US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth 164
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."
Re:Unclear (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Nothing new here. (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Same content, alt sites (Score:1, Informative)
Many deployments of the IWF censorship list [iwf.org.uk] in the UK use a 404 Not Found [o2.co.uk] rather than 403. I've never found any official explanation for this, though I've read suggestions that it's to make people just assume that censored content isn't available rather than tip them off that it's being hidden from them.
I don't know what US military policy is, but it gives you an idea of how censors in the Western world think.
Re:Wouldn't this actually INCREASE bandwidth usage (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The Email with the full list (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Same content, alt sites (Score:5, Informative)
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.