|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 05/03/2007 : 14:37:17
|
This, from CNN: quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Army is tightening restrictions on soldiers' blogs and other Web site postings to ensure sensitive information about military operations does not make it onto public forums.
Soldiers in war zones are already subject to restrictions on blogging and public posts. But the Army's new regulation could affect service members who have returned from war zones and started blogs about their combat experiences.
Under a new directive issued in April, soldiers must consult with their immediate supervisor and an officer responsible for what's known within the military as operational security, or OPSEC, for a review of planned publications.
Anyone here care to argue the position that this is primarily about secret military information being leaked? Or might this be prompted by critical, even political, comments posted by our citizen soldiers?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 18:18:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Anyone here care to argue the position that this is primarily about secret military information being leaked? Or might this be prompted by critical, even political, comments posted by our citizen soldiers?
I'll play the Devil's advocate's little brother.
I'd say it most likely wasn't primarily motivated by the desire for protection of secrets. But I would argue that it's a legitimate concern, well worthy of consideration.
I've worked for defence in the past, and in law enforcement at the moment. Malicious leaks are often the worst, but far more common are accidental leaks, which can be just as dangerous in some circumstances.
In these days where data mining and correlation are much more powerful tools, what may seem an innocuous blog post on it's own, may not be so in a larger context.
Security is one of those painful areas that demands inconvenience in order to be effective. There is nowhere to draw the line that will keep everyone happy. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 18:37:24 [Permalink]
|
| Besides which, the regulations governing soldiers' behavior are very strict to begin with. As I understand it, soldiers have been, for decades if not centuries, prohibited from certain types of speech - including criticism of the government - while in uniform. It wouldn't surprise me, nor upset me, that such restrictions get expanded along with technological advances. People give up a lot, including some basic civil rights, to become a cog in the giant defense machine. I just hope that they're as well compensated for such sacrifices over the long term. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2007 : 19:27:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
quote:
As I understand it, soldiers have been, for decades if not centuries, prohibited from certain types of speech - including criticism of the government - while in uniform.
Always been the case. While you are on active duty you are expected to keep your opinion of your leadership to yourself. There are channels in the chain of command for every rank of the military to bring up problems, and you are expected to use those channels.
It would be improper, possibly criminal by the UCMJ, for serving members of the military in any rank to say publicly that they think the president is an incompetent asshole, or write a book or article about it.
Almost everyone who joins recognizes that while you serve you have to have a more considered approach to politics and your commentary.
As for the blog censorship, I can understand imposing limits on such things. If you have been in a combat zone, it is possible that even months later you could compromise operational security by posting to many details online or in print.
I'll reserve judgement on this one to see just how far they take the censorship.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 03:36:50 [Permalink]
|
Certainly security would be a legitimate concern. I would expect that the Army could best combat the release of sensitive tactical information by 1) educating their soldiers ("Loose lips sink ships," etc.) and 2) enforcing their rules if soldiers break them. What concerns me about this situation is the prior censorship part, where one presumes the entire contents of a blog would have to be okayed prior to posting. That lends itself to censorship of simple gripes (such as about ever-lengthening tours of duty, reminescent of Catch-22), which I suspect is the exact "problem" this censorship program was designed to silence. I have no problem with security, and would accept total blog bans if that were a real issue.
A saying during WWII was that the one inalienable right soldiers had was the right to gripe. yes, the Army has a legal right to clamp down on griping and blogs, but I doubt it's a generally good idea.
The Army spokesmen were very vague about tactical information that they claimed to worry about. Not one instance of such disclosure was even enumerated. I doubt there was such an instance. I think this hints at a growing problem the Army has with its soldiers, many of whom are reservists or National Guard troops, and who are being kept in the war zone for indefinite and growing months and years. Suppressing blogs will not help to quell any rebelliousness, but merely serve to mask the problem.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/04/2007 21:00:12 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 17:16:50 [Permalink]
|
I don't think the military can possibly police every soldiers blog.
The internet grants a serious amount of anonymity to those who desire it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 08:36:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
A saying during WWII was that the one inalienable right soldiers had was the right to gripe. yes, the Army has a legal right to clamp down on griping and blogs, but I doubt it's a generally good idea.
The Army spokesmen were very vague about tactical information that they claimed to worry about. Not one instance of such disclosure was even enumerated. I doubt there was such an instance.
Oh, soldiers can gripe, alright. About lots of things, among one another. Sucky food, leaky tents, cold water for hygiene, etc. Always have been able to do that. "Suppressing" their blogs...I want to know who gave it that term. It's all how you look at what the Army is trying to protect. I do believe that part of this comes from a concern that in today's blogs, people tend to rant, vent, flame and otherwise, spill more information than they would have just by writing a letter home to mom and the family. In that regard, then it is very conceivable that tactical information can be gleaned more easily from bloggers who spew a little too much.
