Soldiers Can't Blog Without Approval 358
denebian devil writes "Wired.com has obtained a copy of updated US Army rules (pdf) that force soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages without first clearing the content with a superior officer. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything — from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home. Under the strictest reading of the rule, a soldier must check with his or her superior officer before every blog entry posted and every email sent, though the method of enforcing these regulations is subject to choices made by the unit commanders. According to Wired, active-duty troops aren't the only ones affected by the new guidelines. Civilians working for the military, Army contractors — even soldiers' families — are all subject to the directive as well, though many of the people affected by these new regulations can't even access them because they are being kept on the military's restricted Army Knowledge Online intranet. Wired also interviewed Major Ray Ceralde, author of the new regulations, about why this change has been made."
that's OK (Score:1, Insightful)
This is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn straight! (Score:5, Insightful)
Soldiers are much like prisoners, they have some freedoms, but at the end of the day you're on someone else's time and in a place and they make all the rules, both good and bad. If you sign up (or get sent there) you play by the rules ment to keep everyone safe.
Think worst case - this is military CYA (Score:1, Insightful)
So, in typical bureaucratic fashion, they effectively outlaw the practice.
And it's not just the US Army that does this. This is no different than some large corporation setting a policy that you can't load personal software on company computers, or schools putting in censoring tools.
It's CYA in case something goes wrong - the top management can then point to a rule they made.
This just in:National Security requires just that (Score:1, Insightful)
If you don't like it, pretend to be crazy, gay, or commit a crime, and get out. THEN write your book.
SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
Military censorship of all troops' correspondence is not exactly new.
Re:that's OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple that with reviewing all of a soldier's private emails, you may as well just ban soldiers from use of the internet altogether.
No big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
-Peter
Makes sense, doesn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Loose lips and all that.
Of course this will be used to keep them from telling any news of events that don't run so lovely to keep the spirit on the "home front" up. I doubt, though, that this is the main concern. Those news get out, this way or another, because some of those soldiers will and do come home, and there ain't much that could keep them from talking.
Re:This won't last long (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This won't last long (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This just in:National Security requires just th (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tired of this (Score:1, Insightful)
Man, I hate how we're overrun with all these language princesss that think they're better than everyone else.
Re:that's OK (Score:2, Insightful)
This gives the command the authority to enforce certain necessary restrictions. It's highly unlikely that any commander will feel his/her troops have the time or inclination to enforce this rule to the full extent, and even more unlikely that a commander would bother. This will be reserved for trouble makers or people who can't keep their mouths shut (which was already against the UCMJ) nothing more.
Common Sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Far too easy to give away something that could compromise the security of a unit or a mission -- even if unintentionally. Taking this sort of precaution just makes common sense. The military is likely far more concerned with this type of a scenario than some soldier giving away some horrible conspiracy that everyone in the military is in on (in most part because these types of things would be impossible to hide and if they do come out are fringe exceptions rather than the rule). Most of the blogs out there from troops are of a personal nature or in fact shed light on the fact that things are really not going as badly as is portrayed in our media here.
However, as someone else mentioned, it's probably not going to be too realistic to enforce in the long run.
Re:Damn straight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sgt. Joe sends his weekly email home to his family. The email includes a link to a National Geographic picture of the Bay of Yemen, and his email says "This is where Daddy is going to be next week."
A week later, the USS Cole gets bombed.*
This impacts (and endangers) not only Sgt. Joe, but everyone else on board that vessel, potentially even everyone deployed to the Bay of Yemen.
The danger here isn't so much that soldiers are going to intentionally give away highly secretive intel, but that they will do so ACCIDENTLY, without meaning to. Most leaks, far and away, are accidents. And that's why the situation requires additional vigilance... because if someone is careless, they endanger not only themselves, but everyone in their battalion/vessel/operation/region/etc.
As someone else put it, loose lips sink ships. The military isn't that proactive about such things... we're only seeing the new regulations because this has already become a serious problem.
(* I'm not asserting that this is what actually happened. It's my own handwaving fiction to construct an example that gets the point across.)
