backtop

Internet Military Launches TroopTube for Soldiers
Michael Barkoviak - November 12, 2008 5:00 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by GaryJohnson.. on Nov 15 at 10:53 PM
Members of the military get their own video sharing web site: TroopTube

The U.S. Defense Department publicly launched a new video sharing web site designed for U.S. military personnel, their families, and friends.  The new site, called TroopTube, was publicly unveiled yesterday on Veteran's Day, and will serve as the official video sharing site for members of the military.

TroopTube visitors who choose to sign up can identify themselves as members of the Marines, Air Force, Navy, Army, or as a reservist, family member of a military member, or a civilian friend.

Anyone is able to upload videos to the site, but all videos will be screened by censors before being posted.  Pentagon officials will monitor the site to make sure all videos are appropriate, do not violate copyright laws and are not a risk to security.

Only a small handful of videos have been uploaded to the site so far, with the most popular video a message from Central Commander General David Petraeus to soldiers across the world.

The government restricted the use of YouTube and other video sharing web sites by military personnel using Department of Defense computers, especially for soldiers who are deployed overseas.  A leading factor behind the ban was for security reasons and to ensure military internet connections would not be bogged down.

Before the ban, soldiers overseas often used YouTube and social networking web sites to share pictures, videos and information about life, along with sending video messages to loved ones.

TroopTube is powered by Seattle-based startup company Delv Networks, a company specializing in screening, approving and cataloging submitted videos.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Great for families
By headbox on 11/12/2008 5:46:05 PM , Rating: 3
This is great- when I served in the '90s we had to wait 2 weeks for a letter from our loved ones, then they had to wait 2 weeks for a response. Giving our troops a method to quickly call home will boost morale and help the strain on families.

Too bad our politicians think America should spend trillions on a global empire.

btw, I think you mean "censor" not "sensor" :)




RE: Great for families
By Pirks on 11/12/2008 6:16:01 PM , Rating: 3
Well, America spends trillions on its empire not for altruistic reasons, dontcha think? How many quadrillions did America get in profit out of those trillions spent? Rhetorical questions


RE: Great for families
By Tsuwamono on 11/12/2008 9:43:30 PM , Rating: 3
maybe a couple hundred bucks?


RE: Great for families
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great for families
By sh3rules on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Great for families
By Lord 666 on 11/12/2008 9:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its plain to see what we're trying to do. And its NOT to set up a global empire. I would think a military person such as yourself could understand that.


And your point is exactly why Bush will be hailed a genius and modern day Truman after the dust settles.


RE: Great for families
By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Great for families
By MrBowmore on 11/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Great for families
By rcc on 11/14/2008 2:06:21 PM , Rating: 1
Troll, baby, troll.

Or did you actually mean to say something?


RE: Great for families
By twhittet on 11/12/2008 6:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Technology is great, but I'm not so sure this is a big win for soldiers. The only reason this was created is the security issues that come with soldiers sending media home.

With the military scrutinizing every video, I'm guessing they will either get overwhelmed, or they will reject most videos, which is probably why the most popular currently is that of a speech by a general and not some private making fool of himself in uniform. I sent many photos, and brought back thousands of pictures and hundreds of videos that would probably get rejected on this site, but could hardly be considered to hold any military security risk.

Moreso than just losing YouTube, it's sad that soldiers are restricted from using communication tools like facebook to keep up on what friends and family are doing.


RE: Great for families
By rcc on 11/14/2008 2:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
It is sad, I agree. Unfortunately, many of the troops would post things that compromise operational security without understanding the ramifications.

"Hey, it's just a picture of my and my buds????"

No, it's a picture of you and your buds, with unit patches, standing in a permanent camp with a recognizable landmark in the background.

Anyway, it is a shame, but it's a reality.


RE: Great for families
By jgvandemeer on 11/12/2008 6:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
When America 'invades' a country, we setup a free and open democracy, spend billions of our own dollars to rebuild it, then get the **** out of it.

When other countries invade, they pretty much rape it for all they can get.


RE: Great for families
By NubWobble on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great for families
By Suntan on 11/12/2008 9:26:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me ask you, who has killed more Muslims in the last 10 years, American soldiers ...or other Muslims?

