Military censorship

[akarunway 1]

New rules. Good or bad? http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers> "The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say."

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[BillyVance 35]

I'd say its a good idea. You never know when the enemy's reading up on those blogs and trying to glean any intelligence on our troops.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Gawain 0]

Quote

New rules. Good or bad?

Doesn't really matter. It will, in the end, only slow how certain events reach the internet.

However, I never really understood why soldiers in the field were allowed to do it in the first place, or how they found the time. Of course, I know that not everyone over there is in a line unit either.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ExAFO 0]

They (Army) can prohibit them from any of those activities on a OPSEC, INFOSEC, PERSEC, or Morale basis.

And if they give you one of those justifications, they're doing you a favor, because they need not give a justification at all...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[quade 4]

While I personally think it's shitty, it's something the Army can and does do . . . especially any time they're losing or don't particualrly like the messages that are being sent back home.

Just like Vietnam.

It's ok though, the Army has it's own office set up to clear any positive blogs the troops would like to make; just nothing negative allowed.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Interesting. Wasn't it just today, on NPR, the military announced that it was going to use YouTube to show -their- version of the war in Iraq. They're tired of the American public only being fed what the new agencies choose to display.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[GQ_jumper 4]

However, I never really understood why soldiers in the field were allowed to do it in the first place, or how they found the time.

I'm just a really fast typer that's how

Funny, I haven't heard shit about this reg, and I'm downrange at the moment. And my NCOIC knows very well that I post regularly on here and have a myspace blog. I don't know how much truth there is to that story. I can understand tightening up on OPSEC, but you don't do that by restricting all communication, you do it by ensuring your soldiers know what is and isn't an OPSEC violation.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Gawain 0]

Quote

However, I never really understood why soldiers in the field were allowed to do it in the first place, or how they found the time.

I'm just a really fast typer that's how

Funny, I haven't heard shit about this reg, and I'm downrange at the moment. And my NCOIC knows very well that I post regularly on here and have a myspace blog. I don't know how much truth there is to that story. I can understand tightening up on OPSEC, but you don't do that by restricting all communication, you do it by ensuring your soldiers know what is and isn't an OPSEC violation.

Yeah sure...you're probably with some SF team that is just over there for a little R&R..

I agree, OPSEC training/info was hammered into us before we left last time. Considering everything going on, I'm not surprised, now, stop blogging and go find my leg will ya??!!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[wmw999 2,589]

My dad was in charge of censorship (along with docking and engineering) on a floating drydock in WW2. This meant reading every letter. I've been kind of surprised at the lack of censorship, too.

He said that the main thing of concern, though, wasn't the information being disclosed. It was the number of runty guys saying they were 6' tall with blue eyes and great builds

Wendy W,

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Guest]

It's about OPSEC; it's not about censoring the troops.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[GQ_jumper 4]

I agree, OPSEC training/info was hammered into us before we left last time. Considering everything going on, I'm not surprised, now, stop blogging and go find my leg will ya??!!

I'll go check the fridge, maybe its behind all the beer in there

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I agree, OPSEC training/info was hammered into us before we left last time. Considering everything going on, I'm not surprised, now, stop blogging and go find my leg will ya??!!

I'll go check the fridge, maybe its behind all the beer in thereDamn. You guys are too much. Hang in there

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I agree, OPSEC training/info was hammered into us before we left last time. Considering everything going on, I'm not surprised, now, stop blogging and go find my leg will ya??!!

I'll go check the fridge, maybe its behind all the beer in there

And with that ladies and gentlemen, notice how he does not dispute my rib about SF R&R...I knew there was a resort in there somewhere...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

New rules. Good or bad? http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers> "The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say."

Maybe they are concerned that the troops will spill the beans on the fairy stories they tell about people like Lynch and Tillman.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

> It's about OPSEC; it's not about censoring the troops.

It is quite literally about censoring the troops. As others have pointed out, the government has the right to do that, per the agreement that soldiers make when they sign up.

It also makes the comment "But our troops believe . . ." pretty meaningless. What you see is only what the military allows you to see. And if they think a negative view of the war will put the troops at risk? Then you will see only positive views, as you did in the Lynch and Tillman stories.

[Andy9o8 2]

...And speaking about the Tillman story:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22292

[Zipp0 1]

Blogs maybe I can understand, but PERSONAL email? When I was over there in GWI, mail was the biggest morale boost. I can only imagine how depressing it would be to have email taken away.

Yet another example of why I left the military.

Instead of forbidding it, why not lay out the rules and punish those who post/send inappropriate content?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Instead of forbidding it, why not lay out the rules and punish those who post/send inappropriate content?

