2 ms·

If true, I find the stupidity of this move amazing. Now Chinese government officials can convincingly argue that the U.S. policies are really no different from

by jwr 13y ago

If true, I find the stupidity of this move amazing. Now Chinese government officials can convincingly argue that the U.S. policies are really no different from Chinese ones and that all this talk about freedom is just state propaganda.

RyanZAG 13y ago
Are we sure it's not really just state propaganda? That argument can be convincingly argued because it seems to hold some truth.
- simonh 13y ago
  At this point, yes it is. The west has surrendered any moral authority it might have had. I'm sorry but I'll particularly single out America, though as a Brit I'm fully aware it's happening here too. Chinese hacking American firms? Well, the NSA is spying on everybody who uses American web services, so there's no moral authority there. Persecuting activists? I'm no fan of Julian Assange, but Senators calling for his assassination are just handing over any moral high ground we might have had as a free gift. Peaceful Occupy movement demonstrations get violently assaulted by the police, so why shouldn't the Turkish cops brutalise peaceful protesters? That's what pluralistic democracies do.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
That's a bit silly. As much as I think this move is a bad idea, it's important to keep perspective. In China all citizens are under a broad umbrella of censorship. Here only members of the US Army, who have entered into a voluntary contract, are having some of their access while on base restricted. This is little different from restrictive corporate firewalls, which are commonplace.
- unknsldr 13y ago
  > This is little different from restrictive corporate firewalls, which are commonplace. Conceptually, the filtering is little different. This policy, however, is very different in the severity of consequence. The superficial story is that the filters have been implemented. No different than Wikileaks, really. The memo and basis for the filters is a very different story. The memorandum distributed to address the policy mentions sanctions for soldiers found proliferating the Guardian material. Most concerning is that the filters are described as preexisting filters that prevent the mixing of classified information and unclassified systems. In other words, the Army is classifying Guardian articles as TS level content. This is unauthorized for unclassified systems and to be read by soldiers who lack the appropriate clearance. By unauthorized it is meant to mean punishable under UCMJ as a security violation; it's a criminal offense. The memo also charges leadership with accountability for establishing a vigilant command climate to underscore the secure handling of classified information. Very likely, this means leaders are empowered to implement local measures to ensure unclassified systems operated by soldiers do not house classified information. This is essentially treating a soldier found with an article from Greenwald the same as a soldier who transferred data from a classified system. The criminal conduct aspect here is, to me, very different from restrictive corporate firewalls.

by jwr 13y ago

RyanZAG 13y ago

Are we sure it's not really just state propaganda? That argument can be convincingly argued because it seems to hold some truth.

simonh 13y ago
At this point, yes it is. The west has surrendered any moral authority it might have had. I'm sorry but I'll particularly single out America, though as a Brit I'm fully aware it's happening here too. Chinese hacking American firms? Well, the NSA is spying on everybody who uses American web services, so there's no moral authority there. Persecuting activists? I'm no fan of Julian Assange, but Senators calling for his assassination are just handing over any moral high ground we might have had as a free gift. Peaceful Occupy movement demonstrations get violently assaulted by the police, so why shouldn't the Turkish cops brutalise peaceful protesters? That's what pluralistic democracies do.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

That's a bit silly. As much as I think this move is a bad idea, it's important to keep perspective. In China all citizens are under a broad umbrella of censorship. Here only members of the US Army, who have entered into a voluntary contract, are having some of their access while on base restricted. This is little different from restrictive corporate firewalls, which are commonplace.

unknsldr 13y ago
> This is little different from restrictive corporate firewalls, which are commonplace. Conceptually, the filtering is little different. This policy, however, is very different in the severity of consequence. The superficial story is that the filters have been implemented. No different than Wikileaks, really. The memo and basis for the filters is a very different story. The memorandum distributed to address the policy mentions sanctions for soldiers found proliferating the Guardian material. Most concerning is that the filters are described as preexisting filters that prevent the mixing of classified information and unclassified systems. In other words, the Army is classifying Guardian articles as TS level content. This is unauthorized for unclassified systems and to be read by soldiers who lack the appropriate clearance. By unauthorized it is meant to mean punishable under UCMJ as a security violation; it's a criminal offense. The memo also charges leadership with accountability for establishing a vigilant command climate to underscore the secure handling of classified information. Very likely, this means leaders are empowered to implement local measures to ensure unclassified systems operated by soldiers do not house classified information. This is essentially treating a soldier found with an article from Greenwald the same as a soldier who transferred data from a classified system. The criminal conduct aspect here is, to me, very different from restrictive corporate firewalls.