The Army has the right and soldiers know it, to protect any and all information it deems necessary, especially during a war. I'm not saying I totally agree with the amount of censorship that goes into, or went into letters, emails, calls home, etc. But it is often necessary to take bigger precautions than we, sitting here at home at our computers, think is warranted.
I'm still not allowed to talk about certain things, and I've been out of the Army for 18 years! And that won't change, unless it becomes officially declassified. I can't even discuss particular topics among other men who were part of it with me. Never was allowed to. Weird sounding, but very necessary.
A tactical "leak" while I was in Honduras way back in 1986-1987 nearly got my ass fried. A simple call home from an officer to his wife, and suddenly there's a CNN crew out in the middle of nowhere waiting for all of us to land our helicopters to drop off troops. Because CNN doesn't try and keep a low profile in an area of conflict, it allowed the Nicaraguans to be prepared for our "surprise" visit. They weren't happy. They had Hind-D helicopters. We had Hueys (without door guns mounted). Guess who wins?
I guess I'm just saying that the reality is that any type of enhanced communication, like blogging, emails, cell phone calls, etc., gives more probability to sensitive information getting out. Will we find out someday that it was done just to keep soldiers' complaints from getting back to us? I don't know. But I don't yet believe that is the major reason for restricting these blogs.
Wish I had more time to get these thoughts down better, but I'm headed back out to a soccer tournament, kids' prom, etc....gotta run.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 12:33:17 [Permalink]
|
I was watching a program about some soldiers in Afghanistan and one, commenting on the reasons for his being there, said (and I paraphrase) "When you join the army, you take an oath to do what the people above you tell you to do. There is an old saying--'Soldiers fight to protect democracy, not participate in it.'"
So I think, as Dave noted, soldiers are well aware of the rights they are giving up when they join the military.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 13:51:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
A saying during WWII was that the one inalienable right soldiers had was the right to gripe. yes, the Army has a legal right to clamp down on griping and blogs, but I doubt it's a generally good idea.
The Army spokesmen were very vague about tactical information that they claimed to worry about. Not one instance of such disclosure was even enumerated. I doubt there was such an instance.
Oh, soldiers can gripe, alright. About lots of things, among one another. Sucky food, leaky tents, cold water for hygiene, etc. Always have been able to do that. "Suppressing" their blogs...I want to know who gave it that term. It's all how you look at what the Army is trying to protect. I do believe that part of this comes from a concern that in today's blogs, people tend to rant, vent, flame and otherwise, spill more information than they would have just by writing a letter home to mom and the family. In that regard, then it is very conceivable that tactical information can be gleaned more easily from bloggers who spew a little too much.
The Army has the right and soldiers know it, to protect any and all information it deems necessary, especially during a war. I'm not saying I totally agree with the amount of censorship that goes into, or went into letters, emails, calls home, etc. But it is often necessary to take bigger precautions than we, sitting here at home at our computers, think is warranted.
I'm still not allowed to talk about certain things, and I've been out of the Army for 18 years! And that won't change, unless it becomes officially declassified. I can't even discuss particular topics among other men who were part of it with me. Never was allowed to. Weird sounding, but very necessary.
A tactical "leak" while I was in Honduras way back in 1986-1987 nearly got my ass fried. A simple call home from an officer to his wife, and suddenly there's a CNN crew out in the middle of nowhere waiting for all of us to land our helicopters to drop off troops. Because CNN doesn't try and keep a low profile in an area of conflict, it allowed the Nicaraguans to be prepared for our "surprise" visit. They weren't happy. They had Hind-D helicopters. We had Hueys (without door guns mounted). Guess who wins?
I guess I'm just saying that the reality is that any type of enhanced communication, like blogging, emails, cell phone calls, etc., gives more probability to sensitive information getting out. Will we find out someday that it was done just to keep soldiers' complaints from getting back to us? I don't know. But I don't yet believe that is the major reason for restricting these blogs.
Wish I had more time to get these thoughts down better, but I'm headed back out to a soccer tournament, kids' prom, etc....gotta run.
You provide a good example of a dangerous leak of operational information. One I recall hearing when I was teen-aged Naval Submarine reservist was about a Congressman, who bragged to his constituents during WWII that the "Japs" were stupid for setting their depth charges at too shallow a depth to get our subs, which could dive to about 400 feet. The Japanese, reading of this, simply reset their charges to greater depth, and many American submariners' lives were lost. The Submarine service to this day is called the "Silent Service" because of its members' sealed lips, not because of the silence of the vessels.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Army imposes prior censorship on soldiers' blogs
