Military Blocks Popular Web Sites

YouTube, MySpace Banned

The Defense department began blocking access on its computers to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other Web sites yesterday, severing some of the most popular ties linking U.S. troops in combat areas to their far-flung relatives and friends, and depriving soldiers of a favorite diversion from the boredom of overseas duty.

Bert Stover, former military blogger (milblogger), will be online on Tuesday, May 15, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the Pentagon decision and reaction to it.

Senior officers said they enacted the worldwide ban out of concern that the rapidly increasing use of these sites threatened to overwhelm the military's private Internet network and risk the disclosure of combat-sensitive material.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Bert Stover: Hello to those that have joined. I hope I can provide perspective on this announcement. What are your questions?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hello and thank you for taking my question. Would you happen to know if facebook.com is among the blocked sites? I have several friends in the military who use it.

Bert Stover: It was not specifically identified in the DOD announcement. I suspect it will be soon -- if not already. Especially if the leadership reads items like this forum.

_______________________

Ashburn, Va.: My best friend is in Afghanistan. The way we kept in touch is through MySpace. Now we have both lost that since I work for the DoD. I understand their position. But they have blocked integrated chat with gmail which is not a downloaded program nor does it hinder network traffic. Being able to use these small tools can result in my friends being able to communicate with me which, in turn, helps their morale so they don't feel like they are out there alone.

Bert Stover: I agree the morale is greatly improved using these types of communications, however not everybody has a great sense of judgment and as a result many of the tools are stricken from use.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: First of all, thank you for your service.

Considering the inherent insecurity of blogging (the easy ability to post inappropriate information), isn't this decision fairly reasonable? Active soldiers don't have First Amendment rights, while in the military, so how is this not something other than protecting sensitive military information?

Bert Stover: This is two fold -- one to increase security and secondly to free up needed bandwidth on the workplace systems. This second reason is much like civilian employers restricting internet usage for bandwidth and a perceived increase in utility amongst the workforce. (Not sure if increased utility is accomplished.)

_______________________

Boston: When a friend of mine was overseas on a U.S. base, it was a game between us to find out which sites had been banned and which were accessible. It seemed in some ways quite arbitrary, and in other ways it seemed to be like having a strong filter at work, as he could access them from 'public' computers on base.

How are the new rules different?

Bert Stover: The new rules apply DOD wide, where as it used to be up to the individual commander or network administrator as to which sites were blocked, resulting in differences across bases.

A survey revealed that US service members are the largest users of proxy services to get around these blocks.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Isn't it a bit ironic that the troops out there fighting for freedom are having some of their freedom taken away?

Bert Stover: This is a common statement, but troops know what they are getting into when they sign their agreements -- one item is the loss of free speech! This measure is, as mentioned before, a result of those that do not exercise the best judgment and disclose sensitive information.

_______________________

Richmond: Mr. Stover,

First, thank you for your blog. I found it very informative and enlighting to read during your tour of duty.

Do you believe the military's justification for this (which I understand to be bandwidth or other resource limitations), or do you believe this is about censoring content?

Given the recently announced extended tours, I would think that morale would be a top concern. Making additional communication resources available for the troops would seem to be one of the smartest ways the military could help mitigate the morale impact of the extended tours.

Bert Stover: Thank you for your readership!

This only applies to the workplace computers. There are other sources of internet available, however there are those that only have the workforce as a source.

The internet is a medium not dealt with by the military in a conflict prior to this. Commanders are seemingly trying things out before an outright ban or censorship. They could have tried the opposite strategy, no internet at all at first -- then let an increasing number of sites and applications come available for use.

_______________________

San Francisco: Shouldn't the Pentagon's Inspector General review this blocking decision to determine whether sensitive information was being posted and, if so, whether those posting it were punished? Also, shouldn't the IG determine if the "sensitive-information" rationale is a smokescreen for insulating our brave troops from shifting opinion about the war at home? Thanks for posting today, and for your excellent milblogger work!

Bert Stover: The IG can do these things and is usually a reactionary office. So now that this policy is in place the IG can add it to the list, should it merit their investigation.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Like you I am an Iraqi vet. One thing I remember is the Iraqis setting up cyber cafes on just about every facility. These cafes are free from any forms of restriction, so I think people are a bit misinformed that the soldiers are being censored.

Bert Stover: I am trying to advise the general public that is is the case. This policy only applies to the workplace computers and network. There are cyber cafes for use which have no restrictions at all. I would caution those service members using these cafes that they can still be tried for releasing sensitive information.

_______________________

California: Do you see this in the same vein as restricting e-mail or mail (in the old days!) -- a way to limit information from getting out that could be detrimental to security (loose lips/fingers sink ships?)?

Bert Stover: This is exactly the case. Prior to the internet, officers were selected to censor letters written by the enlisted.

_______________________

Pensacola, Fla.: Bert,

As a military public affairs guy, I find this idiotic. How can PAOs respond to negative, erroneous or (even) accurate information about the military that will inevitably spring up on these sites if we can't even get to them to see what's been said?

