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."
U.S. Pacific Command made the request to free up the bandwidth. The sites, 13 in all, are blocked across the Department of Defense's .mil computer system.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
That's a good, though unsurprising decision. Bandwidth should be used for the purposes that the infrastructure has been built for. Recreational uses are completely optional, IMO, and no one sane should expect them to be available during a conflict or a crisis. There's job to be done that you signed up to do, so go ahead and do it. And may God stand between you and harm.
* Youtube.com ...
* Googlevideo.com
* Doubleclick.com
* Eyewonder.com
Ad networks are that bad huh?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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."
I don't understand why they don't just throttle lower priority traffic. The same problem I have with ISPs. Look, I understand that if I'm a very high capacity user, I might be impacting others during my usage (MAYBE). But the rest of the time, what does it matter how much bandwidth I use, if the rest of the traffic is low? So rather than blocking or limiting sites or total transfer, just fucking set up some throttling rules so that during times when traffic is truly an issue (not based merely on time of day, but actual real current bandwidth consumption and availability), it trims me down.
At any rate, there doesn't seem to be anything questionable about this action. It's not like they're blocking access to information to keep people in the dark about anything. They're just carefully metering their bandwidth for urgent needs during an emergency.
Probably not, especially if users are aware of why the ban is in place. Generally military staff have the intelligence to not intentionally disobey instructions/request. The use of these sites could be decreased dramatically, just be telling them not to use them for a while, the block is simply a way of putting a low barrier in place to discourage the final 25% or so of use.
It's like trying to diet. Many people know they should snack less, but struggle to resist temptation. Not having snacks in the house doesn't stop you going out and buying them, however it provides a slight disincentive which helps some people stop snacking.
All that bitching about useless ads, menus in flash, images in the wrong format, all that crap... we were right!
The internet is running out of bits!
from the but-why-is-virgin-mobile-doing-it-to-me? dept.
I'm pretty sure Virgin mobile isn't doing it with anybody.
Of course. That's why its Virgin.
I agree. At my workplace, a lot of sites are blocked. But when you try to access a blocked site, it says roughly: "This site has been blocked to safeguard bandwidth for core business processes. If you are sure you have a business reason to visit this site, please click here." And if you click the link, you're redirected to the actual site. And that's enough to discourage people - if they click the link, they can't say they went to the site by mistake, or didn't know it wasn't allowed.
We know that PACCOM made the initial request, but one thing I always find lacking in these sensationalized news stories is the lack of investigative work that would help us understand the decision making process.
The reason that I ask, is because I remember when I was deployed with an Infantry Battalion, we more or less managed our own usage internally, but everything above the Battalion level (brigade or god-forbid base wide) seemed to have been handled by outside consultants who when I look back now, weren't all that great.
Also, Google hasn't told me what the process was, before any LMGTFY comments come up...
I suspect that they went with blocking because it is way, way easier(especially if you are just aiming for an aggregate use reduction, not an ironclad 100% ban). Blocking probably just involves setting your DNS servers to return localhost or some LAN-side warning page for the domains. Priority setting would mean dicking around with QoS on god knows how many switches, that may or may not have the CPU time and resources to support it.
The Defense Information System Agency (DISA) periodically blocks, unblocks, and restricts access to various sites as they deem necessary. Generally, the most popular and trafficked sites are affected. Back in 2005 myspace was blocked off, but other networking sites were open. From Iraq, I could get on AIM's web portal (and google chat when it was unveiled), but not Yahoo for instant messaging. Some time later, it was allowed again.
.gov and .mil computer systems is so Uncle Sam can do his job and complete the missions. Everything else is absolutely auxiliary and unnecessary. DISA recognizes the importance of keeping people in contact with their friends and families, and that they can often not access the internet anywhere except while at work, so they appropriately authorize things like social networking, news, personal email, etc., so long as it does not negatively affect the organization's mission(s). It may be nice to burn some downtime on Break.com or Hulu, etc., but if that bandwidth is slowing down other high-priority functions, then the line is clearly drawn.
:P
/. in all these years.
The reason the NIPR exists on
This doesn't happen too often, in large part due to the fact that multiple non-internet networks exist for higher classifications of information systems. You don't want to display Top Secret data on an Unclassified machine, after all. That may land you in Quantico or Ft. Leavenworth
Luckily, they've never decided to block
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
I doubt anyone would get court martialed. At worst, they'd get an Article 15. Unless maybe they'd already gotten 2 other article 15s for watching porn. Then maybe they'd get court martialed.
Someone save me from this sanity.
