; at my college they had to ban it for a few weeks until they could rebuild the infrastructure to support it.

I await the trolls that will come and try to blast the Army for this realistic action that had to be done. No operation or any soldier's safety should ever be jeopardized in the slightest due to some ignorant private wanting to update his myspace.

I say all the inevitable bickering should instead be routed to a solution: make social networking and video sharing sites targeted solely at the men and women in the armed forces. It would provide much more isolated and controlled outflow of information, drastically reducing the chance of any intel leak. It could even be encrypted and password-protected for individual videos or accounts, so that only say a soldier's family could see their account. Finally, the whole thing could be streamlined for lower bandwidth according to whatever protocols needed to be implemented overseas.




By Preyfar on 5/14/2007 9:21:22 PM , Rating: 5
I'm a computer tech for the Air Force out in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. While I can't say much for our system, our Internet bandwidth is insanely limited -- imagine having a thousand people using a little more bandwidt than a single cable modem and you may start to get an idea of what it's like. Streaming a single video can severely impact things, as you can imagine.

MySpace and Youtube has been blocked for well over a year here, and all streaming media is disabled. But we're still blessed with Anand/Dailytech.


By exanimas on 5/15/2007 2:10:06 AM , Rating: 1
While I do completely agree with the ban and most of your opinion, I disagree with the third paragraph. A social networking site limited to only those in the military would be no replacement for MySpace. The point of it is to be able to connect with the people back home, not the people who are overseas in some other country with you. Also, if you were to allow access to a soldier's family, that would jeopardize security nearly as much as having it on a public website. While it is all a great idea in theory and it would give the people fighting for our country a way to network with those back home, it's just another sacrifice they'll have to make. There's always e-mail.


By jcyeadon on 5/28/2007 3:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
This just makes sense. These sites are to popular and it's not uncommon for employers here to block the same sites.

It's all about the bandwidth, there is no intent to block then based on the content. This isn't a punishment. It's just about rationing bandwidth like you would ration food. Would you rather be denied myspace or be denied all internet including the ability to email your loved ones.


A couple of things about this.
By commOdog on 5/14/2007 7:00:04 PM , Rating: 4
I admin the web proxy and firewall for a living.
Couple of things to point out.

1.) Most installations have been blocking these sites for years using combinations of webfiltering proxies, ACLs, etc. If they haven't been doing this, they are idiots.
We did a trial and blocked gmail, hotmail and yahoo and gained 60% of our morning bandwidth back, so we kept it blocked.
The only difference now is they are doing it at border routers where the NIPR hits the wide open internet, no big deal for us or our users.

2.) Personal computers are not allowed on NIPRnet (now known as LANDWARNET by the way) according to DISA regs. If people are doing this, they are wrong. Regardless if they are getting connectivity from a VSAT Terminal or plugging into the wall at home station. Anyone on our installation does this and we gather identifying evidence, block them and then get them reprimanded, notifying their whole chain of command.

3.) Barracks rooms, lodging and even a lot of tents in the desert have commercial internet that they pay for either out of pocket or with MWR funds. (money raised from sales at Installation PX/BX and other things). They can do whatever the hell they want to do on these links.

Bottom line is NIPRnet (landwarnet) is not for playtime, watching funny videos or checking out Maryjane Rottencrotch's myspace page. Its for conducting official, non classified government business. Sure Soldiers bitch, but they get over it, or they figure out ways around it using proxies or funneling everything out port 80 or whatever else, but they will be blocked eventually as well and sometimes punished.




withdraw all the troops
By K1W1 on 5/15/2007 1:15:21 AM , Rating: 1
withdraw the troops then bandwidth for all




RE: withdraw all the troops
By Goty on 5/15/2007 8:00:17 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, there will be tons of bandwidth... until the whole region implodes.


Cry Me a River
By Tuor on 5/14/2007 4:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Here, wait a moment for me to get out a hankie... Boo hoo! Those are real tears I'm shedding... not.




Not New
By 3v1lkr0w on 5/15/2007 4:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
This is nothing new, I can't be sure about other service branches, but the Air Force has blocked Youtube and Myspace for a few years now, at least 2, maybe longer, but I know for 2 years at least.




necessary?
By venny on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: necessary?
By PAPutzback on 5/14/2007 4:45:11 PM , Rating: 3
How? They should be at work when on DOD computers just like the rest of us. They can still get on MySpace when they are off duty.