Yeah, reality is a bitch.

-Suntan


RE: Great for families
By JS on 11/13/2008 1:10:48 AM , Rating: 1
And who has killed more Americans in the last 10 years, Muslims... or other Americans?

Yeah, reality is a bitch.

Put them Americans in Guantanamo, they're a menace to American society!


RE: Great for families
By Noya on 11/13/2008 3:26:21 AM , Rating: 1
SunTan got pwned .


RE: Great for families
By TSS on 11/13/2008 6:50:37 AM , Rating: 1
i saw an interesting take on this the other day, in a flash game called :the game:

the game's nothing more then jumping off a ledge, making a pardody of certain things along the way. level 38 or something was called "War on terror: the game". this time, a militairy man jumped off a ledge. the end screen then showed:

Terrorist attacks: 4000 dead
War on terror: 27,700 dead
WE WIN


RE: Great for families
By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2008 9:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
In response to your question about hospitals, schools, and water treatment plants........ do you know how to use google?

Just go spent 30 seconds in google, and type those words, and see what you come up with. Hell, you could even click on the image link after you do the search, and find pictures.

Do you even bother doing a little research, or do you just regurgitate lies you heard on some propaganda website?

Have you been in either of the two war zones? Have you EVER been to Iraq?

Get a life.


RE: Great for families
By realmp06 on 11/12/2008 11:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wobble, your such an idiot.

You need to get your facts straight before you go accusing the US for something your fucking poor piss country has done.

Doesn't matter if your from the US or not, u need to shut your mouth before you go off accusing the wrong ppl.

YES, I actually have pictures of the US troops rebuilding your country, which includr hospitals, water treatment facilities, and schools.

We have destroyed those facilites in the war due to the nature of your guerilla tactics. But then again, what would expect for the United States to do when you have groups like the Sadrists and other terrorist cells using those facilities to attack American troops. Then after that, we made those facilities even better, the ones you had were dating back to the 60s era.

Too bad you are not in my custody cause your no better than the ppl who are making your country better. Your lucky the United States adhears to the Geneva convention as well.


RE: Great for families
By icanhascpu on 11/13/2008 12:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
I was with you untill the last two sentances. Get a grip there buddy. Thinking people are "lucky" for such things is foul.


RE: Great for families
By Yawgm0th on 11/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great for families
By bhieb on 11/13/2008 9:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
BUT the Geneva Convention clearly states that it is only has to be followed as long as your adversary follows it. As soon as he/she/them does not abide by it you are no longer obligated to either.


RE: Great for families
By Regs on 11/13/2008 11:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
Then we classify these guys as terrorists or combatants and not as POW's. Something I agree with to an extent. Though it leads to a lot of shades of grey.


RE: Great for families
By GaryJohnson on 11/15/2008 10:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He who fights with monsters should be careful least he thereby becomes a monster.

Even if we don't have to, we should still follow the rules of the conventions.


RE: Great for families
By Noya on 11/13/2008 3:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
This is why DT needs some sort of standardized IQ test in place before letting people post comments. While I don't agree with most of FITcamaro's views, at least he doesn't come off as an illiterate redneck tweener.


RE: Great for families
By NubWobble on 11/13/2008 4:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
YES, I actually have pictures of the US troops rebuilding your country, which includr hospitals, water treatment facilities, and schools.


My country? Since when am I Iraqi? To make you feel better I'll roleplay an Iraqi for today.

The US adheres to the Geneva convention? Let's go ask those people held in Guantanamo about the Geneva convention. And then you threaten me with not being in your custody? Sigh, really good forum warrioring there, well done, now I'm really, really scared.


RE: Great for families
By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2008 12:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
Millions of deaths. MILLIONS ??

You are not even CLOSE to the actual death toll. Where do you get off with this fud ?

quote:
If so then someone needs to flatten your country,


New York was flattened quite enough thank you.

