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."
Lots of info can be extracted from the blogs (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the story I remembered is as follows:
Mr. Smith was sent to battle, and he sent a letter once a week to Mrs. Smith to tell her that he's safe. Mrs. Smith's friend would always asked for the stamps on the letter because she was a stamp collector. It turned out that Mrs. Smith's friend was actually a spy, and was able to use the information from the postage stamp (it's usually stamped with the date & location that it's sent) to track Mr. Smith's troop and killed them.
The point of the story is, soldiers could have unknowingly leaked sensitive military information on the blog.
tool for selective enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, if we like you, say anything you want. If you don't, we're going to dig through every single thing you do when your hands touch a keyboard and find something to hang you with.
This is going to sound like standard old-soldeir grumbling, but
Now it seems like things are going more toward a Soviet model. Absolute obedience, top-down flow of information, shut up and do what you're told every single time; running the entire military like basic training. Well, guess what? Saddam Hussein's vaunted "fourth largest army in the world" was trained and equipped on Soviet lines, and we went through it like a hot knife through butter. Analysis after the end of the Cold War strongly suggests that if the balloon had ever gone up, the same thing would have happened on a grand scale in Europe. Authoritarian armies can win wars (Nazi Germany was just as authoritarian as the USSR, of course, but the German army was surprisingly flexible) but the cost is terrible -- as some German general is supposed to have remarked after the war, "We killed four of theirs for every one of ours they killed, but there was always a fifth Russian." Yeah, you can win wars like that, but (unless you're as bug-fuck insane as Stalin) you don't want to.
Also? Shit like Abu Ghraib flourishes in an atmosphere of secrecy. Now, I'm not going to claim with 100% certainty that there was no abuse of prisoners in Desert Storm; there probably was. I can say that, if it had been widespread and systematized as it clearly is in Iraq, as a medic I would probably have known it was going on. And I never saw anything like that. We took better care of Iraqi prisoners than their own army did, which is one reason so many of them were so quick to surrender. Keeping things open is the best way to ensure that everybody plays by the rules, and that in turn can reduce bitterness after the fighting is over and keep us from having to fight more wars in the future.
I look at those kids over there now, kids like I once was, and it seems to me they have more to fear from their own chain of command than they do from the enemy. That's fucked up.
Re:So how do you know if you're affected? (Score:1, Interesting)
Post 40-50 short messages every day and go to your "immediate supervisor" with a written memo each time you post a comm like "Are you sure?".
After maximum 3-4 days they will issue a general clearance for you, and maybe even the rest of the "company".
Or fire you for wasting time on the net. But then it's not firing AT you anyway, so it's not that dangerous. Or you can just post after working hours, every 10 minutes for the entire evening, and there's no retaliation possible for that act.
Re:Soldier's what can't blog? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:that's OK (Score:3, Interesting)
grunt's gutt feeling is.
Based on the conversations I've had with my friends that are in the military we are screwed.
Re:Absolutely Necessary (Score:4, Interesting)
To Whom it May Concern:
Today we are going to be traveling along road X and going to destination Y around noon. Boy, it is going to be hot. While there, we are going to be picking up an informant. He would be in big trouble if he is found out.
No, that's not the reason for this.
The reason for this is that the Administration is painting a picture of poor abused soldiers being robbed blind by the evil, evil Democrats who want to steal their money and make them stay there without any armor or weapons or food. And these poor, poor soldiers love Iraq and the mission sooooo much that they just never, ever wanna go home. Ever!
Of course, the reality is that these soldiers and national guardsmen are pretty much sick and tired of being there, know just as well as anyone else that the whole affair is a lost cause, and frankly want to go home. NOW. Or rather, months and months ago when their tours SHOULD have been up, but were not due to shady probably-illegal-definately-immoral "stop loss" tricks to keep them there.
You can't have a misinformation or propaganda campaign starring soldiers if you let the soldiers actually talk. See: Tillman, Pat (and coworkers) or Lynch, Jessica. No, you have to silence them all, save a select few you can bully or bribe into towing administration line.
Simply put, this is a measure to shut the soldiers and their families up and keep their true feelings from coming to light, so the Administration can continue to lie about them. Nothing more.
Devious Plan to Censor the Iraq Frontline (Score:1, Interesting)
However, the main reason that the military has suddenly changed its censorship rules is that soldiers in Iraq simply write the truth about Iraqi society. The truth is a bloody, violent civil war. This truth then convinces Congress to pressure the military to leave.
Since the top leaders in the military want it to stay in Iraq, they simply cannot allow bad news to be publicized.
So, the bottom line is that the military has every right to censor, but the reason for doing so at this point in time is actually devious and unethical.
Re:Censorship is normal ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, and what makes this newsworthy is, this has nothing in particular to do with war zones or war-zone operations, or personal correspondence per se. This has to do with overall OPSEC, as the document states (you should read it), as regards any public, written communication by anyone in the Army, at any time, or by civilians who work for the DOD, or by people who work for companies that do business with the Army. Anywhere. At any time. A bit of a difference there.
The real reason for the change (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:that's OK (Score:2, Interesting)
And don't get me wrong, They talk about setbacks and going in on a third tour and having to redo the same mission they did the last time because something failed while they were gone or because the Iraqi soldiers didn't maintain some equipment Or for some reasons the people became too scared to be associated with Americans. It isn't all peaches and cream over there. But they are claiming we are winning and can win if we would stop talking about defeat and pulling out every time someone wants to get their name in the paper back home.
I was told that so far, This is the only parallel they see with Vietnam as of now. But when congress starts limiting funding and troop levels, it will turn into a Vietnam full blown and then these soldiers say they don't want to be there. The difference all lies with people in power back home and how they think they can gain some leverage politically. I would hate to find out we end up turning this into a Vietnam and all the soldiers who have died or are disfigured did it all for nothing except to get some politician elected. Their job is tough enough without having all the pressures put on them buy American politicians trying to armchair their efforts or constantly defeat their efforts by declaring the war lost prematurely. I don't know, I'm too old and crippled to go over or I would. I have lost a best friend as well as family members of other friends and I think it is senseless in what going on right now in Washington. We are going to lose more good people before it is done and over with. I hope none of them are because someone wanted elected.
Not Gonna Work (Score:2, Interesting)
I work for a small IT firm, who resells vsat connections, 99% of our clients are service men, currently deployed to the Middle East... they range from single accounts to 50+ sites...
The guys have full access to the internet, without worrying about the Army saying what they can and can't use it for (VoIP, gaming, webcams, etc...)...
Not to say they are passing classified or sensitive material, but they are using wide open internet connections, where the government can't monitor...