Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

"US blocks soldiers from websites "

May 14, 2007 7:59AM PDT

per a BBC post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6655153.stm
"The US military is blocking troops from using certain websites for sharing photos, video clips and messages ... The US says the use is taking up too much bandwidth and slows down the military's computer system. But a US Strategic Command spokesman said a "secondary benefit" was to help operational security."

Things are different when there's a war on, and the US is currently fighting three.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
(NT) Three??? Where?
May 14, 2007 8:35AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) Iraq, Afghanistan, "... against terror"
May 14, 2007 8:39AM PDT
- Collapse -
Surely you can see...
May 14, 2007 8:57AM PDT

that they are all different aspects of one war.

- Collapse -
How we "see" such a situation(s)
May 15, 2007 1:37AM PDT

is subjective. I count three, you count one.
Anyway, my thought in posting it was to point out yet another incongruity in our lives these days:
'Why do you fight, soldier?'
'To preserve freedom.'
'And how much freedom do you have?'
'I can't say ... No, really, I can't say, or they'll arrest me.'

- Collapse -
a lot of people aren't supposed to access those sites...
May 15, 2007 5:07AM PDT

at work or school. Is limiting internet access on a work computer a limitation of a civilian's freedoms? The article stated that people with personal computers won't be affected. Military personnel are "on the job" 24/7/365, that's why they are "off-duty", "on liberty", or "on leave" as opposed to off work or on vacation.

Although the "other 11 sites" the article mentioned weren't named, I'm sure there are other sites available that the deployed personnel can use to communicate with their people at home. (I'm sure they provide email accounts for them). MySpace and YouTube are bandwidth suckers. MySpace pages have so many external ads and the YouTube site videos automatically start streaming when a page with one is loaded. I can see their point.

In short, although I am fully aware that the US military isn't always up front about their actions (they've gotten other flak about that lately) but I don't see anything deceptive about this. And even if they did want to limit internet use for security purposes there's nothing wrong or abnormal about that. Again, the military can dictate what personnel do while off-duty. They don't have all the freedoms civilians do. It's just the way it is and has been. It's nothing new.

- Collapse -
"It's nothing new."
May 15, 2007 5:40AM PDT
- Collapse -
you missed my point, it's the same whether it's
May 15, 2007 6:07AM PDT

war or peacetime. I know personally because I was in the US military during peacetime. They did dictate what we wore, did, said or where we went in while foreign countries, and to a lesser extent at home.

The policy is not unjustifiable, that's my point. I think you are looking for indignation where it isn't due. I'm not pro-war, mind you, just a realist.

- Collapse -
You're right that it's
May 17, 2007 4:24AM PDT

well-established that the owner of the computer - myself, DOD, whomever - controls access and use. And I have no indignation, since I'm not in the service (any more), and I leave mens' wars to themselves. But this development is a new one, similar to those in China and other restrictive places, and it reminds me of the proverbial frog in the pot of water. I was wondering if anyone else, those with a stake in the situation, also noticed it this way.

Based on previous observations in the world, I see it as a "next step". If so, a prudent person would prepare for even more restrictions.

- Collapse -
Thanks Scott. You solved a mystery...
May 18, 2007 5:37PM PDT

...when you mentioned "MySpace and YouTube are bandwidth suckers." and "MySpace pages have so many external ads and the YouTube site videos automatically start streaming when a page with one is loaded."

Tried so access these to see what all the hoopla is about. And could't get then to load. And could not get some shopping site images to load. Then you're post reminded me that I had blocked Flash. Seems the littlest thing bite me on the a..
er-a-heal. Yeah, that's it, heal. Wink

Thanks.

Charlie

- Collapse -
You need to heel your spelling. :-)
May 19, 2007 12:56PM PDT

"Bandwidth suckers" is true, from what I've heard. BTW I recently went on MySpace from a page on [an adult] someone I was interested in. The page showed a pic of one of the site's "friends" - "14-yr-old girl". Has to be trouble for anyone going further: It's either a real girl, a pedophile, or ... CBS!
There are better ways of learning things. 1 Cor 15:33.

- Collapse -
I've seen ads on TV
May 14, 2007 9:40AM PDT

About a gadget you plug into a laptop that will keep you from having "CD", or "connection disorder".

- Collapse -
(NT) Meaning a soldier could get around the restriction?
May 15, 2007 1:39AM PDT
- Collapse -
probably by using something like this
May 15, 2007 2:20AM PDT
- Collapse -
Right; anonymous surfing. I just wasn't
May 15, 2007 5:42AM PDT

sure what Dragon was posting about.

- Collapse -
reply to: "US blocks soldiers from websites "
May 18, 2007 5:59PM PDT

Heard part of a news story on TV. Perhaps I should say [over-heard] as I don't usually pay mind to any "news" on TV. Anyway, it mentioned something about some sites were being blocked to prevent our Soldiers from offending the Host Country by downloading porn. My first thought at this was "Their go the media as usual trying to instigate more Troop bashing.

- Collapse -
And there's another "legitimate" reason.
May 19, 2007 1:04PM PDT

E.g., Western troops in Saudia Arabia aren't free to have a cold beer just anywhere.

Anyway, I still see it as "another brick in the wall". If so, there are more to come; always a nasty surprise for those who see "business as usual". Ps 146:3

- Collapse -
(NT) Bet they have fewer DWI's. :-)
May 19, 2007 5:36PM PDT
- Collapse -
Close to zero, I think.
May 19, 2007 7:23PM PDT

Reports are that the several thousand younger members of the royal family do indulge from time to time, at private parties out of the country. And of course they have chauffeurs.