You are missing a fundamental difference. The US is a sovereign nation, Iraq was not. Iraq was ruled by a dictator and at the time was in violation of some 50+ UN resolutions that Saddam had absolutely no desire to take seriously. Now I know in your little screwed up Lib head, right at this moment, you are saying to yourself " So, that doesn't make it right ! " Well guess what ? Yes, it sure as hell DOES make it justified. The world is MUCH better off with Saddam and everyone like him gone from seats of power, no matter how much bullcrap you think up.

quote:
And as for the rebuilding of Iraq, can you please show here a picture of one hospital, school, water treatment plant or power station that has been rebuilt?


And likewise, can you show us a picture of one hospital, school, water treatment plant or power station that WE have destroyed in Iraq or " flattened " ??

You idiots act like we just went in with B-52's and carpet bombed the country. Maybe you missed the first Gulf War so I will clue you in. Google the term " surgical strike " please.


RE: Great for families
By Yawgm0th on 11/13/2008 3:44:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Millions of deaths. MILLIONS ??

You made it plural, not the OP. One million people.
quote:
You are not even CLOSE to the actual death toll. Where do you get off with this fud ?

The death toll in Iraq is just over a million people according to one major, well-respected source.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?New...
Numbers near or in excess of one million are reported by most major news organizations. Even the most conservative estimates put the death toll at well over 600,000.

What number does it need to be before it is substantial? Can you apply a numerical value to the loss of life, and if so by what metrics does one determine when a number of lost lives become too high and consequently too costly a means to justify the ends? I truly wonder which is more concerning: your ignorance of the degree of death and destruction wrought by the US-led invasion of Iraq despite your clear passion for the subject; or, that your very objection to the death tolls implies that a numerically presentable degree of importance can and should somehow be contrived and analyzed from the loss of human lives.

quote:
You are missing a fundamental difference. The US is a sovereign nation, Iraq was not.
You are missing a fundamental definition if you think Iraq was not a sovereign nation. Sovereignty has next to nothing to do with the form of government a country has or how its leaders came to power. Hussein's regime was the de facto and de jure government in Iraq and was recognized by both the Iraqi people and the rest of the world -- regardless of how well-liked it was or how happy the Iraqi people were. The UN recognized the government, the US recognized the government, and the people were not in open rebellion.

Conversely, the UN is a body with little legal and less actual authority over any country. Failure to recognize UN jurisdiction is common, and violation of UN resolutions is not justification for nearly-unilateral invasion. The United States, and (last time I checked) most nations do not adhere to compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, and many nations, particularly the US, ignore UN jurisdiction in many other areas.

The real irony here is that most proponents of the Iraq war are openly anti-UN and take the position that we should not recognize the UN as having any relevance, never mind authority. Of course I don't know you personally nor your positions on everything, but I don't feel unreasonably presumptuous in assuming you take the same position. I do apologize in advance if I'm incorrect.

Reiterating, the irony of using failure to comply to UN resolutions as justification from people who don't believe in the UN is too bemusing not to bring up. A somewhat off-topic, yet apt comparison is the irony of electing people who believe that government is a problem to important positions in government -- and then being surprised when they do an awful job of governing.

In any case, does the very existence of a despotic government clearly not well-aligned (from our perspective) with the caring governance of its people serve as justification and provocation of invasion? If so, are the numerous other regimes with despots or corrupt, one-party, totalitarian governments also provoking imminent invasion and subsequent liberation? In that case, how does one decide which nation should be liberated? Was there something special about Iraq (answer: Yes; regional importance to US economic interests) that made it extra-suitable for liberation? Finally, is this policy of installing republican governments modeled after our own truly in line with core American values of the Locke-Jeffersonian philosophy that governments -- regardless of how they take form -- are only allowed to obtain, wield, and maintain power by the will of their constituents; that when a government is not longer serving its people, that is not just the right, but the duty of the people to relinquish the government of its power.

In other words: Can we really militarily impose our philosophy of what government is and should be without contradicting the core principals of that very philosophy?

quote:
And likewise, can you show us a picture of one hospital, school, water treatment plant or power station that WE have destroyed in Iraq or " flattened " ??