Thats exactly what that regulation does, it lays out rules and guideance. This is typical "the sky is falling" sensationalized journalism pontificating half truths. The article is misleading in it's lack of explaining the whole story.

For those who have been in the military or still are, this is nothing more than the standard OPSEC guideance given out to soldiers. For those soldiers who choose to blog, they must pay particular attention to what they post and the regulation advises them to consulte with their immediate supervisor or OPSEC officer for review. This is for their own benefit, they can post without consulting beforehand but if they post something deemed to be an OPSEC violation then they are clearly in violation and subject to UCMJ.

No where in that regulation does it forbid anyone from blogging or e-mailing or does it advocate censoring of soldiers correspondence. The simple fact that a person logs onto a military/DoD computer or uses a military telephone/fax machine is consent to monitoring. It's plainly displayed on all machines to include the sign on screen on computers. Nothing new, been the standard since before Vietnam.

If anything, Wired has opened itself up to prosecution for posting that regulation on the internet as it clearly states FOUO and distribution restrictions on the cover.


I rack this one up as another BS story designed to stir shit up with those looking for something to point a finger at the Government. Hell, all one has to do is read the damn reg and understand it to figure out that the Wired story is BS. The author either doesn't understand it or does and chose to write it up in an inflamatory way to provoke a reaction aka trolling.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[juanesky 0]

I agree with you, and as far as the original poster's post, it shows how little knowledge he has about the military. "NEW RULES"???

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[ExAFO 0]

I always liked military food, although it did not always make up for the censorship.

Tax free military beer was also a nice thing.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Instead of forbidding it, why not lay out the rules and punish those who post/send inappropriate content?

Quote

There actually is no new rule out, I have no idea what this article is talking about, we were given nothing more than our usual guidance about not posting things that would violate OPSEC on the net. My COC knows damn well that I am on here every day in my free time chattin with you crazy knuckleheads, and they don't care.

And to everyone commenting on my beer supply, HAHA SUCKAS!!!!! But despite the fact that supplies like that are available doesn't mean that I don't work

Work hard play harder

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I agree with you, and as far as the original poster's post, it shows how little knowledge he has about the military. "NEW RULES"???

Yeah. Well I got out in 78 after a short stint. Figuired out how fucked up the military was real quick. Dad did 30 yrs. as a USAF fighter piliot. 300 sorties in Nam. So. I don't know the current regs. You know anything aboubt the NEW UCMJ? Just curious.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[juanesky 0]

The problem is that you started your post with "New Rules". Now everything after that just seem to reflect that you just don't like the military. It reflects some disdain for it. It is not that hard to look up the USMJ online. Not hard at all.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Gawain 0]

Quote

While I personally think it's shitty, it's something the Army can and does do . . . especially any time they're losing or don't particualrly like the messages that are being sent back home.

Just like Vietnam.

It's ok though, the Army has it's own office set up to clear any positive blogs the troops would like to make; just nothing negative allowed.

It's important to point out that there was very little "press regulation" over the coverage of Vietnam...in fact, there is very little press regulation now in Iraq.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Guest]

From the Strategy Page:

May 4, 2007: On April 19th, the U.S. Army pissed off its most articulate troops, and many overworked junior officers, by issuing new regulations that require troops to get an officers permission before they write anything that might violate OPSEC (Operations Security) in a blog, email, BBS posting, and so on. This means thousands of junior officers have yet another job, that of censoring subordinates Internet activity. Troops who post information without first getting it cleared by their OPSEC officer, can be punished. Exactly how much, is unclear, but apparently it could be as bad as a court-martial, depending on whose feathers you ruffle.

The reality is that troops will continue doing what they have long been doing, posting under an alias, and not identifying themselves. They will just do it more frequently. Back in the 1990s, when word got around that the army was filtering all email sent by .mil accounts, troops began to get civilian email accounts, just to be on the safe side. That trend will continue, and much of the same information will get out there, but very little of it from someone who openly admits they are in the army.

The bad guys will have the same access to what the troops are saying on the Internet. The army will be able to hunt down and identify some troops posting stuff via civilian email accounts. Attempts to punish these troops will cause a major "free speech" furor. Everyone, except the journalists and advertising sales people, will be unhappy. Questions will be raised about who came up with this idea, and the answers will prove noteworthy. Maybe even interesting. There might even be tears.

And that's exactly what happened. After about a week, the army rushed out some clarifications. Troops don't have to get every message cleared, but they must "consult" with their commanders about their online activity. This seems to imply some kind of telepathy, but the army made reference to establishing "trust." There still might be tears.

What there will be in a greater implied threat of retribution if troops say something the brass don't like. Note that, when you are in the military, you don't have the same constitutional rights as civilians.
----------------

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."