The real crime is that My brother-inlaw is in training for 3 months in Oklahoma and he has to pay an installation fee to comcast for his internet service for 3 months of service. Luckily a couple guys in his room brought routers and they will be splitting the cost of the installation and modem rental. But you would think comcast could waive an installation fee seeing as these guys are headed over to Iraq or military in general and all they are doing is pluggin a modem into an outlet and screwing the RG6 into the back of a modem.


RE: necessary?
By Polynikes on 5/14/2007 7:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
Being in the military never got me any discounts. I got some free drinks, once, but that was it.


RE: necessary?
By abhaxus on 5/14/2007 11:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
If your brother in law is paying an installation fee on a cable modem he is either an idiot or he is really getting screwed... self installation for comcast has always been free, and takes very little to no computer know how to do.


RE: necessary?
By kamel5547 on 5/14/2007 5:03:30 PM , Rating: 5
And the fact our military bandwidth is being hogged by MySpace and YouTube will have no detrimental effect?

Streaming video (and stupid shoutcast music) eats bandwidth up at a ferocious rate. I remember the last bandwidth check I ran had one user accounting for 1/2 of all the bandwidth use going out on our T1 (thanks shoutcast). Basically one user was using more bandwidth than ~90 other users combined.


RE: necessary?
By oTAL on 5/15/2007 6:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
ok... I am aware that what I'm about to say is not always feasible and that sometimes, at least temporarily, measures like this one must be taken. That being said... when the bandwidth is insufficient for the traffic, it has be proven time and time again that the solution is not to limit traffic. The solution is to acquire more bandwidth. This may sound over simplistic, but I am a telecommunications engineer and you would not believe the amount of money thrown at traffic shaping and network management when most of the times the cheaper, better solution is the increase of bandwidth. (This has a few similarities with some of the arguments used in the net neutrality discussion).

Still, in this case bandwidth is only half the problem. The other half is security... and once again I believe the measure taken can only be correct if it is temporary. The right solution is user education, strict security policies and good admins. By presenting this solution as permanent you feed the anti-american camp with a "censorship" case. It doesn't matter if there are valid reasons... Today, on Portuguese national radio, after the news bit: "Washington and Beijing... the similarities..."


RE: necessary?
By Polynikes on 5/14/2007 7:18:58 PM , Rating: 3
Millions of troops before them got on fine without the internet. Snail mail fulfills the same role as the internet, more or less. Besides, most, if not all, bases in Iraq and Afghanistan at least have phones, and I can guarantee you the troops will find other sites to fill in for the banned ones.


Wow. Just Wow.
By xuimod on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By mezrah on 5/14/2007 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
"This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability," ...The sites are blocked only from DoD computers/networks and do not affect home computers owned by military personnel .

They can still view the material on their own computers, just not the shared computers owned by the DoD


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By xuimod on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By mezrah on 5/14/2007 4:14:43 PM , Rating: 5
Because Verizon and Comcast are the only internet providers in the entire world!!!


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By Aikouka on 5/14/2007 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
When my friend was in Iraq, he had a satellite connection for the Internet. Now, I don't know who furnished the connection, but I believe they paid for it. I'd have to ask him to find out for sure though.

Maybe MySpace wouldn't be so bad if it were streamlined like Facebook? I may peruse MySpace every once in awhile and the pages are huge bandwidth hogs with the hundreds of youtube videos per page, the flash comments that people post, the slide shows with a kabillion pictures. People need a lesson in KISS sometime ;).


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By Ringold on 5/14/2007 4:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
I was playing EVE the other night, and there's a guy (who will go unnamed) who's a Marine over in Iraq right now at a detention center who also peruses a satellite connection to play Eve. He's online more than I am. :D How's that for an image of Iraq in chaos; a Marine playing EVE eating at local Subway's and.. can't remember all the other places he said I was familiar with that he has nearby.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By Polynikes on 5/14/2007 7:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
There was free internet service available to all military members at the base I was at in Afghanistan. It was slow as shit, but we had it.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By wrekd on 5/14/2007 4:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect

Soldiers in Iraq, Korea, and everywhere else are affected if they are routed through the NIPRNET.

So yes this affects almost all military personnel overseas that use these services.