I will not post links to such pictures, but there are literally tens of thousands. The precursor to the ground invasion of Iraq was tens of thousands of bombs being dropped, mostly on key infrastructure targets -- this does not include schools and hospitals, but it might as well. Such facilities were rendered inoperative for years. In the five years since "shock and awe", many, many "precision" bombings have been made. Many mistakes, however, have been made by military intelligence and by pilots and ground operatives. I won't make the claim that a hospital or school has been targeted accidentally or bombed inadvertently by coalition forces, because I truly don't recall if either specifically has happened. However, many similar civilian buildings were destroyed in the initial bombings and by coalition forces in the following years.

quote:
You idiots act like we just went in with B-52's and carpet bombed the country. Maybe you missed the first Gulf War so I will clue you in. Google the term " surgical strike " please.

The comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam would have been all too apt if that were the case -- however, the first and second Persian Gulf wars are very different in technology and tactics, particularly in the area of air superiority. Google "shock and awe" to learn more. A few cruise missiles and surface-to-air precision bombs that defined the first Iraq war do not compare to the precursor bombing campaign and subsequent air superiority strategies that have dominated the second one.

I will concede that the preclusion of napalm from our arsenal and the lack of carpet-bombing in Iraq do represent a substantial evolution of our tactics since the Vietnam war. However, to go by the fallacy that the last five years of aerial warfare in the Persian Gulf has consisted of mostly near-perfect precision bombing against only militarily significant targets is truly ridiculous. The US-wrought devastation of the Iraqi infrastructure is a testament to this.

On another note -- biting, emotional, poorly-formed ad-hominem attacks on someone with whom you disagree aren't usually effective rhetoric and generally serve more to discredit than anything else.


RE: Great for families
By NubWobble on 11/13/2008 4:38:29 AM , Rating: 1
At the beginning of the invasion I was watching a BBC team riding with a Kurdish convoy when US planes precision bombed them and killed half the Kurdish fighters, while their cars were clearly marked. I didn't know whether to cry or laugh, it was that ridiculous.


RE: Great for families
By Manch on 11/13/2008 2:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
the fact that you would consider laughing at something as tragic as that makes you a A-hole.

The munition that was likely used is a mk-82 dumb bomb. These are commonly used in close air support. The term precision bombing just means that they are aiming the bomb at a specific target. That means dumb bombs can be used in precision bombing.

US Special Forces were with that joint convoy and were also the ones to call the airstrike in. There intent was to target an Iraqi tank they thought was targeting them. The convoy included the Peshmerga's tanks.

It's tragic what happened but in no way was it intentional. A US special forces medic did all he could to save the BBC reporters interpreter as well as the others. And it wasn't half. 18KIA 45 wounded. The majority of the wounded had minor shrapnel wounds.

Close Air support is just that, CLOSE being the key word. US Forces usually at least as of this war have IFB's(Infared Beacons) the Kurdish Forces did not. It's believe that the pilot may have mistook the Kurdish Forces as over running the SF convoy.

I pulled my information from the BBC, Janes Defence, and various other sources.

Unlike you I did not pull this info from your butthole. Seriously how much misinformation are you going to defacate onto this forum. Make an arguement by presenting the facts not crapping ou the same mis-informed BS you enjoy ingesting on a regular basis


RE: Great for families
By Clauzii on 11/13/2008 9:04:23 AM , Rating: 1
Good post, sir!


RE: Great for families
By afkrotch on 11/13/2008 1:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
tldr


RE: Great for families
By jimbojimbo on 11/13/2008 3:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
We went in January 2002. Let's just estimate that we've been in Iraq for 6.8 years then.
1,000,000 / (365 * 6.8) = 403
You're saying over 400 people have been killed in Iraq a day every day? Where are they keeping these bodies may I ask?


RE: Great for families
By Clauzii on 11/13/2008 4:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Great for families
By Manch on 11/14/2008 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 1
Saddam killed depending on which resource you look at between 1.2-2.4 million civillians.

The invasion has killed between 89,000 - 300,000 civillians depending on which resource you look at.

Both are estimates and neither can be verified with any accuracy as most sites (various .gov sites and independent sites all have their respective agendas.

The 1 million deaths you allude to was not deaths but casualties..

