Military censorship

[GQ_jumper 4]

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.

Quote

Once again the article is blowing this whole thing out of proportion. In the very beginning of the article it says troops have to consult their COC when they are going to post anything that could violate OPSEC. All that means is if you mention upcoming operations you have to consult higher. And no one should be mentioning upcoming ops anyways. It could also pertain to posting about TTP's and SOP's but once again, o one has any buisness posting about either of those and if they do then they should get the book thrown at them.

I don't even know why this is an issue.

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

• Quote

[BikerBabe 0]

Heh, i see a very obvious "opinion line" here from folks who have been/are in the military (or worked with them in any capacity) and those who have not.

Just re-read LouDiamond's post. he is exactly right on the money. If you ever used a DoD computer in your entire life, you would know that this reg is nothing new, nor is it "censoring" the troops..at least any more than is already done.

OPSEC is drilled into you over and over. Even stuff that isn't classified can be pieced together by the enemy to outline very detailed information.

There's no issue here. Well, there's one. it's that the article is blatantly trying to stir up anti-military (or anti-war, whichever) feelings over something completely non-newsworthy. I personally don't agree with being over there, but this one is just stupid.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[GQ_jumper 4]

There's no issue here. Well, there's one. it's that the article is blatantly trying to stir up anti-military (or anti-war, whichever) feelings over something completely non-newsworthy. I personally don't agree with being over there, but this one is just stupid.

Quote

Bingo, you hit it dead on. there is no issue and there is no additional censoring of our outgoing emails. People are getting up in arms about nothing.

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

• Quote