Army restricts access to The Guardian in the wake of NSA leaks

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/army-restricts-access-to-the-guardian-in-the-wake-of-nsa-leaks/

by shawndumas • 13 years ago

170 91 13 years ago

aylons• 13 years ago

While reading this, I could not stop thinking about an ostrich burying its head.

justinschuh6• 13 years ago

Then read the original article linked in the first paragraph. It's not that they're trying to pretend the documents weren't leaked. It's that systems are all classified to handle information at a given level, and if you find e.g. TS/SCI information on an FOUO system, then you have to investigate it and take corrective action (which often means wiping or even reclassifying the system). So, rather than deal with a huge mess of pointless investigations of classification violations, they're just trying to keep the data entirely off their systems.

ouiea• 13 years ago

Can somebody explain me: How's that not censorship?

marbletiles• 13 years ago

The Guardian can still publish, is why.

The government telling people in its employ that they can't read the publication is a different matter from the government telling people they're not allowed to publish.

PavlovsCat3• 13 years ago

It's not even like the soldiers aren't allowed to read it, say, in an internet cafe, right?

It might be a bit petty and bureaucratic, but hey, considering the Streisand effect I say go for it... it's bound to make a few people check it out that weren't interested before, and I doubt it will keep anyone from reading what they were interested in already.

andreasklinger2• 13 years ago

Excuse me but...

Isn't With the same argument chinese internet firewalls are "not censorship". OR With the same argument access to social media or telephone "not censorship".

jedbrown2• 13 years ago

The statement isn't so much that employees can't read the news source, but that government computers/network/etc must only interact with classified information via proper mechanisms. I work at a DOE lab and they requested that we not view any such material while at the lab or on lab machines because the operator could receive large fines for mismanagement of classified information, but we're free to read whatever we want when off-site on our own hardware.

josephlord• 13 years ago

The government employs millions of people (I haven't checked the figure). What if they told all those people they couldn't read the NYTimes or a whole range of publications?

Those employees are voters too and have a right (and possibly a democratic duty) to be informed. No employment contract should ever restrict your ability to remain properly informed.

coldcode• 13 years ago

If secret information winds up on a computer you have to file a bunch of paperwork and have the computer either scrubbed or converted to only accessing secrets. So despite the leaked information being in the public record they still treat it as secret information. Yes it's stupid but those are the rules. By not allowing access to the newspaper site containing the "secrets" they can avoid these issues.

Why a secret leaked to the public and available to all is still treated as a secret is confusing.

JulianMorrison• 13 years ago

Post "secrets" in so many places they have to turn their internet off :-D

merlincorey2• 13 years ago

Because all secrets are assigned codes and, I believe, names and registered through a central secrets database coordinated through all services. Someone has to close the ticket, first, and there may be outstanding issues.

justinschuh6• 13 years ago

Why a secret leaked to the public and available to all is still treated as a secret is confusing.

This is standard OpSec. You neither confirm nor deny the leak because it's entirely possible that the information itself is a plant designed to draw out responses that leak more information.

merlincorey2• 13 years ago

According to someone from NETCOM, it's because the leaks are still classified. Therefore, unclassified networks within the army must block the leaks in order to maintain their operational goals of no classified information on those wires. They have separate classified networks, which surely allow it.

There's an old saying... There's the right way to do something, and then there's the Army way.

    The Department of Defense routinely takes preventative “network hygiene” measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information onto DoD unclassified networks.

    We make every effort to balance the need to preserve information access with operational security, however there are strict policies and directives in place regarding protecting and handling classified information. Until declassified by appropriate officials, classified information—including information released through an unauthorized disclosure—must be treated accordingly by DoD personnel.

dendory• 13 years ago

Mark my words, if this keeps going we'll soon see ISPs ordered to block some foreign media sites, and see news sites becoming regulated. You know, just to make sure no one credible publishes leaks anymore, for national security and so on.

andreasklinger2• 13 years ago

The saddest thing about it is that they do not even need to explain it anymore. People just assume that it's a thing the government can/will do.

