"And the land of the freeeeeeeee" U.S. Army bans the Guardian NSA articles armywide...

[Luminous Animal]

http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_23554739/restricted-web-access-guardian-is-army-wide-officials

The Army admitted Thursday to not only restricting access to The Guardian news website at the Presidio of Monterey, as reported in Thursday's Herald, but Armywide.

Presidio employees said the site had been blocked since The Guardian broke several stories on data collection by the National Security Agency.

Gordon Van Vleet, an Arizona-based spokesman for the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, or NETCOM, said in an email the Army is filtering "some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks."

He wrote it is routine for the Department of Defense to take preventative "network hygiene" measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

"We make every effort to balance the need to preserve information access with operational security," he wrote, "however there are strict policies and directives in place regarding protecting and handling classified information."

Network Hygiene. Indeed.

[lunasun]

1. freedom fighters not so free to read about NSA

[Octafish]

34. Including the officers and wives on whom they spy...

That sounds so noble. And the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq's Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, "Hey, check this out… there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out." Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. "It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy.'"

SOURCE: http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/nsa-spying-verizon-analysis/65963/

[Iliyah]

38. Liberals in America can't

do it neither. Where was the outraged? Where is it now?

[Harmony Blue]

2. Oh this is interesting....

[SunSeeker]

3. But they still let Limbaugh spew hate on Armed Forces Radio? nt

[uponit7771]

7. +1

[Art_from_Ark]

10. Yup, he's still spewing on AFRTN

At least he was about 2 months ago, when I came across his "show" on Eagle 810, Tokyo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Same shit for wiki leaks.

This actually, from an army good order and discipline makes sense. Now explaining the leaking from the Vice Chair of the Joints chief will prove more difficult

[bobduca]

5. Defend this

C'mon all you Good Loyal Partisans... love to see someone try... i'll even open this thread in an incognito tab!

[bobduca]

37. And here it is.. in defense of the defense department

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023117068

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Wow.

"Network hygiene". Sounds like something right out of Dr. Strangelove.

[Narkos]

8. That's just dumb

[cali]

9. holy shit. that's appalling.

[malaise]

11. But they continue to carry Rush Scumbaugh n/t

[jeff47]

12. Actually, the Army has a point.

Leaking isn't declassification.

So if someone with a clearance pulls up a Guardian story that contains the leaked memos, that person will now be having a very, very bad day. Because they just put classified information on an unclassified computer. Now, that person with a clearance can read a story discussing the documents without causing a problem. But the documents themselves on an unclassified computer are a big no-no.

In addition to the shit they will have to personally endure, all the computer and network hardware between the classified person and the Internet has to be scrubbed.

Blocking the Guardian probably saved the taxpayers a pile of cash, since the Guardian folks love to put the actual classified documents in their stories without any warning.

If the Guardian doesn't want that, they should put the actual documents behind a "Click here to see the documents" link. That way, everyone who wants to read them can, and everyone who can't read them won't be entering an expensive shitstorm. This is what happened with Manning's leaks - the actual documents were behind links, so people with clearances could read the stories without hitting the documents.

OTOH, that would really interfere with all the "Look how Orwellian they are!!" charges.

[Incitatus]

16. If it's being published by the Guardian, the cat's pretty much out of the bag.

Does it really matter once it has been leaked? The persons that want it the most and can do the most damage with it will get it. Is Army personnel reading or discussing the information after that going to cause harm to anyone?

[jeff47]

18. It matters if you want to prosecute people for leaking.

The documents have to still be considered classified in order to prosecute. Otherwise you'd have a timing problem - "Oh no, I read it in the newspaper" would be a workable defense.

Is Army personnel reading or discussing the information after that going to cause harm to anyone?

They can read an article discussing the documents. They can even talk about those articles, and the subjects therein. They can't read the actual documents, nor discuss the actual documents.

[Logical]

13. LOL, wonder when some DUers will start defending this! n-t

[alittlelark]

14. If you know Anyone in the military make them aware of this.

WOW.

[jeff47]

20. They're already well aware.

Warnings about downloading classified documents on unclassified systems went out shortly after the story broke.

[alittlelark]

21. I'm not thinking links, I'm thinking INFO

If I were a service member I would be deeply offended.

[jeff47]

22. Summaries by others are fine. It's the documents themselves that cause a problem.

So if the Guardian described what was in the documents, and then put a "click here to read the documents" link, they probably wouldn't have been blocked.

