Link to the full story: https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/Story?ID=S...ovider=DowJones (but you have to use eTrade to read it) Anyhow, here's something to encourage the conspiracy theorists amongst us: "YouTube's co-founders on Thursday challenged the Pentagon's assertion that soldiers overseas were sapping too much bandwidth by watching online videos, the military's principal rationale for blocking popular Web sites from Defense Department computers. The Pentagon said this week it was cutting off service members' access to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other Web sites, some of which are used by soldiers on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan to post videos and journals for friends and family back home. In a Pentagon news conference Thursday, Defense Information Systems Agency Vice Director Rear Adm. Elizabeth Hight said the decision was primarily driven by concerns about bandwidth, or the capacity of the Pentagon network to handle data-heavy material such as video. The block is puzzling because it came just days after the military launched its own channel on YouTube offering what it calls a "boots-on-the-ground" perspective of scenes of combat." -------
It's more like they're afraid of the technology. They're also blocked from reading and writing some blogs. I agree it's probably not about the bandwidth. It's about not wanting them to be informed and not wanting them informing anyone else.
The Youtube video from the military is just cheap press. Same reason politicians are using it, and the same reason some bonehead from Maine uploads video of himself setting his buddy on fire while drunk. The networks set up in combat areas are really spartan, and stuff like video really does take a toll. Even in the states, military networks experience slowdowns because of recreational web surfing. During work hours, I have no problem with employers preventing their employees from surfing the web, especially sites that slow down the network. Operational security still has a real meaning, and the military can do whatever it sees fit to prevent Soldier Joe from putting on his blog which route his patrol is taking tommorow, or other such information that can get people killed. It has happened in the past, which is why it is being brought up. Contrary to popular opinion, you do not have the right to know what military operations are going to occur in the future.
I completely agree. The Department of Defense doesn't need some Marine, Sailor, Airman, or Soldier video blogging on YouTube about any operation that could possibly be intercepted by the enemy. Period. Being in the Navy myself, I don't need to find out that a few of my friends got blown up by a terminal crazy because someone in their platoon posted a video blog on YouTube about their operations, and neither does anyone else in the country. Besides, YouTube contains some potentially explicit material, which needs to be viewed somewhere else besides on a Department of Defense-owned computer. (on a side note, if it were up to me, I'd kick CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and every other major televised media group out of Iraq - that's a potential security threat in and of itself.)
Streaming video does take a toll on bandwidth, and bandwidth=$$$. My past company had a block on all streaming video and streaming audio, as well as the usual pantheon of naughty stuff (including gun sites, political action sites, etc.) My new company has no such restrictions ... they even have computers in the breakroom for the production employees to use to check their email, etc. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first sexual or other harassment claim is filed.
You know, this also reminds me that the computer system the Navy uses, called Navy and Marine Corps Intranet, also blocks out MySpace for similar reasons.
