Should there be complete freedom of information flow? (America, service)

[greatcalgarian]

During a war, should some form of censor be imposed, for example, the recent US new ruling in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6657309.stm

Thirteen sites have been declared off-limits on Department of Defense computer systems, ranging from MySpace to MTV.

The official reason given is that too much military bandwidth is being hogged to share photos, video clips and messages.

Ironically, the US military itself has just launched its own channel on YouTube, uploading clips of fire fights and troops helping civilians in Iraq

[Ciscokid]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

During a war, should some form of censor be imposed, for example, the recent US new ruling in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6657309.stm

Thirteen sites have been declared off-limits on Department of Defense computer systems, ranging from MySpace to MTV.

The official reason given is that too much military bandwidth is being hogged to share photos, video clips and messages.

Ironically, the US military itself has just launched its own channel on YouTube, uploading clips of fire fights and troops helping civilians in Iraq

I've been working in the IT field for 13 years now. There is a finite amount of bandwidth. My company blocks these same sites. It's not just the content it's the amount of sheer bandwidth that gets in the way of legitimate company business.

The military hosting it's own channel on Youtube doesn't impact their internal network I'm sure. As a matter of fact, it [the site] is probably not even inside of the US military intranet all together.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

I've been working in the IT field for 13 years now. There is a finite amount of bandwidth. My company blocks these same sites. It's not just the content it's the amount of sheer bandwidth that gets in the way of legitimate company business.

The military hosting it's own channel on Youtube doesn't impact their internal network I'm sure. As a matter of fact, it [the site] is probably not even inside of the US military intranet all together.

If bandwidth is the true reason for the military to impose the censor, then with so much money allocated to military spending, isn't it a piece of cake just to rectify the bandwitdth problem to provide better service to the service men and women in Iraq, afterall, that is the only way they communicate with their love one back in US for chatting and sharing their life?

[gmelrod]

With so many billions of dollars being spent on the war surely a few new servers could be purchased. Also how much external traffic will the military have on civilian networks? Certainly there is a great deal of internal traffic and perhaps someone can answer this for me. Can you change the routing of the packets so that they leave the military net faster? How hard would it be to set aside a section of the net for non-military use?

I can understand them blocking it to prevent security leaks. I can understand companies blockig them due to a loss of productivity. But it makes me suspecious that the Army is blocking these sites to prevent unfavorable opinions of the war from getting out. Civil rights and military control are fundamentaly at odds. That is not a condemnation of the military it is just in the nature of the system.

[Shadow Wolf]

If bandwidth is the true reason for the military to impose the censor, then with so much money allocated to military spending, isn't it a piece of cake just to rectify the bandwitdth problem to provide better service to the service men and women in Iraq, afterall, that is the only way they communicate with their love one back in US for chatting and sharing their life?

Bandwidth is EXTREMELY expensive. Which is the reason many download sites, including Gamespy, have lines you have to wait in. It eases up on the amount of bandwidth required. Video sites such as Youtube also take up massive amounts of bandwidth, especially over a shared network when multiple users are accessing it.

If bandwidth were cheap, RF might even be running smoother than it has been. The fact is bandwidth just cost too much to allow liberal access to high bandwidth sites when information that important must be streamed.

[Terrywoodenpic]

the cost of bandwidth is relative...
why troop traffic is run through the same servers as official stuff seems mad.
Official use needs to run with full priority.
They could always run two services and ration the troop one so every one gets a turn at good speed. ( odd army numbers one day even the next ) That would in effect double the capacity at any one time.

In truth I think it is more about controlling what gets out to the public domain.

[Ðanisty]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

The military hosting it's own channel on Youtube doesn't impact their internal network I'm sure. As a matter of fact, it [the site] is probably not even inside of the US military intranet all together.

I'm sure it's not...lol.

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

If bandwidth is the true reason for the military to impose the censor, then with so much money allocated to military spending, isn't it a piece of cake just to rectify the bandwitdth problem to provide better service to the service men and women in Iraq, afterall, that is the only way they communicate with their love one back in US for chatting and sharing their life?

Actually, the money is better spent on supplies and equipment. I would rather have my soldier safe than have him emailing me everyday. And it's not the only line of communication back home. They write letters, receive care packages and call on the phone as well.

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

In truth I think it is more about controlling what gets out to the public domain.

Perhaps so, and if that's the case, I still don't have a problem with it. The safety and security of the troops is way more important to me than anything else. They can't do their jobs if sensitive information is available to the people they're fighting.

[Dr. Nosophoros]

This isn't really a surprise, there were complaints a few years back about what soldiers were sending back and nothing had to do with bandwidth, "terrorist" hackers and so on. I'd say that this is much like the "needles under the fingers" remark by Rumsfeld on national television about a year and a half before the Abu Gharaib "scandal". I'd say this ban has a lot more to do with the fear of the government over the fact that U.S. soldiers were sending back true life accounts of what is really going on in Iraq instead of the sanitized version the government wants the American public to see and (hopefully on their part) you subsequently feel.

I realize that any warmaker has to be a good propagandist, and that goes for all sides and countries, how else can you get the peasant to pick up their pitchforks and hoes and rush to the front lines ready to kill the enemy and throw their children into the grind as well unless one is seen as virtuous, noble, patriotic, and the enemy slovenly, immoral, and "evil", a threat to you and the lifestyle one has been accustomed to.

It doesn't really matter, the same tactics have been used over and over for years and they still work because of peoples seeming actual need to be "right" or "good", but are they? they only believe they are "good" because they are told this by the very same people that would throw them into the fire for their own gain and those that buy into it will willingly walk into them for them without coercion because they have been taught since birth to accept it.

I would say the main reason that I oppose restriction on the free flow of information is because some cite "This is wartime, and we need to restrict it" where did you get an idea like that and how do you justify accepting it? because "those who know better" told you so. Several years ago it was stated that this is a war that has no end, so since it is "wartime" your flow of information will be censored and you will accept it. To me, it's an open ended book that has purposely been left open ended- decades, maybe more, can one actually believe it will be less restrictive as time goes on?

[jamaesi]

We go to war with the bandwidth we have, not the bandwidth we'd like to have.

I'm sure there are valid reasons like the bandwidth problems and wasting time for blocking those sites (Myspace, BlackPlanet, Hi5, YouTube, Metacafe, iFilm, StupidVideos, FileCabi, Pandora, MTV, 1.fm, live365, and Photobucket, among a few others...) I suppose the blocking of free speech is just a bonus.

[Terrywoodenpic]

in WW2 every single word sent back home was censored. some times so much was black markered or scissored . what was left made no sense at all.

This is the communication age and it is much more difficult to keep a hat on anything for long.

If you restrict the troops at the sharp end, they will be far more vocal when they get home. and if they think the government has been lying to those at home, things could easily escalate to the proportion of the Vietnam end game.