Instead, the Guardian put the documents in the story itself without a warning, so people with clearances can accidentally download a classified document.

[alittlelark]

25. The rest of the world can.......

Why not our troops?

[jeff47]

26. Because our troops promised to protect classified documents.

So they have to do so. No matter where they are in the world. Even if they are on vacation in another country.

Really doesn't mean much in terms of informing our troops - as I said, summaries by other people are fine.

[Vinnie From Indy]

28. OK! Explain why the Washington Post was not blocked?

Cheers!

[jeff47]

39. They don't include the classified document in the story.

They have a "click here to read it" link. People with clearances can thus read the stories and not click the link.

[alittlelark]

31. They could still 'protect them'....

....but shouldn't they know what they are protecting?

[Revanchist]

32. Does a security guard at a top secret research facility need to know what's behind a locked door?

You can easily protect something with knowing what it is.

[alittlelark]

35. Uh.......yeah...... many of our planets atrocities fit in that scenario...

Not to say this is on par w/ the worst.

I could go into detail, but I think you know what I'm saying........................................................................................

[jeff47]

40. If they stumble across a document, they do know what they're protecting

And in the case of them finding a document within a news story, they will also know what they're protecting.

You're acting like "classified" means "unreadable". That's not how it works. It means "must be handled a certain way".

[idwiyo]

15. ...

[whatchamacallit]

17. And "liberals" cheer!

Oy!

[backscatter712]

19. Right here on this site...

though I prefer to call them ratfuckers.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Crazy times...

[sibelian]

50. There really aren't that many of them.

They just post lots and lots.

[Revanchist]

24. Why is this surprising people?

And why the outrage? When you join the military you fall under the military code of justice, not the constitution and your rights change. The comments about classified documents are correct, that's a no no, especially if someone without a clearance is looking at them. You can be prosecuted for things that aren't even illegal in the civilian world.

[otohara]

48. Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You

It's been a while since I worked ... But I remember there are rules at every job and Human Resource is like the military

[Vinnie From Indy]

27. Rush Limbaugh 'Good' - Free Press 'Bad'

Why is Limbaugh still on Armed Forces Radio?

[patrice]

29. The UCMJ is different from the Constitution and it has legal authority over all military, which

protects the Chain of Command on the premise that the mission takes precedence over other considerations and part of the mission is always to bring as many military safely home as possible.

Fuck with the Chain of Command and you are fucking with people's lives.

[matt819]

30. Because of course no one in the Army has access to a non-Army computer

Can anyone say moran?

[jeff47]

41. If someone with a clearance uses a non-Army computer to read a classified document

they are in just as much trouble. With the added bonus of getting to turn their personal equipment over to the government.

Again, people with clearances can read stories about the documents. They can't read the documents themselves on an unclassified computer. Guardian put the documents themselves in the story.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. So, now the military doen't trust the troops?

Times, indeed, have changed. When I was in we subscribed to anything we liked.

[jeff47]

42. No, they trust them. The problem is there are rules for handling classified information

And the Guardian includes classified documents in the story. So someone with a clearance can accidentally download a classified document to an unclassified computer. Which causes a lot of problems for that person, and the network admins.

Reading a story that summarizes the classified documents is fine. Which is why WaPo puts the classified document behind a "click here to read the document" link - people with clearances don't click the link.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Well, the military is still as ridiculous as it was when I was in.

[jeff47]

44. Yeah, saving tons of man-hours and not causing security incidents

How ridiculous!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. My heart bleeds for the poverty stricken MIC.

[jeff47]

46. Army money. Not contractor money. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. My heart bleeds for the poverty stricken army.

[bobduca]

36. Hey, But Who will Think of the Troops?!?!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023117068

[woo me with science]

49. K&R Well, that about says it all, doesn't it.

[NaturalHigh]

51. Morons.

Do they really think that will stop anybody who wants to read it from doing so? If anything, it will likely just make soldiers even more curious.

[rugger1869]

52. Just because Snowden released the information

Doesn't mean it's declassified. Any military member or employee being looking at classified material on a non-classified computer, regardless of where it is found, is considered 'spillage' and can result in a loss of security clearance, loss of position or job, and prosecution.

This is more of a case of the DoD trying to protect their own rather than anything nefarious.

[bike man]

53. Isn't it true that restricting internet access in the workplace is a common practice?

It is their internet access and their computers.

People can do their news searches, forum/blog posting and reading on their own computers on their own time.

[woo me with science]

54. Kick

[woo me with science]

55. kick