Maybe we need to repeat our errors every 3-4 generations to keep them in our society's consciousness.

agravier• 13 years ago

Maybe we need to repeat our errors every 3-4 generations to keep them in our society's consciousness.

I think that history shows that this is probably closer to the truth than you meant it to be.

sailfast• 13 years ago

This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with people keeping their clearances. Viewing classified information in any form even after publication is not allowed. The policy may be misguided because duplication of the content occurs regardless on the web, but the original intent of the policy was to prevent further damage.

chris_mahan3• 13 years ago

But wait, if clearances restrict your access to information, then they are not clearances, but restrictors.

nemof• 13 years ago

tweet from Spencer Ackerman

'DOD wants me to know it's not deciding to block the Guardian's website, its automatic classification content filters are. So there's that.'

https://twitter.com/attackerman/status/350597454627995648

jonknee• 13 years ago

The "automatic classification content filters" that can't prevent classified material from getting out, but can prevent it from getting in. What a useless idea.

effbott• 13 years ago

And by "automatic classification content filter" they mean "someone manually added the Guardian to a blacklist".

tommi• 13 years ago

"It's not us, it's the machine that we operate".

AYBABTME2• 13 years ago

The reason for that is that classified information doesn't magically become unclassified when it is leaked. It keeps it's classification until it is formally declassified.

This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense.

shawndumas• 13 years ago

that would require confirming said information was a leak.

pyre3• 13 years ago

If none of this information was really a leak of actual classified information, then there would be no reason to block the Guardian. Blocking The Guardian implicitly confirms that some of the information that they are released really is classified information.

gngeal• 13 years ago

the US Army was restricting access to the UK version of The Guardian's website

So you're saying that because it's classified information, trusted Americans (the soldiers) are going to be prevented access but the rest of the world will be able to read it freely. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

AYBABTME2• 13 years ago

I'm not saying it make sense.

I was serving in Afgh when the Afghan Warlog were leaked, and we were told not to read the released leaks because that would constitute a breach of our 'NDA' or whatever that document we all signed that hold us responsible for proper handling of classified documents.

"Reading" enters their definition of "handling". You can't consume classified info for which you don't have the required security clearance.

ethomson• 13 years ago

Except that they are - by definition - not trusted; they lack security clearance. Just because other people who lack security clearance have some classified documents doesn't mean that we should give it to everybody.

sneak• 13 years ago

Your accurate assertion in the first paragraph does not support your claim in the second.

It's still censorship. It's just censorship with a "reasonable" explanation.

chris_mahan3• 13 years ago

Oooh, it has everything to do with censorship.

ramblerman• 13 years ago

"it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense."

Without context it sounds like that phrase describes religious fundamentalists.

mtgx• 13 years ago

I think Mike Masnick explained it pretty well why this is a pointless and stupid exercise:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defen...

vidarh4• 13 years ago

He misses the point entirely.

As much as I believe governments over-classify massively, and look on most leeks with glee:

Consider that if an audit reveals any documents believed to be classified on an unclassified Army network, they need to deal with it.

That the documents have leaked is relatively immaterial - presumably a lot of auditing is done automatically, and adding exceptions is a lot riskier than simply blanket blocking anything that contains indications that it's marked classified, secret or similar. Even with manual audits, you don't want to give the people doing the audits too much freedom in accepting documents they think have been publicly disseminated, or the extra workload of trying to assess what info is ok.

Even IF all the documents found have already been published, they'd for security reasons still want to track down how the documents ended up on the unclassified network in case the route was via another leak that potentially might have more documents. Or it might even indicate the source of the leaks.

In other words, it's easier and safer for them to just assume that if a document is marked classified in any way, it shouldn't ever be found on unclassified networks - then they don't have to deal with the mess of trying to ensure it's an indication of a security problem.

drcube• 13 years ago

So despite being broadcast around the world for the last few weeks, this information is still considered "secret"??

I would assume any information that is published by a news organization on the world wide web is no longer considered classified. How could it be, without resorting to absurdist policy gymnastics?

