4 ms·

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 (th

by 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.

AYBABTME 13y ago
I'm not saying it make sense. I was serving in Afgh when the Afghan Warlog were leaked, and we were told not to read the released leaks because that would constitute a breach of our 'NDA' or whatever that document we all signed that hold us responsible for proper handling of classified documents. "Reading" enters their definition of "handling". You can't consume classified info for which you don't have the required security clearance.
- antocv 13y ago
  You were for sure reminded that you where out there giving your with sweat and blood for democracy and free speech. While others, more important people, told you what to read and explained to you the difference between handling and reading and the meaning of security clearance. Big brother knows what is best for you.
  - fogus 13y ago
    I think you're forgetting that when you enter the military you're submitting yourself to being told what to do. That's part of the contract.
    - unknsldr 13y ago
      You also swear to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You further face UCMJ action for following unlawful orders. When the soldier is not qualified to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order, they default to obeying the orders of senior commissioned officers. Thus the directive from the senior most command. The soldier has no choice but to obey a lawful order and this is meant to clarify the lawfulness. This is making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according to UCMJ. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it. The soldiers are not. We have an obligation here. I do not believe our obligation is to remind soldiers of the contract.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        The soldiers have zero right to use the Internet at all on work hours. The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites when you're using government computers for government work". The military already frequently bans stuff like YouTube when dipshits keep clogging up the network watching Bieber while other people are trying to do work, or things like Reddit.
        unknsldr 13y ago
        > The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites when you're using government computers for government work". This is a great point. They could have given guidance on avoiding exposure to the leaked documents. Instead, they criminalized the consumption of publicly available information. Keep in mind that a soldier does not keep 'work hours'. They are not off-duty at any point. They are subject to UCMJ, as well as uniform and appearance regulations, even on the weekends. This includes using a personal computer to access the Guardian on the weekend from a Starbucks.
        kbenson 13y ago
        I think the point, made earlier in this thread, is that the access of that information was already criminalized, from before it was released (due to it's classified nature), and that releasing it does not automatically unclassify it. In that light, the blocking of the Guardian may be viewed as preventing soldiers from accidentally performing a criminal act.
      - fogus 13y ago
        This is making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according to UCMJ. I think that's indisputable. If the public system has classified material on it, then it is unlawful for someone without the proper clearances to read it. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it. The soldiers are not. Last I checked becoming a soldier was currently a voluntary act.
        13y ago
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    No, your being advised to not to so you don't in the future confuse the source of information you are free to give out. Having worked in a secure communications group before there is an art in knowing what can be discussed and what cannot. An important part of that is not confusing two similar sounding documents that are protected differently. They can both touch the same subject but not the same details. The danger is, you forget which is which. So, don't muddy the waters for them unnecessarily.
- kailuowang 13y ago
  I think it might start to make sense after your explanation especially if all Army employees are also forbidden to access the Internet through civilian channels.
  - unknsldr 13y ago
    I'll point out that any device connected to a military Information System is subject to monitor and interception for the expressed purpose of penetration testing, personnel misconduct, network operations and defense, COMSEC, etc. Do you believe your laptop is a device connected to Google Information Systems when you access GMail? Soldiers must use their AKO/DKO portal for college coursework, medical appointments, webmail, annual certification and training, and so on. Any system can access AKO/DKO, which includes a personal laptop. Soldiers staying in barracks often have high speed internet access they pay for themselves but they could go to an internet cafe and browse the web. Is it a civilian channel if a soldier buys a Macbook and reads a Guardian article at Starbucks? If there is a random barracks inspection, which the soldier is subject to, and the Guardian material is found in browsing history and/or cache, the soldier has committed a security violation. S/he will be subject to the same UCMJ action as a soldier that knowingly copied classified information from a classified system and transferred it to their personal computer.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      And how then are the soldiers supposed to find out whether their orders are legal or not when the information needed to acquire such knowledge is kept from them by law?
      - unknsldr 13y ago
        This is my concern, as well. Their command tells them what is and isn't lawful. In this case, command is making explicit what will be considered unlawful. And the unlawful act isn't accessing DoD classified systems inappropriately; the unlawful act is accessing public, unclassified systems, which have been classified at large, in reaction to the leak. I cannot overstate my concern that this is a classification of the Guardian as a whole to criminalize soldiers's accessing it. It classifies all of the Guardian at a TS level equivalent to the data leaked by Snowden.
- unknsldr 13y ago
  You certainly can 'consume' classified information without the required clearance. Every reader of the Guardian supports this. Soldiers that have not been read on, soldiers that do not possess a clearance, can be guilty of a security violation yet they've never had access to a classified system. What this proposes is that every system with classified information on it is to be classified to the level of the information it contains. Because the system was not approved for housing classified information, the system is subject to destruction. Because the DoD does not own the Guardian's systems, they have to assert their authority over the systems they do own: theirs and those of their soldiers. Do you not see a difference between the soldier that breaches the NDA by disclosing information and the soldier that has been exposed to the information in the public domain?
ethomson 13y ago
Except that they are - by definition - not trusted; they lack security clearance. Just because other people who lack security clearance have some classified documents doesn't mean that we should give it to everybody.

by gngeal 13y ago

AYBABTME 13y ago

I'm not saying it make sense. I was serving in Afgh when the Afghan Warlog were leaked, and we were told not to read the released leaks because that would constitute a breach of our 'NDA' or whatever that document we all signed that hold us responsible for proper handling of classified documents. "Reading" enters their definition of "handling". You can't consume classified info for which you don't have the required security clearance.

antocv 13y ago
You were for sure reminded that you where out there giving your with sweat and blood for democracy and free speech. While others, more important people, told you what to read and explained to you the difference between handling and reading and the meaning of security clearance. Big brother knows what is best for you.
- fogus 13y ago
  I think you're forgetting that when you enter the military you're submitting yourself to being told what to do. That's part of the contract.
  - unknsldr 13y ago
    You also swear to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You further face UCMJ action for following unlawful orders. When the soldier is not qualified to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order, they default to obeying the orders of senior commissioned officers. Thus the directive from the senior most command. The soldier has no choice but to obey a lawful order and this is meant to clarify the lawfulness. This is making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according to UCMJ. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it. The soldiers are not. We have an obligation here. I do not believe our obligation is to remind soldiers of the contract.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      The soldiers have zero right to use the Internet at all on work hours. The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites when you're using government computers for government work". The military already frequently bans stuff like YouTube when dipshits keep clogging up the network watching Bieber while other people are trying to do work, or things like Reddit.
      - unknsldr 13y ago
        > The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites when you're using government computers for government work". This is a great point. They could have given guidance on avoiding exposure to the leaked documents. Instead, they criminalized the consumption of publicly available information. Keep in mind that a soldier does not keep 'work hours'. They are not off-duty at any point. They are subject to UCMJ, as well as uniform and appearance regulations, even on the weekends. This includes using a personal computer to access the Guardian on the weekend from a Starbucks.
        kbenson 13y ago
        I think the point, made earlier in this thread, is that the access of that information was already criminalized, from before it was released (due to it's classified nature), and that releasing it does not automatically unclassify it. In that light, the blocking of the Guardian may be viewed as preventing soldiers from accidentally performing a criminal act.
    - fogus 13y ago
      This is making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according to UCMJ. I think that's indisputable. If the public system has classified material on it, then it is unlawful for someone without the proper clearances to read it. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it. The soldiers are not. Last I checked becoming a soldier was currently a voluntary act.
      - 13y ago
- Shivetya 13y ago
  No, your being advised to not to so you don't in the future confuse the source of information you are free to give out. Having worked in a secure communications group before there is an art in knowing what can be discussed and what cannot. An important part of that is not confusing two similar sounding documents that are protected differently. They can both touch the same subject but not the same details. The danger is, you forget which is which. So, don't muddy the waters for them unnecessarily.
kailuowang 13y ago
I think it might start to make sense after your explanation especially if all Army employees are also forbidden to access the Internet through civilian channels.
- unknsldr 13y ago
  I'll point out that any device connected to a military Information System is subject to monitor and interception for the expressed purpose of penetration testing, personnel misconduct, network operations and defense, COMSEC, etc. Do you believe your laptop is a device connected to Google Information Systems when you access GMail? Soldiers must use their AKO/DKO portal for college coursework, medical appointments, webmail, annual certification and training, and so on. Any system can access AKO/DKO, which includes a personal laptop. Soldiers staying in barracks often have high speed internet access they pay for themselves but they could go to an internet cafe and browse the web. Is it a civilian channel if a soldier buys a Macbook and reads a Guardian article at Starbucks? If there is a random barracks inspection, which the soldier is subject to, and the Guardian material is found in browsing history and/or cache, the soldier has committed a security violation. S/he will be subject to the same UCMJ action as a soldier that knowingly copied classified information from a classified system and transferred it to their personal computer.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    And how then are the soldiers supposed to find out whether their orders are legal or not when the information needed to acquire such knowledge is kept from them by law?
    - unknsldr 13y ago
      This is my concern, as well. Their command tells them what is and isn't lawful. In this case, command is making explicit what will be considered unlawful. And the unlawful act isn't accessing DoD classified systems inappropriately; the unlawful act is accessing public, unclassified systems, which have been classified at large, in reaction to the leak. I cannot overstate my concern that this is a classification of the Guardian as a whole to criminalize soldiers's accessing it. It classifies all of the Guardian at a TS level equivalent to the data leaked by Snowden.
unknsldr 13y ago
You certainly can 'consume' classified information without the required clearance. Every reader of the Guardian supports this. Soldiers that have not been read on, soldiers that do not possess a clearance, can be guilty of a security violation yet they've never had access to a classified system. What this proposes is that every system with classified information on it is to be classified to the level of the information it contains. Because the system was not approved for housing classified information, the system is subject to destruction. Because the DoD does not own the Guardian's systems, they have to assert their authority over the systems they do own: theirs and those of their soldiers. Do you not see a difference between the soldier that breaches the NDA by disclosing information and the soldier that has been exposed to the information in the public domain?

ethomson 13y ago

Except that they are - by definition - not trusted; they lack security clearance. Just because other people who lack security clearance have some classified documents doesn't mean that we should give it to everybody.