My first thought about what it would be like to be a user in this situation is that, upon seeing the "site blocked" message, I would simply go hunting around for a similar site - maybe MSNBC instead of CNN for example. It's the content I'm looking for after all - news in this case - that matters. I might have to Google around a bit to find that content of course and try a few alternative sites. So wouldn't this approach actually increase the bandwidth usage? As noble as the cause is, this approach doesn't seem very effective to me.
That would be fine, except most people don't understand what bandwidth is or how they can avoid wasting it (Note: this is not to say that they are stupid or ignorant, they simply don't have a reason to give a shit as computers are not in their interest/skill set). For the people who wouldn't understand the sign about wasting bandwidth, trying to go to YouTube.com and seeing a blocked message would most likely make them give up and find something better to do with their time.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I think less bandwidth is used for 100 searches and an ultimately unsuccessful result, than in one single video.
Add to that, a large percentage of videos are direct link to the content, and the viewer doesn't really care that much about seeing it. How many times have you loaded up a page and it had a youtube video embedded that just starts spooling up, but you never watched it? They're not trying to censor videos here, they're just going after the low hanging fruit, and this is a VERY effective way to do it.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE
This email serves as official notification on behalf of the Army Reserve Enterprise Network Operations Security Center to inform you that USCYBERCOM has directed the temporary restriction to the internet sites listed below until further notice.
The intent of the restriction is to alleviate bandwidth congestion to assist with HIGH Availability/Disaster Relief efforts in the PACIFIC Area Of Responsibility (AOR).
As of 0310Z 13 March all 13 Internet sites below have been temporarily restricted:
Youtube.com
Googlevideo.com
Amazon.com
ESPN.go.com
Ebay.com
Doubleclick.com
Eyewonder.com
Pandora.com
streamtheworld.com
Mtv.com
Ifilm.com
Myspace.com
Metacafe.com
Loading...
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.
I think you'll find that the bandwidth usage is primarily tied to the fact that they're essentially having to provide command and control networks to every unit in the area (there's likely little-to-no civilian capacity in the areas they're operating in, so they could well be providing the Japanese government & civilian relief workers with network bandwidth as well), and seeing as they're thousands of miles away, and engaged in pretty intense rescue, recovery and rebuilding efforts, the ability to communicate status and queries back to the chain of command in the US is probably deemed more important than PFC Smith's need to watch that funny video on Youtube of the monkey scratching his butt and sniffing his finger.
And yes, UAVs probably are in use, for several purposes:
-- Recon of damaged areas, looking for signs of survivors who need to be evacuated by helicopter;
-- Testing for radiation in the air above & around damaged nuclear plants;
-- Surveying the extent and severity of the damage more closely than can be done by satellite imagery;
There are only so many helicopters available, so I'm sure that at least a few drones are in the air providing information and data to help the Japanese government and the military personnel decide where their efforts are most needed and best spent first. All of it takes bandwidth, and I think it's a bit premature to speculate that there's some sort of nefarious plot.
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
MWR (Morale, Welfare, ad Recreation). Since most military network decisions are service wide, the military has been fairly lenient in allowing access to "fun" sites as an MWR resource for soldiers deployed in places where they don't have a lot of civilian Internet access (Mostly Middle Eastern areas, but there's other smaller deployment location with limited access). I was in Iraq 5 years ago before Facebook and the like exploded, but LiveJournal was one of the big ways I kept in touch with people.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
That's his point. If you go to a site with an embedded video, *you* may not realize that you're watching youtube, but the network does and helpfully blocks it prevent you from inadvertently breaking the rules. If there were just rule in place that says "Don't watch youtube videos," Private Joe might spend all day breaking the rules without even realizing it. Hence blocking is more effective than merely asking, even if everyone involved legitimately wants to comply.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Go out and watch the movies....
Yes. That is how you should make informed decisions on everything
Uhhh.... ever hear of a VPN? Not all military networks are classified. Those that are are air-gapped from the Internet. If the military wasn't using public and commercial networks for unclassified operations, I as a taxpayer would be extremely pissed, as they'd be wasting a shit-ton of money. They already do that well enough (although one can argue they are still the only branch of government that actually accomplishes what it is funded for, regardless of the expense). No need for a gazillion OC-48s running everywhere to exchange unclassified data.
... Wikileaks still up?
Have gnu, will travel.
Yes, it is. We never signed any international treaty which forbade us from invading Iraq. No treaty or convention was nullified, no international agreement breached. Was it wrong to do it? Maybe. Saddam was an asshole who murdered a ton of his own people to maintain a stranglehold on power. On the other hand, if that's our criteria for invasion we need a much bigger Army. Should we have waited for a UN mandate? I think so, sadly no one asked me. Was it illegal? Not by any national law or International agreement I am aware of.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Wouldn't it be amazing if the military developed the means to communicate information to its members?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I wonder if the mobile versions of websites, which are less bandwidth-intensive, still work?