Oh, I see, the smart people in military "intelligence" chose absurdity instead.

fogus6• 13 years ago

You have to understand that it being released does not change its status. People with security clearances are supposed to do the "right thing" by the terms of their clearance and not read material that they're not cleared to read, regardless if it's leaked or not.

muyuu• 13 years ago

The USA regime is becoming more and more like China regarding civil liberties, instead of the other way around.

wahnfrieden• 13 years ago

Soldiers have different rights than regular civilians. Don't conflate issues reductively.

chasb• 13 years ago

DoD has been blocking The Guardian for some time now. This is not in response to the NSA leaks.

VMG• 13 years ago

Relevant: http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html...

[...] So everyone in the UK MoD could no longer read what was on WikiLeaks. Problem solved! [...]

wahlis• 13 years ago

Military intelligence?

mpyne2• 13 years ago

I have a secret for all of you not using DoD networks... like any large organization, the military blocks websites all the time. Most for being completely unrelated to doing work or for being completely wasteful of scarce bandwidth in places like Afghanistan (e.g., HD video sites).

It also costs a lot of taxpayer dollars to scrub a machine of classified data when there ends up being spillage, better to avert that problem entirely.

ryanmarsh7• 13 years ago

Please allow me to clarify a few common misperceptions.

#1 When you volunteer to be a soldier you voluntarily waive your rights to free speech in a few specific ways. You may not speak out against the Commander in Chief, you may not be a part of "extremist" political groups (extremist is defined as what your command says it is), you may not participate in many types of demonstrations. You can of course vote however you please.

#2 You are explicitly ordered not to obey unlawful orders and there is a process in place for refusing to follow an unlawful order. If you refuse to follow what you believe to be an unlawful order then you had better hope you are right because if you just feel you are right by the UCMJ and you are in fact not then your life will become miserable.

#3 Being in the military is a day job that bleeds over into many other areas of your life, the computer systems at work contain lots of sensitive information, things that you might find mundane. If you are deployed you may find it convenient to use a computer on NIPR in the TOC for personal use. Use that gov't hardware wrong and you can get in deep doo-doo. As a soldier I'd be happy to know they're helping me not do things on their hardware that would get me in trouble.

#4 Each soldier signs agreements to follow the rules around classified information, including not reading documents they do not have clearance to read.

#5 Being a good soldier requires shouldering an immense amount of responsibility without the frivolity of youthful indignation. In combat arms especially attitude and indignation get people killed. Indignation is reserved for private citizens, so use it on their behalf but don't expect them to rise up in defense of themselves.

#6 If a soldier is truly being wronged he or she knows they can go to IG, and if IG isn't working out they can write a letter to a congressperson and things will actually happen.

#7 If you think the way the military works is ridiculous, I understand, but don't assume that you know better. The military exists to kill people and break things not further social agendas (right or wrong). Most rules and regulations are written in blood, meaning someone had to die or get hurt, or some major loss of expensive or sensitive hardware happened to create that rule which you are ordered to follow.

#8 Most of your comments sound ridiculous to me (as a soldier), it's a different world with a different set of "BIG PROBLEMS" to deal with and you really don't understand it.

look_lookatme• 13 years ago

Thanks for this. When I'm around military people and conversations like this come up, often there is an attitude of "you couldn't understand, civilian" (not unlike your #8), and the truth is I don't.

Soldiers have had their mindset irreparably altered and they tend to ally with the institution, even if they don't agree with it - even when their free of it. They have given up most any control they have over themselves or their situation and it pervades their worldview. There are good reasons for this and it makes sense that anything that could possibly chip away at that foundation should be tightly controlled.

ryanmarsh7• 13 years ago

"Soldiers have had their mindset irreparably altered and they tend to ally with the institution"

When you've had your life in jeopardy for long periods of time, when you've seen humanity reduced to it's most primal state, when you've lived in a third world country amongst people who couldn't fathom a lifestyle that those in "poverty" in America enjoy, when you've been responsible for millions of dollars of vital hardware, when you've been indoctrinated to live with honor and integrity and been punished harshly for not doing so, when you've been responsible for the lives of other people, when you've saved lives, and had lives given for you... it sort of changes your perspective. Honestly, it makes the day-to-day things that people get upset about in this wealthy western bubble seem so completely f*ing vapid. Because of this I have a very hard time getting along with many people in the work environment. I see so much pettiness, or "fighting over crumbs" as I like to call it. Other combat veterans understand.

