Military Steps Up War On Blogs

An anonymous reader writes "The military's war on blogs, first reported last spring, is picking up. Now the Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read. One senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so 'utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream.'"

Same as letters home

[esocid]

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.

Is that not what they do when soldiers write letters? I thought the military screens, and sometimes redacts parts of letters that reveal information that they don't think should be freely disclosed. But the summary goes a little far. The soldiers aren't limited to what blogs they can read. It simply limits which ones they can register for and/or post info. I would hope this is limited to military personnel and not journalists who are with soldiers.
This does however remind me of that story a while back about soldiers trading pretty grotesque pictures [cnn.com] for access to pr0n sites.

So lets list 'em...

[i.r.id10t]

So lets list our favorites, or good ones, or whatever...

http://michaelyon-online.com/ [michaelyon-online.com] - embedded reporter with no corporate sponsor, etc. Does it all on his own, takes *amazing* photos, and writes well...

Blogs not the UK .mil favourite word

[imipak]

For some reason [drudgereport.com], the word "blog" is not terribly popular [bbc.co.uk] around the Department of Defence in London tonight...

Incidentally, you might not have noticed it amongst all the great News happening around us, but oil is back knocking on the door [google.com] of the all-time record high (yes, adjusted for inflation) set in April 1980. Strange the way timings go, isn't it.

For The Military Inevitably Blocked (It's a blog!)

[rehtonAesoohC]

The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address. It's the latest move in a larger struggle within the military over the value -- and hazards -- of the sites. At least one senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so "utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream."

Until recently, each major command of the Air Force had some control over what sites their troops could visit, the Air Force Times reports. Then the Air Force Network Operations Center, under the service's new "Cyber Command," took over.

AFNOC has imposed bans on all sites with "blog" in their URLs, thus cutting off any sites hosted by Blogspot. Other blogs, and sites in general, are blocked based on content reviews performed at the base, command and AFNOC level ...

The idea isn't to keep airmen in the dark -- they can still access news sources that are "primary, official-use sources," said Maj. Henry Schott, A5 for Air Force Network Operations. "Basically ... if it's a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it's fairly cut and dry that that's a good source, an authorized source," he said ...

AFNOC blocks sites by using Blue Coat software, which categorizes sites based on their content and allows users to block sub-categories as they choose.

"Often, we block first and then review exceptions," said Tech. Sgt. Christopher DeWitt, a Cyber Command spokesman.

As a result, airmen posting online have cited instances of seemingly innocuous sites -- such as educational databases and some work-related sites -- getting wrapped up in broad proxy filters.

"A couple of years back, I fought this issue concerning the Counterterrorism Blog," one Air Force officer tells Danger Room. "An AF [Air Force] professional education course website recommended it as a great source for daily worldwide CT [counterterrorism] news. However it had been banned, because it called itself a blog. And as we all know, all blogs are bad!"

He's joking, of course. But blogs and social networking sites have faced all sorts of restrictions on military networks, for all sorts of reasons. MySpace and YouTube are officially banned, for eating up too much bandwidth. Stringent regulations, read literally, require Army officers to review each and every item one of his soldiers puts online, in case they leak secrets. And in televised commercials, screensavers and fliers, troops are told that blogging is a major security risk -- even though official sites have proven to leak many, many more secrets. Now there's the Air Force's argument, that blogs aren't legitimate media outlets -- and therefore, shouldn't be read at work.

But this view isn't universally held in the military. Many believe blogs to be a valuable source of information -- and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, at home and abroad. Gen. David Petraeus, who heads the U.S. effort in Iraq, has commended military bloggers. Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, who replaced Petraeus as the head of the Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, recently wrote (in a blog post, no less) that soldiers should be encouraged to "get onto blogs and [s]end their YouTube videos to their friends and family."

Within the Air Force, there's also a strong contingent that wants to see open access to the sites -- and is mortified by the AFNOC's restrictions. "When I hear stuff this utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream.... Piles of torn out hair are accumulating around my desk as we speak," one senior Air Force official writes in an e-mail. "I'm certain that by blocking blogs for official use, our airmen will never, ever be able to read them on their own home computers, so we have indeed saved them from a contaminating influence. Sorry, didn't mean to drip sarcasm on your rug."

One of the blogs banned is

RTFA

[xstonedogx]

How is it that the summary goes a little far by directly quoting the article? Unless the article is completely wrong, this is about limiting which blogs can be read.

Re:When's the next speech

[milsoRgen]

after we defeat all the blogs?

Granted all of us here on /. can probably agree what constitutes a blog. However if you look at the strict definition, Dictionary.com: A weblog. (Weblog: "A website that displays in chronological order the postings by one or more individuals and usually has links to comments on specific postings.")

By that definition wouldn't they have to block news.google.com and news.yahoo.com among a multitude of others?

Re:It's a training issue; not a free speech issue?

[console0]

How many hundreds of hours of training do warfighters get on the operation and maintenance of their M16 rifle?

If we are talking about the Air Force here, about two. And I don't mean two hundred.

Re:China?

[notamisfit]

Actually, yes, they were instructed on what rights they were giving up, given a valid enlistment contract to sign, and then swore an oath in the presence of a commissioned officer that they were performing such actions.

Another misleading summary...

[Nukenbar]

This limit is not on what blogs a soldier can read, but on which ones the soldier can post. They don't care what information is coming into the soldier, they just don't want a solider inadvertently leaking classified info..

Re:Freedom has responsibilities.

[pembo13]

Well, from what I have heard (and I would like to emphasize this is just what I heard) quite a large number of recruits only join for lack of any other viable options in life. Also, it is a fast track road to citizenship. It isn't what I would generally consider "willingly".

Re:Another misleading summary...

[RoboRay]

You are absolutely incorrect. I am currently deployed in Iraq and using an Air Force network for internet access.

ALL blogs are blocked from viewing by the net-nanny software the Air Force has deployed. I mean, EVERYTHING, including anything with "blog" in the URL or title like some of the regular columns on BBC and other major news websites.

The Air Force is highly discriminatory about what information is accessible to deployed troops. I'm just amazed they haven't blocked /. I guess the techies running the network want to read it, too.

Re:Freedom has responsibilities.

[idontgno]

Whose military?

The U. S. military?

Wrong. Since you use the phrase "join" you mean "enlist". (The officer equivalent of join is "be commissioned" or "be appointed".)

Quoting DoD Directive 1304.26, "Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment,and Induction": [dtic.mil]

E1.2.2. Citizenship

E1.2.2.1. To be eligible for enlistment in the Regular
Army or Air Force, an individual must be an American
citizen, or lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence (10 U.S.C., 3253 and 8253, reference
(a)). There is no equivalent statute limiting enlistment
in the Regular Navy and Marine Corps, but they usually
apply the same citizenship requirements as those required
for the Army and Air Force.

E1.2.2.2. To be eligible for enlistment in the Reserve
components, an individual must be a citizen of the United
States or lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence (10 U.S.C., 510, reference (a)).

E1.2.2.3. To be eligible for appointment as a commissioned
or warrant officer, U.S. citizenship is required except
for Reserve appointment where an individual must be
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence (Sections 532 and 591 of reference (a)).
For regular appointment, when tendered, U.S. citizenship
is required. Law requires National Guard officers
to be U.S. citizens (32 U.S.C., 313, reference (c)).

E1.2.2.4. Citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia
or the Republic of the Marshall Islands also are eligible
for enlistment in the Active and Reserve components.
(See the Compact of Free Association (reference (d)).)

Note the phrase "lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence". That's a Green Card.

Now, don't expect to get any kind of clearance unless you're a citizen, so expect some real limits to the specialties you can be assigned to. But "join"? Absolutely.

As a member of the army...

[markass530]

Let me clarify this. This ONLY Applies to networks and computers you use at work.... You only use these when you are at work.. if you are not using these for work it is to kill time, and there are a MILLION ways to kill time on the internet, that the censors have not gotten around to blocking, so this is not really a big issue. If you want to read something, read it when you get home.

What they failed to mention...

[LagMasterSam]

The article failed to mention that this would only apply to computers connected to Air Force owned and operated networks. It's not any different than a company you work for blocking access to blogs on official work computers. The article made it sound like they were trying censor ALL Internet activity...

The Article: "The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read..."

The Truth: "The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read while at work..."

Re:When's the next speech

[Anonymous Coward]

USAF here, any opinions expressed are expressly my own.

at our base, slashdot, wikipedia, any social networking/video site, anything with http://blog/ [blog] was blocked (all those online newspapers with beat writers weren't readable. penny-arcade, anything with the word game in it (for the most part). people shoved flash games in .xls files and emailed them around, but you couldn't use proxies, since the comm squad can see every open page on every computer (and to log on, you use a card that identifies the user), and logs it.

they eased up a little now (counterterrorism blog works, all of slashdot except the games section, penny arcade, wikipedia, newspaper affiliated blogs) after i sent in a help desk ticket asking why i couldn't read slashdot (doubt it's my fault they changed that, i'm sure others complained too).

anyways, when i worked corporate it, that thing was filtered FAR FAR FAR worse than this place is right now (but not quite as bad as it used to be, which was ridiculous).