I'm not making a statement for or against the blocking. I'm just showing the scope.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By mezrah on 5/14/2007 4:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
To draw a parallel to college; it's like sites banned from the computer lab, but you can still view them in your dorm room.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By monicalewinsky on 5/14/2007 4:43:39 PM , Rating: 1
Why cut their access to internet sites for security reasons? Al Quaida can get the military secrets from the Democrats who spew them often.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By Ringold on 5/14/2007 4:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Leaky Leahy ftw.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By chick0n on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By monicalewinsky on 5/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By Chernobyl68 on 5/14/2007 5:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
correct, if your lab is overseas and your dorm room is stateside.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By kamel5547 on 5/14/2007 5:06:30 PM , Rating: 4
They can do it on their own time and equipment. Welcome to the working world where internet filters do apply.

IMO they should never have been able to access those sites in the first place... there are tons of bugs running around MySpace trying to infect computers.

Or to put it this way... So let me get this straight, you'd rather let our DoD computers get hacked than ban YouTube use on them?


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By wrekd on 5/14/2007 5:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're only looking at half the problem. This also effects off duty soldiers in Iraq on their "personal computers" because most of their connections route across the NIPRNET.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By commOdog on 5/14/2007 7:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
see post above.
According to regs, personal computers are NOT allowed on niprnet. AR 25-2 and/or AR 380-5 specifically do not allow this, not to mention what the DISA regs say.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By afkrotch on 5/14/2007 9:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
Who the hell cares? I'm in the military and I never could get on Youtube or Myspace. Even when the USAF had it's own Myspace page, I couldn't get to it.

I can't get to Hotmail, Google Image Search, and a whole list of other sites.

The military expect such things to happen. All bandwith should be reserved for mission capabilities, especially out in the field, where you have extremely small pipes. Commercial satellite bandwith is expensive too.

If the military can save millions of dollars each month from savings of commercial satellite bandwith, that's money that can be used towards other things.

We are short on money here, that we have half or less of our lights on at work, had to park vehicles (a number of vehicles parked for 6 months, so we can save on gas), contract jobs cut, and other cost cutting measures.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By alifbaa on 5/14/2007 10:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, many deployed locations that I've been to have specifically allowed access to the internet through a parallel connection to the same bandwidth. We didn't have access to the network resources, but we did have access to the internet, albeit heavily firewalled. Youtube and the like have always been firewalled for me.

What sucks is that you Comm bastards blocked yahoo mail, so I can't email my family. All you idiots accomplish is to force us to go to the Brit tents and surf the internet over there. They have sensible Comms and allow their folks to actually use technology instead of restrict it out of existence.


RE: Wow. Just Wow.
By commOdog on 5/15/2007 7:28:56 AM , Rating: 3
While your sob story about yahoo being blocked and you can't reach your family brought tears to everyones eyes, I would like to remind you that every branch of service has a web portal for using email. And you can grant guest accounts to friends and family so you can stay in touch with email, chat and video chat.

Army has AKO. https://www.us.army.mil/
AF has AF Portal. https://www.my.af.mil
Marines have Marinenet: https://www.marinenet.usmc.mil/portal
Navy have Navy Knowledge online. https://www.nko.navy.mil/
And if you are Joint Services, you can use DoD Online: http://defenseonline.dod.mil/

So your theory holds no water.
OPSEC is your friend.


freedom of expression
By K1W1 on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: freedom of expression
By Chillin1248 on 5/14/2007 6:56:02 PM , Rating: 5
In an army?

You mean blocking the flow of a soldiers information in or out should be permitted without censor during a time of war/crisis?

Granted that this doesn't seem all that quite serious, but still to say the army doesn't have every right over a soldiers life is naive. Really, go to the army one day. The army controls every aspect of your life, even what color your urine should be (in the Israeli army the urine should be more clear/whitish which signifies you drinking enough liquids, about a liter of water a hour).

-------
Chillin


RE: freedom of expression
By K1W1 on 5/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: freedom of expression
By Crazyeyeskillah on 5/14/2007 7:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
that's some quality urine.


RE: freedom of expression
By rbuszka on 5/15/2007 8:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, their personal expression isn't being censored -- avenues for communication are being restricted. It's really tiresome how everyone wants to immediately call everything a First Amendment violation. Please, think these things through before you waste our time.


RE: freedom of expression
By K1W1 on 5/20/2007 6:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Its your perogative if you consider your time is wasted. How about not generalising your comment as representative of everyone through "our time"? Restriction of a channel still limits expression, e.g. similar to saying "you cant use your cell phone but have to use your mouth to talk to your friends across town". Trickle theroy of information supression. My initial question was requesting information, not bagging any percieved erosion of the amendment, and consequent lack of freedom. Try being an embedded journalist if you think you have access to express wartime information.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki