Slashdot Mirror


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth

DJRumpy writes "The US military has blocked access to a range of popular commercial websites in order to free up bandwidth for use in Japan recovery efforts, according to an e-mail obtained by CNN and confirmed by a spokesman for US Strategic Command. The sites — including YouTube, ESPN, Amazon, eBay and MTV — were chosen not because of the content but because their popularity among users of military computers account for significant bandwidth, according to Strategic Command spokesman Rodney Ellison. The block, instituted Monday, is intended 'to make sure bandwidth was available in Japan for military operations' as the United States helps in the aftermath of last week's deadly earthquake and tsunami, Ellison explained."

5 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Same content, alt sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, wont people just use alternate sites for veiwing the same content? Also, wouldnt this lead to an increase in traffic as people search for alternate sites?

    I think the US Army would be decent enough to respect the reasoning behind it and would refrain from viewing alternatives.

  2. Re:Same content, alt sites by Teun · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You mean to say the military personnel affected would not understand or appreciate the reasons for the blockage and would rather watch YouTube than help the Japanese.

    Or were you just reflecting your own (lack of) moral on them?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  3. Re:Same content, alt sites by Arccot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you forget you're talking about the same people who did not refuse to take part in a criminal war that caused the death of 100k civilians. I don't think it's unreasonable to question their ability to think of how their actions affect other people.

    Note: I'm not BLAMING soldiers for going to Iraq. I'm just observing that they did not demonstrate an ability to think of others, especially not foreign civilians, at a time when this was badly needed. Whether they are or aren't at fault for this is an entirely different topic that I am not discussing here.

    That's pretty insulting to anyone in the military that risked their lives in Iraq specifically to make it a better place. Most of the soldiers over there have done truly stunning, selfless acts risking their lives to help out the people over there. You may disagree with the reasons for going to war, but not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, or evil. To think of them that way just shows you as the one lacking empathy.

  4. Re:Unclear by bberens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly the military does not believe in capitalism and letting the free market decide where to allocate resources. Socialism is WRONG!!!

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  5. Re:Same content, alt sites by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Failure to obey a lawful order is a crime and a violation of oath. The order to deploy is a lawful order. "Go kill that civilian" is not a lawful order and you'd have a case if any significant numbers of troops were being given or obeying such an order. It's also worth pointing out that most (for a very high value of most) of the 100K civilian casualties have not been caused by US troops. Accidents do happen in combat and they are both tragic and rigorously investigated when they do, but something like 90% of the civilians casualties have been caused by someone else.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.