US blocks soldiers from websites

US blocks soldiers from websites (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

aviinterra -> US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 9:22:47 AM)
quote: The decision could stop thousands of soldiers from communicating with friends and loved ones. For many US soldiers serving overseas YouTube and other similar websites are a popular way of keeping in touch. But according to US reports, the Pentagon has decided to block access to such sites for technical reasons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6655153.stm Hummm...technical reasons...or do they not want the population to see what war entails??

cjenny -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 9:26:11 AM)
I do understand about the security reasons but yes.. it is an important way for friends/loved ones to keep in contact. I don't have any background in this area, if I had to choose between safety & blog sites I think I would stay on the side of the former.

pahunkboy -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:20:39 AM)
umm- this site is bloacked from soldiers. i referred it to a buddy in near Iraq. he wasnt able to get in.

selfbnd411 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:23:31 AM)
Prolly b/c of stuff like this. Yes, I did laugh at this! I know, I know...the guy was injured and it's not nice. I don't quite know how it could happen--a recoilless rifle shouldn't do this. But I can see how this might not play well in the propaganda sphere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx1rxkMUAUQ

farglebargle -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:27:35 AM)
Since Halliburton is making a few hundred million off of the firewall software, it's not really a surprise. I hear the RECEPTIONIST at the internet cafes is being paid SIX FIGURES for writing down people's names as they come to use the PCs.... Add that to the HUNDRED DOLLAR BAGS OF LAUNDRY, and GETTING IN TROUBLE IF YOU DO YOUR OWN $3.00 Laundry! and do you wonder why Our Troops feel they're getting shit on by the Administration?

Dauric -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:29:42 AM)
Well there's the propaganda angle, I'm not ging to argue that it doesn't exist, but there's also a security issue. It's an old saying "Loose Lips Sink Ships", and on the internet, I'd say that most of our lips* are more loose than we would be usually in day to day. Video only compounds that problem as a youtube posting of a soldier's daily life may inadvertently show critical security elements of a firebase in the background. Not malicious, or even unusually careless, just another case of the camera picking up more than we think it does. * Loose fingers? Checks fingers to make sure they are bolted on correctly. $0.02, Dauric. <Edited because my fingers are definately not bolted on right.>

slaverosebeauty -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:33:32 AM)
They want to keep the truth from being known. If the troops knew that they were losing or that their deployment was being [illegally] extended again, they would flip. Moral would drop even lower than it already is and the insurgents would get the upperhand. Like others, I have tried to contact friends overseas and no response, I got upset, I thought something was wrong, now I find out their IS something wrong, the gov is preventing our troops from being people, instead they are just 'there.'

farglebargle -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:37:30 AM)
Well, if you had troops learning that Civilian Contractors are doing their jobs in logistics, and GETTING PAID HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, you'd be pissed off too. It's really the other way around. They're managing the Troops Perceptions. ( And as far as OPSEC issues, BUSH showing the flipchart of our positions in Baghdad to International News probably did more damage than the Internet... )

cjenny -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:48:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dauric Well there's the propaganda angle, I'm not ging to argue that it doesn't exist, but there's also a security issue. It's an old saying "Loose Lips Sink Ships", and on the internet, I'd say that most of our lips* are more loose than we would be usually in day to day. Video only compounds that problem as a youtube posting of a soldier's daily life may inadvertently show critical security elements of a firebase in the background. Not malicious, or even unusually careless, just another case of the camera picking up more than we think it does. * Loose fingers? Checks fingers to make sure they are bolted on correctly. $0.02, Dauric. <Edited because my fingers are definately not bolted on right.> I agree, once something is here on the internet anyone can get to it.

NavyDDG54 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:50:09 AM)
EVERY member of the US Military is provided with a free e-mail account. And there are several sites set up(navy together we served.com for instance) designed to provide levels of communication. There is evidence that the USS Cole bombing plot originated from an intercepted e-mail from a sailor on the cole who had family in Yemen, he sent then an e-mail saying they were coming. OPSEC is CRUCIAL in today's world. and the President has the authority to disclose what he wishes, the average service member doesnt. and several sites especially youtube, use LOTS of bandwith, and in Iraq or on ship's where most interenet is purely sat based, there is a limited amount of bandwith available. This has been going on for years, it's just now an official dod policy, before it was up to the individual commands, and virtually all of them already blocked most of these sites anyways.

selfbnd411 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:52:50 AM)
Halliburton doesn't run logistics in Iraq anymore. That's KBR, and it was spun off from HAL a few months ago. Either stock is a good buy right now tho [:D]

farglebargle -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 10:54:41 AM)
That's sure going to make the guys working for 20 Grand a year and getting shot at feel better that it's KBR billing 200,000 Grand for a receptionist, and paying her 100,000 grand to sit way back and take names for the PCs at the Internet Cafe...

Lordandmaster -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 11:35:03 AM)
Yeah, God forbid they should read about why the war is a failure.

farglebargle -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 11:38:31 AM)
I bet all that reporting about how injured soldiers are neglected at Walter Reed didn't help...

cyberdude611 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 2:25:42 PM)
The ban only applies to military equitment, not civilian. So the soldiers can still use civilian computers in Iraq to access any site they want. But really it isn't any different than most companies out there. The company you work for probably wont be too happy if you are surfing YouTube or MySpace when you are being paid to do work. Most IT departments ban those websites.

farglebargle -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 2:33:17 PM)
They REALLY don't want the troops watching shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE

cyberdude611 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 2:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle They REALLY don't want the troops watching shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE Majority of troops probably do not care. Like one of them said on the news the other day, "what we are doing is not a job, it is a lifestyle." These soldiers are completely loyal to the US government. I know because my cousin is in the service. And he will go off on you if you say anything against this country. Most people in the army are not liberal bookworms that study philosophies of life. Soldiers are intelligent, yes. But they have a different view of the world than you or I do. It's a life we don't understand.

farglebargle -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 3:00:37 PM)
I don't care what kind of worldview you have. When you're getting paid too little to feed your family, and your wife needs to work at wal-mart, and then to see some piece-of-shit contractor getting paid 100,000 dollars to sit behind a desk and put down peoples' names to use a PC, they gotta feel they're not RESPECTED. And it aint the people calling for them to come home who are disrespecting them. It's the people PAYING FOR THE SIX-FIGURE RECEPTIONIST.

cyberdude611 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 3:25:37 PM)
quote: Majority of troops probably do not care. Like one of them said on the news the other day, "what we are doing is not a job, it is a lifestyle." These soldiers are completely loyal to the US government. I know because my cousin is in the service. And he will go off on you if you say anything against this country. Most people in the army are not liberal bookworms quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I don't care what kind of worldview you have. When you're getting paid too little to feed your family, and your wife needs to work at wal-mart, and then to see some piece-of-shit contractor getting paid 100,000 dollars to sit behind a desk and put down peoples' names to use a PC, they gotta feel they're not RESPECTED. And it aint the people calling for them to come home who are disrespecting them. It's the people PAYING FOR THE SIX-FIGURE RECEPTIONIST. What is your point? There are CEOs out there that make $20 million dollars a year and all they do is sit behind a desk. Do they give a damn about the cashier at wal-mart making $6 an hour? Hell no. That's how all companies these days operate. Halliburton isn't the only one.

selfbnd411 -> RE: US blocks soldiers from websites (5/14/2007 3:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle They REALLY don't want the troops watching shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE I hate to burst your bubble, but the video starts off with an outright falsehood. This video was not "Banned by Congress on May 10 2007." It states that Rep Jim Moran wanted to show the video and implies that Congress voted to prevent him from doing so. Well I checked up on that. I looked in the Congressional Record for May 10 2007, and found this: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSEThursday, May 10, 2007110th Congress, 1st Session153 Cong Rec H 4796REFERENCE: Vol. 153, No. 77SECTION: HouseTITLE: PROVIDING FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND DEFENSE CONTRACTORS FROM IRAQSPEAKER: Mr. OBEY; Mr. McGOVERN; Mr. LEWIS of California; Mr. SESTAK; Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky; Mr. TERRY; Mrs. CAPPS; Mr. YOUNG of Florida; Mr. LANGEVIN; Ms. LEE; Ms. WOOLSEY; Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas; Mr. KINGSTON; Ms. HOOLEY; Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN; Mr. GINGREY; Mr. SHAYS. ; Mr. MURTHA; Mr. HUNTER; Mr. CONYERS; Mr. STARK; Mr. UDALL of Colorado; Mr. VAN HOLLEN; Mr. SAXTON; Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida Note that Mr. Moran did not speak on this issue. I was searching under Halliburton, so I changed to "Search by Member" and looked up Moran. The last time he spoke was days ago on the question of an Indian bill. So I did a Google news search and looked him up, and he made no statements of any kind that would indicate that he ever spoke or intended to speak on this issue. Finally, I went to Moran's website and found the same. It appears to be a complete and total fabrication. I accomplished all of this in less than 5 minutes. It's sad that so many YouTube viewers were suckered in by this piece of propaganda.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125