Casualty does not mean death. Also that number was built on not only verified numbers of military dead/wounded, civillian dead/wounded, and also death due to malnutrition, but also on opinion polls.

Saddam was a serial murdering saddistic bastard, and to try and reduced the implications of what he did or in any way make it seem "not that bad" is complete and utter bullshit.

As far as blowing everything up, the infastructure in IRAQ was already severly deteriorated due to 30 years of neglect. Dropping a bomb on an infastructure that was basically a house of cards has had a devastating effect.

The US alone has spent several billions of dollars rebuilding the schools, repairing the infastructure, etc.

Iraq now enjoys a surplus in oil profits becuase of it. I know you're going to argue that the US was bleeding oil off of them to fund our evil empire, but if that was the case then gas wouldnt have hit over 4$ a gallon this summer and our economy would have been spared somewhat.

oh and here you go:

http://newsblaze.com/story/20060228214455nnnn.nb/t...

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_conte...

and there's pictures!


Maybe Now...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Maybe Now...
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/12/2008 6:42:40 PM , Rating: 3
Well, except for the ones who actually are warmongering, torturing, moronic baby killing thugs. But you get jerks in any vocation.


RE: Maybe Now...
By NubWobble on 11/12/2008 8:54:17 PM , Rating: 1
Those who raped and burned an Iraqi family, emptied magazines into them are heroe's? How about the little girl who was shot in the head when a camera team was filming a check point? Such heroism!

Trooptube is only a way for the MOD to censor troops even more.


RE: Maybe Now...
By weskurtz0081 on 11/12/2008 9:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I don't think anyone said EVERYONE was a hero regardless of actions, idiot.

What's with you people, it's either they are all hero's, or they are all raping, baby killing, war mongers.

You know, when you have done nothing but serve your country with honor and dignity, and some idiot comes up to you in a mall parking lot and calls you a baby killer, let me know how you feel.

This happened to me, and it wasn't after Vietnam, it was about 3 years ago. You cannot escape a couple bad apples, but the overall picture is nothing like you are trying to paint here buddy.

Like I said to the guy above, get a life.


RE: Maybe Now...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/13/2008 12:34:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You know, when you have done nothing but serve your country with honor and dignity, and some idiot comes up to you in a mall parking lot and calls you a baby killer, let me know how you feel.


I can't even imagine how that would feel. Giving up a nice soft cushy civilian life to serve your country, and having the very people you serve spit on you for it.. well that must be like a kick to the guts.

I can't fathom what would propel someone to dishonor themselves like that. You brought up Vietnam, and its funny to say, but its like a lot of these Iraq war protesting idiots regret they missed out on the Vietnam protests so they are trying to turn the Iraq war into Vietnam.


RE: Maybe Now...
By NubWobble on 11/13/2008 4:17:58 AM , Rating: 1
40% Of all US personnel are negro's from ghetto's. What cushy life did they give up to join the army to die the oil firms? I can't possibly imagine their nice civilian life, how nice it must have been that they were desperate enough to join any army to die for nothing?

At the Neuremberg trials it was established that the excuse of "I was just following orders" was no longer acceptable and that it was the duty of service men and women to refuse to carry out orders that were against their conscience and would constitute in crimes against humanity. Those 'idiots' are the ones who speak the truth, there is no excuse for the behaviour of these babykillers.

And you really want to bring up Vietnam? I recommend you not raise it again because all you have is propaganda while I can spam photo's and links showing how the people of Vietnam are still suffering from Agent Orange and other chemical and biological agents dumped on the country by the great US of A. Not to mention all the depleted uranium scattered all over the country of Iraq, which will in decades to come be the cause of many deaths.

Now, please get back on topic as this isn't a discussion you could possibly continue.


RE: Maybe Now...
By Manch on 11/13/2008 10:15:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
40% Of all US personnel are negro's from ghetto's. What cushy life did they give up to join the army to die the oil firms?


Actually Enlisted Recruits Are More Likely to Come from
Middle- and Upper-Class Neighborhoods.

