Need to lower morale? Block MySpace!
| Tuesday, May 15, 2007 | Steven Andrés |
Just yesterday, U.S. Army General Bell announced that eleven popular websites were being blocked across the entire DoD NIPRNET by May 14th:
- Social Networking Sites
- Video/Photo Sharing
- Streaming Music
Now, our intention is not to turn this into a political ideology blog--there are plenty available if that is what you desire. Instead, we want to tackle the assertion from General Bell that these sites are taking away valuable bandwidth from military networks for recreational use. We see this argument used a lot in large corporations that install website blocking systems. We believe this is wholeheartedly a knee-jerk reaction and extremely poorly executed.
If the intentions are genuine and are merely intended to conserve bandwidth, the correct way to address this from an IT perspective is to QoS the network and place these "recreational websites" in a priority class such that it does not take up more than... 25% or 10% of the available pipe.
By blocking the sites, morale suffers. As the Associated Press article points out, many soldiers use these social network services and photo sharing sites to keep in touch with their families and friends stateside. Cutting off that important link is a poorly executed plan to reduce bandwidth consumption.
By deliberately blocking the sites, it's a bit of using a chain saw to perform a root canal. The result is achieved, but with high levels of discomfort to the patient (or the soldier, or the corporate network employee). When the performance of these recreational sites becomes less than stellar, employees (or soldiers) will naturally make their own decision to either have more patience for the site to load, learn how to use an anonymous proxy server, or simply find another form of recreation. The important part is that the decision will be left up to the soldier or the employee, therefore empowering the workforce.
Some of our blog subscribers have .mil email addresses -- we'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue. If you are unable or uncomfortable posting to the blog from that address (and do not have a personal email account), please contact us and we will post your response anonymously.
Just a quick comment, as I know there are a myriad of opinions on this. First, I must make clear that these are my opinions alone and do not reflect the position of the Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, or the Department of Defense. Now that is out of the way, I am the Marine Corps Senior Information Assurance Official, and the Director of Information Assurance at HQ USMC. I’ve been working in system security and management since 1987, so I’ve seen discussions along this line arise before. However, this is the first where the DoD is actually implementing blocks to sites at the gateways. Normally, this was done at the service or agency network operations centers. I am not convinced this is a “freedom of speech” issue. It seems this flag is being waived because the convenience of the ‘net is being withdrawn at the duty terminal.
I have always looked at network services from a mission-execution approach. The network resources are provided, particularly in the Marine Corps, for the execution of the mission at hand, e.g., provide actionable information to the commander and provide logistics information to ensure delivery of food, water, ammunition, fuel, etc. Network assets on our .mil can be used for morale and welfare on a not-to-interfere basis. This has always been the case in the DoD since we had computers.
Actually, there is legitimate concern to restrict access to some sited based on the band-width problem. In one study we conducted of our network activity, there was over 60 terabytes of music streaming across our networks during the duty day. Most popular: country-western, followed in order by rock, and rap. This severely limits the network for mission related data. Our transport boundaries can be easily overwhelmed if we don't manage our resources. There are some mission needs for access to some of these sites, e.g., public affairs and recruiting.
I also recognize the positive information flow from our young war-fighters in the current theaters. The MWR issue primarily affects our warriors in combat, as those in garrison have access to the internet from their homes or barracks. In the tactical environment, the Marine Corps and Combatant Commanders have set up kiosks that connect to the internet though other avenues than through the .mil, and would allow full access to these sites.
The bottom line from my point of view is that we in the DoD have to adjust to the new reality of internet usage in the .mil. It’s not our home system, and there are verifiable threats to our information. We have to be more aggressive in our computer network defense actions. We’ll continue to work to balance mission and periodic personal use, but when push-comes-to-shove, we will always default to mission for our networks.
Ray A. Letteer
I agree with Ray's assessment that network resources must be available for mission-related activities first and foremost. The thought of 60 terabytes worth of non-work data on any network (military or corporate) is quite shocking! I liked your turn of phrase "on a not-to-interfere basis" -- very succinctly captures the issue.
What I don't understand about this situation is blocking the sites completely instead of tuning them down so that they do not interfere. Certainly the QoS capabilities are there with the pervasive use of Cisco CallManager telephony across DoD--why not use them? If the issue is war-fighters compromising their op-sec by posting photos that can give away sensitive information, that is most definitely a concern. But that issue is not unique to these banned sites and indeed is at issue in plain ol' email as well.
A final question: what connectivity is typically allowed (or available) to an individual in his barracks or on board ship? That is to say, using a non-work personal computer in the soldier/marine/sailor's off-duty time, are they still subject to these network restrictions because the only network they can connect to is NIPRNET? Are there alternative network connections in the barracks such as the kiosks you mentioned?