Monday, May 14, 2007 5:19 AM
This is totally friggin’ retarded… I don’t get it. Can we crush the morale any further or what? Let’s surrender already. Will that make everyone a little more happier? Friggin’ morons.
Verbatim: (with some commentary…bold print and highlights)
Defense Department Blocks Some Web Sites
Monday, May 14, 2007
Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday.
The Defense Department will begin blocking access “worldwide” to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular Web sites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department’s networks, according to Bell. (horse-hockeys!)
“This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge,” the memo said. (don’t like the criticisms morons?)
The armed services have long barred members of the military from sharing information that could jeopardize their missions or safety, whether electronically or by other means.
The new policy is different because it creates a blanket ban on several sites used by military personnel to exchange messages, pictures, video and audio with family and friends. (ya…can’t have any GOOD news coming out, can we?)
Members of the military can still access the sites on their own computers and networks, but Defense Department computers and networks are the only ones available to many soldiers and sailors in Iraq and Afghanistan. (selective security, skippy?)
Iraqi insurgents or their supporters have been posting videos on YouTube at least since last fall. The Army recently began posting videos on YouTube showing soldiers defeating insurgents and befriending Iraqis.
But the new rules mean many military personnel won’t be able to watch those achievements _ at least not on military computers.
If the restrictions are intended to prevent soldiers from giving or receiving bad news, they could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field, said Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine.
“This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets,” he said. “And they are muzzling their best voices.”
The sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos, and FileCabi, the social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5, music sites Pandora, MTV, and 1.fm, and live365, and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.
Several companies have instituted similar bans, saying recreational sites drain productivity.
Army memo: (morons)
Friday, May 04, 2007 3:38 PM
Senators Coleman, DeMint and Coburn have written to Secretary Gates asking for reconsideration to the Army’s counterproductive stand on milblogs.
Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:55 PM
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 3:27 PM
The Army has issued the following clarification, which makes it sound like the new new policy is the old policy. Fine by me:
Army Operations Security: Soldier Blogging Unchanged
o America’s Army respects every Soldier’s First Amendment rights while also adhering to Operations Security (OPSEC) considerations to ensure their safety on the battlefield.
o Soldiers and Army family members agree that safety of our Soldiers are of utmost importance.
o Soldiers, Civilians, contractors and Family Members all play an integral role in maintaining Operations Security, just as in previous wars.
* In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and Operations Security (OPSEC) officer. After receiving guidance and awareness training from the appointed OPSEC officer, that Soldier blogger is entrusted to practice OPSEC when posting in a public forum.
* Army Regulation 350-1, “Operations Security,” was updated April 17, 2007 – but the wording and policies on blogging remain the same from the July 2005 guidance first put out by the U.S. Army in Iraq for battlefield blogging. Since not every post/update in a public forum can be monitored, this regulation places trust in the Soldier, Civilian Employee, Family Member and contractor that they will use proper judgment to ensure OPSEC.
o Much of the information contained in the 2007 version of AR 530-1 already was included in the 2005 version of AR 530-1. For example, Soldiers have been required since 2005 to report to their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer about their wishes to publish
military-related content in public forums.
o Army Regulation 530-1 simply lays out measures to help ensure operations security issues are not published in public forums (i.e., blogs) by Army personnel.
* Soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal E-mails. Personal E-mails are considered private communication. However, AR 530-1 does mention if someone later posts an E-mail in a public forum containing information sensitive to OPSEC considerations, an issue may then arise.
* Soldiers may also have a blog without needing to consult with their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer if the following conditions are met:
1. The blog’s topic is not military-related (i.e., Sgt. Doe publishes a blog about his favorite basketball team).
2. The Soldier doesn’t represent or act on behalf of the Army in any way.
3. The Soldier doesn’t use government equipment when on his or her personal blog.
* Army Family Members are not mandated by commanders to practice OPSEC. Commanders cannot order military Family Members to adhere to OPSEC. AR 530-1 simply says Family Members need to be aware of OPSEC to help safeguard potentially critical and sensitive information. This helps to ensure Soldiers’ safety, technologies and present and future operations will not be compromised.
* Just as in 2005 and 2006, a Soldier should inform his or her OPSEC officer and immediate supervisor when establishing a blog for two primary reasons:
1. To provide the command situational awareness.
2. To allow the OPSEC officer an opportunity to explain to the Soldier matters to be aware of when posting military-related content in a public, global forum.
* A Soldier who already has a military-related blog that has not yet consulted with his or her immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer should do so.
* Commands have the authority to enact local regulations in addition to what AR 530-1 stipulates on this topic.
|chris writes:||Thursday, May, 03, 2007 4:23 PM|
|I hope this is a return to status quo. One of the few avenues to understanding Iraq as part of a war is the milblog world.
An area of security that merits some policing is the use of servicemen’s names and personal info like hometown and family member details. The writer should treat the message as available to foe as well as friend.
|Snooper writes:||Thursday, May, 03, 2007 4:49 PM|
|Glad they cleared that up!
I guess the bazilion emails, letters, postcards and calls that swamped the 5-sided “complex” was overwhelming.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:58 AM
Where do we get these people? And why does John Kerry come off calling them “dumb”?
This is a MUST read!!
It is a long article but very much worth the time…if it bothers the Moonbats, it is OK fine in my book!!
“…This is why the Gathering of the Eagles is so important. These people only THINK they’re supporting the troops. If you want our country out of the war in Iraq, say so and leave it at that. Don’t do it “for the troops”, especially if that’s the ONLY thing you’re “doing for the troops”. Just do it because those are your beliefs and values. You don’t speak for me. But, anytime Code Pink or ANSWER or Out of Iraq Now! wants to bring me boxes of goodies to mail to our troops, I’ll accept them (after inspecting the packages for arsenic, anthrax, explosive materials, and needles in chocolate). And they’ll have gained a little of my respect.”