Bert Stover: The policy states that service members needing access to these sites should see their command to gain special access.

_______________________

DoD Agency, CONUS: Once I saw that announcement I had to, uh, verify whether or not the sites were blocked at work, even though I don't use them. They all appear to load just fine. So this ban isn't 'really' DoD-wide? It just affects those who probably need these sites more than I do?

Bert Stover: I'm sure they will become so in due time. The government has its own sense of time. Remember the policy is announced, now commanders must comply.

_______________________

Baltimore: This is a slightly different question, but can you discuss the recent new regulations around milblogging? Also, what are popular means of telephone communication for troops? Private cellphones or calling cards? How can civilians at home best reach an active duty soldier? Thanks very much!

Bert Stover: Unfortunately the most sure way is for the soldier to call home. Some do have cell / satellite phones, but most use the DOD phones to call a military installation near home, which then calls a local home number. Then there is the use of the AT&T phone centers. Phone cards are useful as well. Keep in mind troops can only use AT&T phone cards in the AT&T phone centers.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: it would be interesting to see the Department of Defense join forces with the commercial social networking site to create a DOD-specific site. This could benefit all parties. It would allow some regulation of content posted, and also maintain ties with the communities.

Bert Stover: The DOD does have a site with chatting and email, but it is not open to all. Service members have to sponsor accounts of friends and family and are held accountable for the actions of those they sponsor. The Army site is www.armyknowledgeonline.com.

_______________________

Irvine, Calif.: I guess I can't really buy the idea that blogging for military personnel is mainly a communication tool for friends and family -- there are ways on the Internet to send e-mails or otherwise to restrict the audience without going to a completely public blog. In WWII military censors used to go over the mail that service personnel sent to family or friends -- I'm not aware that's done these days -- but it certainly does seem like freelancing unvarnished personal opinions puts a strain on military discipline. Is there a difference between publishing a personal blog and publishing a magazine article or going on TV without permission?

Bert Stover: As of 14 MAY 2007, the Army treats all communication from a soldier the same no matter if it is a blog or TV or print media.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi -- and thank you for your service. Which do you think is the bigger factor here? Is it the risks involved with the open communication of information, in which case one might expect to see blogging sites and such banned. Or, it it the use of bandwith, in which case one might expect to see sites like facebook, Second Life, gaming sites, etc., banned. Also, do you know what the criteria were for selecting the the sites for the ban? Thanks!

Bert Stover: Both are equally addressed. The information leaks can cause friendly forces to be killed. The bandwidth was a problem when I was there. It was so bad the soldiers gave up on using the networks to send email. It did cause actual work to grind to a halt. In both cases this policy helps more than it hurts.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Do you have a sense of what proportion of troops deployed in the Middle East have access to non-DoD Internet networks? Some of the troops I know have contracted with local Iraqi services for Internet, so I know that they can continue to have access (albeit very slow!), but I don't have any idea about how accessible none-DoD networks are through MWR centers and internet cafes (especially for those at smaller bases or FOBs).

Thanks!

Bert Stover: I do not have the numbers, nor would I publish them if I did. These facilities exist and as you point out they are not everywhere.

_______________________

Free speech question: Would you please refer us to the location in DOD regulations or elsewhere that says active members of our military lose their First Amendment rights? Are you implying that a serviceman or woman cannot write a letter or send an email that criticizes the military and/or the U.S. government?

Bert Stover: Search 'Article 88 - Contempt toward officials' in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. As a result -- this is part of the free speech you have that service members don't. Free speech does not exist in the military. I'm sure there are other examples.

_______________________

Berryville, Va.: I can only say that I have learned a lot from the military blogs that I have read and it gives us at home a perspective we wouldn't have otherwise, and usually it has nothing to do with military operations just the daily life of the solider, I have enjoyed reading the ones I have come across, does this mean all of those will come to a halt as well. I guess unless they have access to their own computer. We here need the extra added comment or two from these soliders, we only get what the media wants us to see usually

Bert Stover: This policy is for the workplace only. The Army has a new policy(AR 530-1) that does restrict blogs, but I've not heard of other services imposing that restriction. There will be those that tempt fate and still publish anonymously. Poor judgment is what gets us all in trouble. If everybody could follow the rules this would not be an issue.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: From a tech perspective, a more intelligent way to handle this issue would be by using bandwidth prioritization -- certain traffic is ranked high-priority, and preempts low-priority traffic. This ensures that the correct data is being delivered. If bandwidth remains, then low-priority traffic is allowed, usually at a slower rate.

Given that bandwidth prioritization is a pretty well-established solution, I find it hard to take DOD's explanation at face value.

Thoughts?

Bert Stover: Submit your application for a contract! I'm sure you will make millions, in 2020 when the technology finally finds the military.

_______________________

Bert Stover: Thank you all for your questions and readership. I have to wrap this up, but look forward to answering the queue. Check back later to see my answers to questions not yet addressed.

Bert

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.