Re:bad news for the soldiers (Score:3, Insightful)
A large part of opsec in Afghanistan is changing routes, not following set patterns, etc. It's making it a *lot* harder for Taliban forces to plant IEDs with any guarantee of actually hitting us with them.
As to posting information after the fact... again. Patterns. We try to avoid patterns in Afghanistan, but any information that gets leaked about our movements can help the enemy figure out what we're doing, which in turn can help them figure out where we're gonna be. Your friend can deal with combat stress reaction the same way other members of the army do... by talking amongst each other. Watch out for your buddies. Your best defense against stress reactions is your buddies. Them knowing the symptoms and watching out for you can catch it *long* before the symptoms affect your performance. There's no way to know who's going to be able to deal with combat stress until you actually expose people to it, and that's why it's included in standard military first aid training.
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm in the Canadian army reserve. Our rules are a little different from the American rules... to begin with, we've had rules restricting what members are allowed to post on the Internet for as long as I've been in....
Did you even RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
No! You cannot apply the freedoms to the military that you do to the general public. Period. They're in a different league all together. The fact that you can't see that is very disconcerting.
And - damn it! - get rid of the damned Slashdot template of trying to turn this into a political issue by bringing "incumbent party" into it! I read TFA and there is NOTHING in there about politics, so stop trying to inject your own! This is absolutely nothing new and is not uncommon during a time of war.
From TFA:
If fact, if you had bothered to read TFA, which you obviously did not, the one blogger that they specifcally mentioned is a "pro-victory" blogger, hardly someone who goes against the current administration. Having read a bit of his blog, it is clear to me that he supports the idea of victory in Iraq, which IS the view of the political party that is in the White House! So, if anything this article demonstrates how this action goes against the views that are supported by the incumbent, political party! So, your little quip attempting to place blame on discouraging "them from espousing political opinions that are are disliked by the incumbent political party" is just an attempt for you to throw politics into this.
Keep your baseless attempts to make everything political out of Slashdot and move them over to Digg where they belong.
Re:Speaking as an Army employee (Score:2, Insightful)
Picture it: The first Gulf War.
Remember when CNN was there, with cameras transmitting from a Navy Seals landing site in Kuwait as the soldiers crawled out of the water, looking around at the cameras being shoved in the their faces, deer-in-the-headlights look in their eyes.
CNN and other news sites should be censored. The soldiers know what'll happen to them if they talk. Wolf Blitzer didn't give a crap.
Re:Absolutely Necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as an Army employee (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can't really say what the Army teaches, as I never wore a green uniform. All of the OPSEC training I've ever sat through was much more concerned with, as you said later, patrol times & the like. (In my case, port call dates, fuel stops, etc.) And since it's a matter of public record where ships are homeported, it's the simple matter of looking at the big numbers on the side & going to the internet to find out where the USN/USMC/USCG guys you're looking at came from. So there wasn't ever any mention of "don't say where you're from", with the exception of the obvious "don't put your address/telephone on the internet."
Will there be more attacks in the US? Most likely. Will they be going after military family members? Exceptionally unlikely. I'd be more concerned with house burglary... or, hell, lightning strike starting a fire.
Re:Soldier's what can't blog? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps by the simple expedient of educating them that breaking OPSEC can kill. Which is the whole point of the exercise, despite the deranged ravings already showing up on
Plus if the carrot doesn't work there IS the stick which an AC has already posted about in another reply to your post.
BUt really, just what is the big freaking deal here people? What is NEW? The military has ALWAYS been paranoid about secrecy during wartime, or has everyone forgotten all those over the top posters from WWII? But I think I know what really has most of
Ok, that was flamebait but dammit some of you loons make it all too easy.
Re:For the record... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That's what software is for. We know they're listening to every phone conversation using speech recognition; it is even easier to read every email. You don't live in the condition of privacy you seem to think you do. Soldiers, probably less so.
Re:what soldiers? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you hate free speech so much, leave. Go to some non NATO country.
EVERYONE in the military can see these new rules (Score:2, Insightful)