MikeyD Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 News quote: "DENVER — Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday. The Defense Department will begin blocking access "worldwide" to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 WTF? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 I'm kinda hoping to see a "Nope, I ain't blocked from CM" reply from one of our community friends in Baghdad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Mike, I really don't think that Battlefront.com forum is one of the 11 popular web sites comparable to YouTube and MySpace. The purpose of the ban AFAICT is to make it a bit harder for a soldier to unintentionally put up a video that leaks out a secret or causes a scandal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Couldn't they prevent uploads without blocking the site? I bet lot's of troops use these sites to see videos of their families. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Originally posted by Sequoia: Couldn't they prevent uploads without blocking the site? I bet lots of troops use these sites to see videos of their families. Maybe they should keep their head in the game, instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Some of this is to shield soldiers from the homefront as well and to shield them from how the war is playing out at home. Also watching dozens of videos about IED attacks on youtube is not exactly great for morale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 What we don't want to expose soldiers to pictures of blood and gore? Sounds like mother hen to me. Cutting off this access is bad for morale too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 14, 2007 Author Share Posted May 14, 2007 They're also clamping down on serviceman blogs. Though they deny it, the wording on the new guidelines sound like if you wrote about the great meatball sandwich you ate for lunch you'd have to first run the copy past your unit commander before posting. That alone would tend to discourage any sort of blogging! Whatever's going on I don't think its obvious, and I don't think they're telling us the real reasons. There are wheels within wheels down in the bowels of the Pentagon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Since Senator Stephens of Alaska has famously pointed out that the Internet is a can't we just make sure to position the ends of the tubes in Iraq lower than the ends of the tubes in the US so that nothing runs out here? Won't that keep all the secrets over there where they belong? Sometimes you just have to think outside the box. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Hi all from Baghdad. We have commercial internet available over here, and that won't be affected. The Army is only blocking some sites on the internet that is provided to us for free by them. I pay for mine and it won't be touched. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2007 Share Posted May 14, 2007 Originally posted by MikeyD: They're also clamping down on serviceman blogs. Though they deny it, the wording on the new guidelines sound like if you wrote about the great meatball sandwich you ate for lunch you'd have to first run the copy past your unit commander before posting. That alone would tend to discourage any sort of blogging! Whatever's going on I don't think its obvious, and I don't think they're telling us the real reasons. There are wheels within wheels down in the bowels of the Pentagon. How hard is it to figure out that they don't want guys running their mouths off in public? Thousands of homemade video clips can't be vetted. Put yourself in their shoes; this isn't rocket science. I received some photos of Afghanistan sent to me by members of my reserve regiment, and dutifully put them on our regimental website. I was cautioned by someone that a photo taken from an MG position up in a sentry tower at one of the Canadian bases actually revealed that position's field of fire - valuable info for the enemy, however unlikely it might be for them to make use of it. I pulled the picture and realized no one overseas had any control over what was being sent home. The Canadian Forces have also posted at least one CANFORGEN (Forces wide message) reminding all ranks about information security. They have a point. As for morale, what was the line from Apocalypse Now - "the more they made it just like home, the more they made everyone miss it." Times have changed, but if Canadian soldiers could go six years in the big one without as much as phoning home, I'm pretty sure they can now go six months in Afghanistan with "just" a two week leave with family, daily emails, and occasional long distance phone calls. The same should go for US troops on 12 or 16 month tours of duty, shouldn't it? I bet there will not be mutinies. Let them write books after the war, if they're any good. I'm sure the world will keep rotating even without fuzzy handheld music videos of Humvees driving through dustclouds or marines under fire cutting loose with variations on "holy **** looka that." And I bet further that the families will continue to survive on handwritten letters, emails, phone calls, facebook, hotmail and other internet sites. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoxSpartana Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sequoia: Couldn't they prevent uploads without blocking the site? I bet lots of troops use these sites to see videos of their families. Maybe they should keep their head in the game, instead. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 It cuts both ways After 4 years of being beaten sensless in the media war the Pentagon is finally going to thighten its grip of information going in and out. In part to 'protect' the citizenry from blogs and homemade videos that the Pentagon has no control over. And part to 'protect' the soldiers from how the war is being played out at home or across the country. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share Posted May 16, 2007 News blurb: "One day after the Pentagon banned US military personnel worldwide from accessing the wildly popular YouTube Web site via DoD computers and networks, the weekly electronic newsletter of the US-led Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) today makes a banner appeal for US forces and others to watch MNF-I's new YouTube channel. Oops." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Originally posted by MikeyD: News blurb: "One day after the Pentagon banned US military personnel worldwide from accessing the wildly popular YouTube Web site via DoD computers and networks, the weekly electronic newsletter of the US-led Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) today makes a banner appeal for US forces and others to watch MNF-I's new YouTube channel. Oops." ]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/youtubemid.jpg' alt='youtubemid.jpg'> Not a big deal, really. US Army.inc shouldn't be expected to run any more quickly or efficiently than any other orgnization employing millions of people. when did the MNF-I thingie go to print? And how fast should they have heard the decision? Partisan reporting at its worst. Again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 17, 2007 Author Share Posted May 17, 2007 Yeh, but it still deserved a smiley face icon just for the irony. "Partisan reporting at its worst." Well... for 'at its worst' you may have to pay a visit to Rupert Murdock. [insert smiley face icon here] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Originally posted by MikeyD: Yeh, but it still deserved a smiley face icon just for the irony. "Partisan reporting at its worst." Well... for 'at its worst' you may have to pay a visit to Rupert Murdock. [insert smiley face icon here] How come you're reading the Huffington Post anyway, mister? You hate America or somefink? [insert befuddled smiley that looks like Rush Limbaugh here]. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.