The 2007 statistics the enlisted in the Armed Forces are
65.5% White
12.82% Black/AA
3.25% Asian/PI
.66% Combo of 2 or more races
1.96% American Indian/Alaskan
2.76% Decline to specify.

More than three-quarters (75.5%) of enlisted recruits come from neighborhoods where the median family income is more than $40,000 per year. Recruits from neighborhoods where the median family incomes are less than $40,000 are underrepresented compared to the total population, while those from higher-earning areas are overrepresented.

I pulled this info from The Heritage Center for Data Analysis. The report was published August 21, 2008 CDA08-05

I believe you pulled your info from your butthole.


RE: Maybe Now...
By afkrotch on 11/13/2008 1:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, he pretty much pulled that crap info from his butt. Probably couldn't spam photos to back his so called propaganda, as he claims.


RE: Maybe Now...
By jimbojimbo on 11/13/2008 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
40%? Is this based on watching old Viet Nam war movies or something? I was in the Marine Corps for 5 years and nowhere is it anywhere near close. 40% African-American isn't even close. It's actually a good blend of all races and from various income families.

I love how people that have never served just blat off numbers like they're experts at everything.


RE: Maybe Now...
By CascadingDarkness on 11/13/2008 6:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm thoroughly impress with the amount of FUD and tear jerking statements you crammed into such a reasonable sized post.

Maybe you should consider a career politics?


I thought "black-penning" letters home stopped in WW2.
By lco45 on 11/13/2008 2:06:54 AM , Rating: 1
Soldiers already have access to YouTube, and there are dozens of competing video sharing sites, so TroopTube is not filling any un-met need for the troops.

It's not even exclusive to soldiers, anyone can upload videos, and anyone can view them. You, me, anyone.

The only difference between YouTube and TroopTube is that one can have videos removed by the Pentagon.

The Pentagon doesn't like freedom and openness, it seems.
I thought "black-penning" letters home stopped in WW2.




By bluemagic on 11/13/2008 3:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
It seems it hasnt stopped but it will do a great deal to discourage it ... it is a good idea in terms of communication to family but nothing will stop comunication of errors and idiotic behaviour like that army bonehead chucking a puppy off a cliff (to take a very small example)... the info will get out eventually.


By Manch on 11/13/2008 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's nothing to do with freedom and openness, it's all about OPSEC. They're simply trying to provide a way for service members to share videos but at the same time reign in the dummies or keep people from showing things they shouldn't.

I've seen videos where people are saying " HI MOM HI DAD!!!" while in the background you can see entry control procedures. Black penning has never stopped.

Operations Security is an ongoing thing. The problem is the internet/e-mail has pretty much made this impossible to control.

I think the intent of the site is genuine but in reality I dont think this will have much of an impact. They should advertise this more though. I'm Active Duty and this article is the first I've seen of it.

Oh yeah, I dont have access to you tube! WTF?!?!?!


By afkrotch on 11/13/2008 1:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Soldiers already have access to YouTube, and there are dozens of competing video sharing sites, so TroopTube is not filling any un-met need for the troops.


Actually, quite wrong. Users on military networks are unable to get to YouTube. Many other sites are also blocked, such as Hotmail, Gmail, etc. It's to stop the waste of bandwith on government networks.

In deployed locations, the only way onto the internet is through the military networks. Kind of hard to get an ISP out to tent city to hookup your DSL/Cable connection.

Also in hostile fire locations, OPSEC is very important. If you give information like you'll be flying out tomorrow at 1600 hours to go home, that's a nice time to head out and bag you a military aircraft filled with returning troops.

How about that video of you and your chums screwing around at work. While it may not seem harmful, in the background it might give enemies a good count of how many tanks, aircrafts, etc are on the base.

That or multiple videos from different troops can be pieced together to form an accurate map of the base's layout.


Web Filters
By 9nails on 11/12/2008 10:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
I've all ready added the site as a permanent allow for our company.




Stream video? Really?
By jimbojimbo on 11/13/2008 3:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
If anybody's severd out there you'd have heard of Segovia, the free satellite based internet provider. With their whopping connection which often lets you log in and read one email in 30 minutes, streaming video is the last thing I want the guys next to me trying to do.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki