11 ms·

Army restricts access to The Guardian in the wake of NSA leaks

170 points by shawndumas 13y ago

aylons 13y ago
While reading this, I could not stop thinking about an ostrich burying its head.
- justinschuh 13y ago
  Then read the original article linked in the first paragraph. It's not that they're trying to pretend the documents weren't leaked. It's that systems are all classified to handle information at a given level, and if you find e.g. TS/SCI information on an FOUO system, then you have to investigate it and take corrective action (which often means wiping or even reclassifying the system). So, rather than deal with a huge mess of pointless investigations of classification violations, they're just trying to keep the data entirely off their systems.
ouiea 13y ago
Can somebody explain me: How's that not censorship?
- bonaldi 13y ago
  The Guardian can still publish, is why. The government telling people in its employ that they can't read the publication is a different matter from the government telling people they're not allowed to publish.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    It's not even like the soldiers aren't allowed to read it, say, in an internet cafe, right? It might be a bit petty and bureaucratic, but hey, considering the Streisand effect I say go for it... it's bound to make a few people check it out that weren't interested before, and I doubt it will keep anyone from reading what they were interested in already.
    - justinschuh 13y ago
      It's not petty. Given the laws surrounding classification they're just trying to save themselves a giant mess of pointless work and a tremendous amount of money on reprovisioning systems.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        Saving themselves work, okay. Saving the taxpayer money. nah.. it's not like it's actually their money. That material isn't just available at that URL, so the only way to be sure is to inspect traffic for the data. So what is this other than a pointless token gesture, or incompetence? And there are other things other than that material at the Guardian. It's, like, a full blown newspaper. That's what makes it seem petty.
        justinschuh 13y ago
        > Saving themselves work, okay. Saving the taxpayer money. nah.. it's not like it's actually their money. Thanks for being upfront with your bigotry. So, I know that there's no point in wasting time on trying to have an honest discussion.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        At least you're not latching onto some random thing to avoid addressing points raised or anything.
      - grey-area 13y ago
        So according to these rules if any secret information passes onto a computer system it is somehow tainted? So all the evil terrorists now have to do to shut down the DoD is spam every military email address with secret documents or links thereto? How convenient. If the rules truly preclude contact with any secret info (even if it has already leaked) without wiping the machines and the machines have internet access, they need to revise the rules as they are absurd. What they should be concerned about is stopping leaks of more information (quite possible), not controlling information that has already leaked (impossible). The most absurd part of this whole catch 22 'can't look at or talk about past secrets' situation however is that the administration leaks classified information all the time in service of their own aims - for example the Osama Bin Laden raid and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Those leaks are considered good leaks, and the information leaked is just fine (in spite of not being officially declassified) sitting on government computers, in Hollywood propaganda films, and being disseminated widely and quoted unattributed by news anchors and in American media - those websites are not blocked, because those are somehow rightous leaks, but it makes a mockery of any pretension of secrecy hygiene on military computers, plenty of which access plenty of this classified information that the government chose to disseminate without declassifying. Given the free use of sanctioned leaks, these rules are more about instilling a fear of the taint of suspicion in government employees, and consequently of whistleblowers, than about data security IMHO.
  - andreasklinger 13y ago
    Excuse me but... Isn't With the same argument chinese internet firewalls are "not censorship". OR With the same argument access to social media or telephone "not censorship".
    - justinschuh 13y ago
      Nope. It's no different than your employer having an Internet filter at work to prevent you from engaging in activities that are unproductive or expose them to liability. You can still do whatever you want on your own computer and your own time.
      - fogus 13y ago
        That's not true. If you only have a secret clearance then you're not supposed to read top secret material anywhere (unless you're "need to know") - home nor at work nor on the moon.
        justinschuh 13y ago
        You missed the context. The point is that people are still free to go to the Guardian on their home computers and exercise their own judgment in what they read. However, the Army is taking proactive steps to avoid a mess of work cleaning up their own systems.
        fogus 13y ago
        > exercise their own judgment Right. As long as they use that judgement to avoid reading classified information. ;-) > Army is taking proactive steps As far as I understand (and please note that I'm not an expert) they have always blocked certain kinds of sites. That Guardian is added is not really surprising, but the indirect refusal to own up to it is whacky.
  - jedbrown 13y ago
    The statement isn't so much that employees can't read the news source, but that government computers/network/etc must only interact with classified information via proper mechanisms. I work at a DOE lab and they requested that we not view any such material while at the lab or on lab machines because the operator could receive large fines for mismanagement of classified information, but we're free to read whatever we want when off-site on our own hardware.
    - Mindless2112 13y ago
      > but we're free to read whatever we want when off-site on our own hardware. I would be willing to bet that the agreement you signed to get your security clearance didn't have a 9-to-5 provision. You may not be charged for it, but that doesn't mean you aren't violating that agreement by accessing classified information for which you don't have "need to know".
      - jedbrown 13y ago
        Almost nobody in my division has clearance. As it turns out, assembling non-classified information from various openly published sources can create something that is classified, so we are expected to get review before starting research on something that is nearby to a classified topic. Occasional review of this sort is the closest we typically come to classified work. Anyway, all employees received an official statement earlier in June warning against viewing those documents using lab computers (including lab computers used off-site), but with no warning against viewing them off-site on personal computers.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    The government employs millions of people (I haven't checked the figure). What if they told all those people they couldn't read the NYTimes or a whole range of publications? Those employees are voters too and have a right (and possibly a democratic duty) to be informed. No employment contract should ever restrict your ability to remain properly informed.
- coldcode 13y ago
  If secret information winds up on a computer you have to file a bunch of paperwork and have the computer either scrubbed or converted to only accessing secrets. So despite the leaked information being in the public record they still treat it as secret information. Yes it's stupid but those are the rules. By not allowing access to the newspaper site containing the "secrets" they can avoid these issues. Why a secret leaked to the public and available to all is still treated as a secret is confusing.
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    Post "secrets" in so many places they have to turn their internet off :-D
  - merlincorey 13y ago
    Because all secrets are assigned codes and, I believe, names and registered through a central secrets database coordinated through all services. Someone has to close the ticket, first, and there may be outstanding issues.
    - chiph 13y ago
      I think you mean code-word clearance. This is for strictly limited-access programs, where the number of people knowing a secret is controlled. Normally, you would have a security clearance plus need-to-know. These programs put the weight much more heavily on the need-to-know side. i.e. You may have a top-secret clearance and know that the Derkderkistani military is buying new tanks, but you don't need to know that the source of that info was from an agent in their Ministry of Finance.
  - justinschuh 13y ago
    > Why a secret leaked to the public and available to all is still treated as a secret is confusing. This is standard OpSec. You neither confirm nor deny the leak because it's entirely possible that the information itself is a plant designed to draw out responses that leak more information.
    - 13y ago
- merlincorey 13y ago
  According to someone from NETCOM, it's because the leaks are still classified. Therefore, unclassified networks within the army must block the leaks in order to maintain their operational goals of no classified information on those wires. They have separate classified networks, which surely allow it. There's an old saying... There's the right way to do something, and then there's the Army way. The Department of Defense routinely takes preventative “network hygiene” measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information onto DoD unclassified networks. We make every effort to balance the need to preserve information access with operational security, however there are strict policies and directives in place regarding protecting and handling classified information. Until declassified by appropriate officials, classified information—including information released through an unauthorized disclosure—must be treated accordingly by DoD personnel.
dendory 13y ago
Mark my words, if this keeps going we'll soon see ISPs ordered to block some foreign media sites, and see news sites becoming regulated. You know, just to make sure no one credible publishes leaks anymore, for national security and so on.
- andreasklinger 13y ago
  The saddest thing about it is that they do not even need to explain it anymore. People just assume that it's a thing the government can/will do. Maybe we need to repeat our errors every 3-4 generations to keep them in our society's consciousness.
  - agravier 13y ago
    > Maybe we need to repeat our errors every 3-4 generations to keep them in our society's consciousness. I think that history shows that this is probably closer to the truth than you meant it to be.
- sailfast 13y ago
  This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with people keeping their clearances. Viewing classified information in any form even after publication is not allowed. The policy may be misguided because duplication of the content occurs regardless on the web, but the original intent of the policy was to prevent further damage.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    But wait, if clearances restrict your access to information, then they are not clearances, but restrictors.
nemof 13y ago
tweet from Spencer Ackerman 'DOD wants me to know it's not deciding to block the Guardian's website, its automatic classification content filters are. So there's that.' https://twitter.com/attackerman/status/350597454627995648 https://twitter.com/attackerman/status/350597454627995648
- jonknee 13y ago
  The "automatic classification content filters" that can't prevent classified material from getting out, but can prevent it from getting in. What a useless idea.
  - effbott 13y ago
    And by "automatic classification content filter" they mean "someone manually added the Guardian to a blacklist".
- tommi 13y ago
  "It's not us, it's the machine that we operate".
AYBABTME 13y ago
The reason for that is that classified information doesn't magically become unclassified when it is leaked. It keeps it's classification until it is formally declassified. This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense.
- shawndumas 13y ago
  that would require confirming said information was a leak.
  - pyre 13y ago
    If none of this information was really a leak of actual classified information, then there would be no reason to block the Guardian. Blocking The Guardian implicitly confirms that some of the information that they are released really is classified information.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Why exactly do you think the NSA would confirm or deny to the US Army whether or not any of the released documents are actual classified information?
    - freyr 13y ago
      Not really. The Guardian claims to be sitting on a pile of additional information that it hasen't yet released. So blocking the site could be a preemptive measure to deal with potentially classified information potentially being published at any given time in the future.
- gngeal 13y ago
  the US Army was restricting access to the UK version of The Guardian's website So you're saying that because it's classified information, trusted Americans (the soldiers) are going to be prevented access but the rest of the world will be able to read it freely. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
mtgx 13y ago
I think Mike Masnick explained it pretty well why this is a pointless and stupid exercise: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defense-department-blocks-all-web-access-to-guardian-response-to-nsa-leaks.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defen...
- vidarh 13y ago
  He misses the point entirely. As much as I believe governments over-classify massively, and look on most leeks with glee: Consider that if an audit reveals any documents believed to be classified on an unclassified Army network, they need to deal with it. That the documents have leaked is relatively immaterial - presumably a lot of auditing is done automatically, and adding exceptions is a lot riskier than simply blanket blocking anything that contains indications that it's marked classified, secret or similar. Even with manual audits, you don't want to give the people doing the audits too much freedom in accepting documents they think have been publicly disseminated, or the extra workload of trying to assess what info is ok. Even IF all the documents found have already been published, they'd for security reasons still want to track down how the documents ended up on the unclassified network in case the route was via another leak that potentially might have more documents. Or it might even indicate the source of the leaks. In other words, it's easier and safer for them to just assume that if a document is marked classified in any way, it shouldn't ever be found on unclassified networks - then they don't have to deal with the mess of trying to ensure it's an indication of a security problem.
drcube 13y ago
So despite being broadcast around the world for the last few weeks, this information is still considered "secret"?? I would assume any information that is published by a news organization on the world wide web is no longer considered classified. How could it be, without resorting to absurdist policy gymnastics? Oh, I see, the smart people in military "intelligence" chose absurdity instead.
- fogus 13y ago
  You have to understand that it being released does not change its status. People with security clearances are supposed to do the "right thing" by the terms of their clearance and not read material that they're not cleared to read, regardless if it's leaked or not.
muyuu 13y ago
The USA regime is becoming more and more like China regarding civil liberties, instead of the other way around.
- wahnfrieden 13y ago
  Soldiers have different rights than regular civilians. Don't conflate issues reductively.
chasb 13y ago
DoD has been blocking The Guardian for some time now. This is not in response to the NSA leaks.
- VMG 13y ago
  Relevant: http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html#1029 http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html... [...] So everyone in the UK MoD could no longer read what was on WikiLeaks. Problem solved! [...]
wahlis 13y ago
Military intelligence?
mpyne 13y ago
I have a secret for all of you not using DoD networks... like any large organization, the military blocks websites all the time. Most for being completely unrelated to doing work or for being completely wasteful of scarce bandwidth in places like Afghanistan (e.g., HD video sites). It also costs a lot of taxpayer dollars to scrub a machine of classified data when there ends up being spillage, better to avert that problem entirely.
ryanmarsh 13y ago
Please allow me to clarify a few common misperceptions. #1 When you volunteer to be a soldier you voluntarily waive your rights to free speech in a few specific ways. You may not speak out against the Commander in Chief, you may not be a part of "extremist" political groups (extremist is defined as what your command says it is), you may not participate in many types of demonstrations. You can of course vote however you please. #2 You are explicitly ordered not to obey unlawful orders and there is a process in place for refusing to follow an unlawful order. If you refuse to follow what you believe to be an unlawful order then you had better hope you are right because if you just feel you are right by the UCMJ and you are in fact not then your life will become miserable. #3 Being in the military is a day job that bleeds over into many other areas of your life, the computer systems at work contain lots of sensitive information, things that you might find mundane. If you are deployed you may find it convenient to use a computer on NIPR in the TOC for personal use. Use that gov't hardware wrong and you can get in deep doo-doo. As a soldier I'd be happy to know they're helping me not do things on their hardware that would get me in trouble. #4 Each soldier signs agreements to follow the rules around classified information, including not reading documents they do not have clearance to read. #5 Being a good soldier requires shouldering an immense amount of responsibility without the frivolity of youthful indignation. In combat arms especially attitude and indignation get people killed. Indignation is reserved for private citizens, so use it on their behalf but don't expect them to rise up in defense of themselves. #6 If a soldier is truly being wronged he or she knows they can go to IG, and if IG isn't working out they can write a letter to a congressperson and things will actually happen. #7 If you think the way the military works is ridiculous, I understand, but don't assume that you know better. The military exists to kill people and break things not further social agendas (right or wrong). Most rules and regulations are written in blood, meaning someone had to die or get hurt, or some major loss of expensive or sensitive hardware happened to create that rule which you are ordered to follow. #8 Most of your comments sound ridiculous to me (as a soldier), it's a different world with a different set of "BIG PROBLEMS" to deal with and you really don't understand it.
- look_lookatme 13y ago
  Thanks for this. When I'm around military people and conversations like this come up, often there is an attitude of "you couldn't understand, civilian" (not unlike your #8), and the truth is I don't. Soldiers have had their mindset irreparably altered and they tend to ally with the institution, even if they don't agree with it - even when their free of it. They have given up most any control they have over themselves or their situation and it pervades their worldview. There are good reasons for this and it makes sense that anything that could possibly chip away at that foundation should be tightly controlled.

170 points by shawndumas 13y ago

aylons 13y ago

While reading this, I could not stop thinking about an ostrich burying its head.

justinschuh 13y ago
Then read the original article linked in the first paragraph. It's not that they're trying to pretend the documents weren't leaked. It's that systems are all classified to handle information at a given level, and if you find e.g. TS/SCI information on an FOUO system, then you have to investigate it and take corrective action (which often means wiping or even reclassifying the system). So, rather than deal with a huge mess of pointless investigations of classification violations, they're just trying to keep the data entirely off their systems.

ouiea 13y ago

Can somebody explain me: How's that not censorship?

bonaldi 13y ago
The Guardian can still publish, is why. The government telling people in its employ that they can't read the publication is a different matter from the government telling people they're not allowed to publish.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  It's not even like the soldiers aren't allowed to read it, say, in an internet cafe, right? It might be a bit petty and bureaucratic, but hey, considering the Streisand effect I say go for it... it's bound to make a few people check it out that weren't interested before, and I doubt it will keep anyone from reading what they were interested in already.
  - justinschuh 13y ago
    It's not petty. Given the laws surrounding classification they're just trying to save themselves a giant mess of pointless work and a tremendous amount of money on reprovisioning systems.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Saving themselves work, okay. Saving the taxpayer money. nah.. it's not like it's actually their money. That material isn't just available at that URL, so the only way to be sure is to inspect traffic for the data. So what is this other than a pointless token gesture, or incompetence? And there are other things other than that material at the Guardian. It's, like, a full blown newspaper. That's what makes it seem petty.
      - justinschuh 13y ago
        > Saving themselves work, okay. Saving the taxpayer money. nah.. it's not like it's actually their money. Thanks for being upfront with your bigotry. So, I know that there's no point in wasting time on trying to have an honest discussion.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        At least you're not latching onto some random thing to avoid addressing points raised or anything.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      So according to these rules if any secret information passes onto a computer system it is somehow tainted? So all the evil terrorists now have to do to shut down the DoD is spam every military email address with secret documents or links thereto? How convenient. If the rules truly preclude contact with any secret info (even if it has already leaked) without wiping the machines and the machines have internet access, they need to revise the rules as they are absurd. What they should be concerned about is stopping leaks of more information (quite possible), not controlling information that has already leaked (impossible). The most absurd part of this whole catch 22 'can't look at or talk about past secrets' situation however is that the administration leaks classified information all the time in service of their own aims - for example the Osama Bin Laden raid and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Those leaks are considered good leaks, and the information leaked is just fine (in spite of not being officially declassified) sitting on government computers, in Hollywood propaganda films, and being disseminated widely and quoted unattributed by news anchors and in American media - those websites are not blocked, because those are somehow rightous leaks, but it makes a mockery of any pretension of secrecy hygiene on military computers, plenty of which access plenty of this classified information that the government chose to disseminate without declassifying. Given the free use of sanctioned leaks, these rules are more about instilling a fear of the taint of suspicion in government employees, and consequently of whistleblowers, than about data security IMHO.
- andreasklinger 13y ago
  Excuse me but... Isn't With the same argument chinese internet firewalls are "not censorship". OR With the same argument access to social media or telephone "not censorship".
  - justinschuh 13y ago
    Nope. It's no different than your employer having an Internet filter at work to prevent you from engaging in activities that are unproductive or expose them to liability. You can still do whatever you want on your own computer and your own time.
    - fogus 13y ago
      That's not true. If you only have a secret clearance then you're not supposed to read top secret material anywhere (unless you're "need to know") - home nor at work nor on the moon.
      - justinschuh 13y ago
        You missed the context. The point is that people are still free to go to the Guardian on their home computers and exercise their own judgment in what they read. However, the Army is taking proactive steps to avoid a mess of work cleaning up their own systems.
        fogus 13y ago
        > exercise their own judgment Right. As long as they use that judgement to avoid reading classified information. ;-) > Army is taking proactive steps As far as I understand (and please note that I'm not an expert) they have always blocked certain kinds of sites. That Guardian is added is not really surprising, but the indirect refusal to own up to it is whacky.
- jedbrown 13y ago
  The statement isn't so much that employees can't read the news source, but that government computers/network/etc must only interact with classified information via proper mechanisms. I work at a DOE lab and they requested that we not view any such material while at the lab or on lab machines because the operator could receive large fines for mismanagement of classified information, but we're free to read whatever we want when off-site on our own hardware.
  - Mindless2112 13y ago
    > but we're free to read whatever we want when off-site on our own hardware. I would be willing to bet that the agreement you signed to get your security clearance didn't have a 9-to-5 provision. You may not be charged for it, but that doesn't mean you aren't violating that agreement by accessing classified information for which you don't have "need to know".
    - jedbrown 13y ago
      Almost nobody in my division has clearance. As it turns out, assembling non-classified information from various openly published sources can create something that is classified, so we are expected to get review before starting research on something that is nearby to a classified topic. Occasional review of this sort is the closest we typically come to classified work. Anyway, all employees received an official statement earlier in June warning against viewing those documents using lab computers (including lab computers used off-site), but with no warning against viewing them off-site on personal computers.
- josephlord 13y ago
  The government employs millions of people (I haven't checked the figure). What if they told all those people they couldn't read the NYTimes or a whole range of publications? Those employees are voters too and have a right (and possibly a democratic duty) to be informed. No employment contract should ever restrict your ability to remain properly informed.
coldcode 13y ago
If secret information winds up on a computer you have to file a bunch of paperwork and have the computer either scrubbed or converted to only accessing secrets. So despite the leaked information being in the public record they still treat it as secret information. Yes it's stupid but those are the rules. By not allowing access to the newspaper site containing the "secrets" they can avoid these issues. Why a secret leaked to the public and available to all is still treated as a secret is confusing.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  Post "secrets" in so many places they have to turn their internet off :-D
- merlincorey 13y ago
  Because all secrets are assigned codes and, I believe, names and registered through a central secrets database coordinated through all services. Someone has to close the ticket, first, and there may be outstanding issues.
  - chiph 13y ago
    I think you mean code-word clearance. This is for strictly limited-access programs, where the number of people knowing a secret is controlled. Normally, you would have a security clearance plus need-to-know. These programs put the weight much more heavily on the need-to-know side. i.e. You may have a top-secret clearance and know that the Derkderkistani military is buying new tanks, but you don't need to know that the source of that info was from an agent in their Ministry of Finance.
- justinschuh 13y ago
  > Why a secret leaked to the public and available to all is still treated as a secret is confusing. This is standard OpSec. You neither confirm nor deny the leak because it's entirely possible that the information itself is a plant designed to draw out responses that leak more information.
  - 13y ago
merlincorey 13y ago
According to someone from NETCOM, it's because the leaks are still classified. Therefore, unclassified networks within the army must block the leaks in order to maintain their operational goals of no classified information on those wires. They have separate classified networks, which surely allow it. There's an old saying... There's the right way to do something, and then there's the Army way. The Department of Defense routinely takes preventative “network hygiene” measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information onto DoD unclassified networks. We make every effort to balance the need to preserve information access with operational security, however there are strict policies and directives in place regarding protecting and handling classified information. Until declassified by appropriate officials, classified information—including information released through an unauthorized disclosure—must be treated accordingly by DoD personnel.

dendory 13y ago

Mark my words, if this keeps going we'll soon see ISPs ordered to block some foreign media sites, and see news sites becoming regulated. You know, just to make sure no one credible publishes leaks anymore, for national security and so on.

andreasklinger 13y ago
The saddest thing about it is that they do not even need to explain it anymore. People just assume that it's a thing the government can/will do. Maybe we need to repeat our errors every 3-4 generations to keep them in our society's consciousness.
- agravier 13y ago
  > Maybe we need to repeat our errors every 3-4 generations to keep them in our society's consciousness. I think that history shows that this is probably closer to the truth than you meant it to be.
sailfast 13y ago
This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with people keeping their clearances. Viewing classified information in any form even after publication is not allowed. The policy may be misguided because duplication of the content occurs regardless on the web, but the original intent of the policy was to prevent further damage.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  But wait, if clearances restrict your access to information, then they are not clearances, but restrictors.

nemof 13y ago

tweet from Spencer Ackerman 'DOD wants me to know it's not deciding to block the Guardian's website, its automatic classification content filters are. So there's that.' https://twitter.com/attackerman/status/350597454627995648 https://twitter.com/attackerman/status/350597454627995648

jonknee 13y ago
The "automatic classification content filters" that can't prevent classified material from getting out, but can prevent it from getting in. What a useless idea.
- effbott 13y ago
  And by "automatic classification content filter" they mean "someone manually added the Guardian to a blacklist".
tommi 13y ago
"It's not us, it's the machine that we operate".

AYBABTME 13y ago

The reason for that is that classified information doesn't magically become unclassified when it is leaked. It keeps it's classification until it is formally declassified. This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense.

shawndumas 13y ago
that would require confirming said information was a leak.
- pyre 13y ago
  If none of this information was really a leak of actual classified information, then there would be no reason to block the Guardian. Blocking The Guardian implicitly confirms that some of the information that they are released really is classified information.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    Why exactly do you think the NSA would confirm or deny to the US Army whether or not any of the released documents are actual classified information?
  - freyr 13y ago
    Not really. The Guardian claims to be sitting on a pile of additional information that it hasen't yet released. So blocking the site could be a preemptive measure to deal with potentially classified information potentially being published at any given time in the future.
gngeal 13y ago
the US Army was restricting access to the UK version of The Guardian's website So you're saying that because it's classified information, trusted Americans (the soldiers) are going to be prevented access but the rest of the world will be able to read it freely. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

mtgx 13y ago

I think Mike Masnick explained it pretty well why this is a pointless and stupid exercise: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defense-department-blocks-all-web-access-to-guardian-response-to-nsa-leaks.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defen...

vidarh 13y ago
He misses the point entirely. As much as I believe governments over-classify massively, and look on most leeks with glee: Consider that if an audit reveals any documents believed to be classified on an unclassified Army network, they need to deal with it. That the documents have leaked is relatively immaterial - presumably a lot of auditing is done automatically, and adding exceptions is a lot riskier than simply blanket blocking anything that contains indications that it's marked classified, secret or similar. Even with manual audits, you don't want to give the people doing the audits too much freedom in accepting documents they think have been publicly disseminated, or the extra workload of trying to assess what info is ok. Even IF all the documents found have already been published, they'd for security reasons still want to track down how the documents ended up on the unclassified network in case the route was via another leak that potentially might have more documents. Or it might even indicate the source of the leaks. In other words, it's easier and safer for them to just assume that if a document is marked classified in any way, it shouldn't ever be found on unclassified networks - then they don't have to deal with the mess of trying to ensure it's an indication of a security problem.

drcube 13y ago

So despite being broadcast around the world for the last few weeks, this information is still considered "secret"?? I would assume any information that is published by a news organization on the world wide web is no longer considered classified. How could it be, without resorting to absurdist policy gymnastics? Oh, I see, the smart people in military "intelligence" chose absurdity instead.

fogus 13y ago
You have to understand that it being released does not change its status. People with security clearances are supposed to do the "right thing" by the terms of their clearance and not read material that they're not cleared to read, regardless if it's leaked or not.

muyuu 13y ago

The USA regime is becoming more and more like China regarding civil liberties, instead of the other way around.

wahnfrieden 13y ago
Soldiers have different rights than regular civilians. Don't conflate issues reductively.

chasb 13y ago

DoD has been blocking The Guardian for some time now. This is not in response to the NSA leaks.

VMG 13y ago
Relevant: http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html#1029 http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html... [...] So everyone in the UK MoD could no longer read what was on WikiLeaks. Problem solved! [...]

wahlis 13y ago

Military intelligence?

mpyne 13y ago

I have a secret for all of you not using DoD networks... like any large organization, the military blocks websites all the time. Most for being completely unrelated to doing work or for being completely wasteful of scarce bandwidth in places like Afghanistan (e.g., HD video sites). It also costs a lot of taxpayer dollars to scrub a machine of classified data when there ends up being spillage, better to avert that problem entirely.

ryanmarsh 13y ago

Please allow me to clarify a few common misperceptions. #1 When you volunteer to be a soldier you voluntarily waive your rights to free speech in a few specific ways. You may not speak out against the Commander in Chief, you may not be a part of "extremist" political groups (extremist is defined as what your command says it is), you may not participate in many types of demonstrations. You can of course vote however you please. #2 You are explicitly ordered not to obey unlawful orders and there is a process in place for refusing to follow an unlawful order. If you refuse to follow what you believe to be an unlawful order then you had better hope you are right because if you just feel you are right by the UCMJ and you are in fact not then your life will become miserable. #3 Being in the military is a day job that bleeds over into many other areas of your life, the computer systems at work contain lots of sensitive information, things that you might find mundane. If you are deployed you may find it convenient to use a computer on NIPR in the TOC for personal use. Use that gov't hardware wrong and you can get in deep doo-doo. As a soldier I'd be happy to know they're helping me not do things on their hardware that would get me in trouble. #4 Each soldier signs agreements to follow the rules around classified information, including not reading documents they do not have clearance to read. #5 Being a good soldier requires shouldering an immense amount of responsibility without the frivolity of youthful indignation. In combat arms especially attitude and indignation get people killed. Indignation is reserved for private citizens, so use it on their behalf but don't expect them to rise up in defense of themselves. #6 If a soldier is truly being wronged he or she knows they can go to IG, and if IG isn't working out they can write a letter to a congressperson and things will actually happen. #7 If you think the way the military works is ridiculous, I understand, but don't assume that you know better. The military exists to kill people and break things not further social agendas (right or wrong). Most rules and regulations are written in blood, meaning someone had to die or get hurt, or some major loss of expensive or sensitive hardware happened to create that rule which you are ordered to follow. #8 Most of your comments sound ridiculous to me (as a soldier), it's a different world with a different set of "BIG PROBLEMS" to deal with and you really don't understand it.

look_lookatme 13y ago
Thanks for this. When I'm around military people and conversations like this come up, often there is an attitude of "you couldn't understand, civilian" (not unlike your #8), and the truth is I don't. Soldiers have had their mindset irreparably altered and they tend to ally with the institution, even if they don't agree with it - even when their free of it. They have given up most any control they have over themselves or their situation and it pervades their worldview. There are good reasons for this and it makes sense that anything that could possibly chip away at that foundation should be tightly controlled.