Quite frankly I can't even be frank about a problem, address a problem at work, or be focused on getting the work done because most people just want to sit around and talk about how they feel about it until it feels like the problem is gone. People get offended when I'm frank about things that are mediocre or ineffective. It's nuts to me.

Forgive me for the little PTSD rant.

negativity3• 13 years ago

    #5 [...] Indignation is reserved for private citizens, so use it on their behalf but don't expect them to rise up in defense of themselves.

Can you elaborate on that? In particular, the "use it on their behalf" and "to rise up in defense of themselves" parts.

...and...

    #7 [...] don't assume that you know better [...] Most rules and regulations are written in blood [...] someone had to die or [...] some major loss of expensive or sensitive hardware [...]

The excerpts I've pointed out in #7 represent a very serious philosophical grey area. Considering that some militaries around the world harness the power to use nuclear weapons to which can destroy entire cities full of people, there is a very broad scope of the definitions which can encompass the word "hardware" in this context.

Weighing the difference between the value of inanimate objects and the value of human lives isn't easily quantifiable, but in the military sense the leap is literally made from an ambiguous grey to starkly contrasted blacks and whites. But we're entering into times and places now, where we rely on these inanimate objects to animate themselves according to (sometimes imperfect) artifacts created by people well-removed from the circumstances of a conflict.

In my humble opinion, given the bizarre abstractions that many highly advanced technologies introduce into all spheres of human behavior and activity, and the rapid pace of continued advancement that has transformed how human beings inter-operate in coordinated behavior throughout the world, it feels incredibly dangerous to me, that not just military personnel, but the world at large is disinformed of precisely how decisions to kill and destroy are even made anymore.

Consider that civilian web traffic is being used to indict and adjudicate killing decisions around the world, which would be considered extra-judicial death sentences in the civilian sphere. Consider that the analysis of such web traffic relies on machine learning and algorithms. Consider that even the people that design the machines that govern civilian web traffic can't even instruct each-other on how to exert explicit willful control over these devices, such that no one person can honestly claim that they have total control over a given device resting in the hands of a casual civilian. Consider that we have invasive software designed to sabotage industrial systems, that have accidentally leaked into civilian infrastructure. Consider that no less than a former general and director of the CIA (which advises the pentagon), had his career ended by a political scandal involving gmail.

There's a very complex and disturbing equation emerging here, and as events continue to take shape, I think the more any one person refrains from questioning decisions made at any level in any hierarchy, the more we place all of our lives in jeopardy. This becomes especially true when we have to now question the very nature of some of our so-called "inanimate" objects.

Sorry to be long winded, but certain ideas can't be summed up briefly and easily. Not trying to be an arm chair general, but everyone, including the all military personnel, needs to carefully understand what it means to trust modern electronic devices of any scale or scope, and especially who might be placing trust in electronics, and at what level.

ryanmarsh7• 13 years ago

You asked me to elaborate on two statements and then wrote six paragraphs. How exactly would you like me to elaborate on #5 and #7?

cinquemb2• 13 years ago

There's a very complex and disturbing equation emerging here, and as events continue to take shape, I think the more any one person refrains from questioning decisions made at any level in any hierarchy, the more we place all of our lives in jeopardy. This becomes especially true when we have to now question the very nature of some of our so-called "inanimate" objects.

I don't think people with the powers like Henry Kissinger had want this for military personnel:

In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.

hedonist• 13 years ago

If killing people and breaking things is your bag, then maybe you should go join a motorcycle gang or something. Or move to Somalia, and become a pirate. Just don't expect us to bankroll your activities, and to allow you to keep doing them in our name.

ryanmarsh7• 13 years ago

How did you jump from the reason nations have armies to me somehow wanting to kill people and break things as a lifestyle?

Are you disputing the reason why nations arm themselves or are you saying that anyone who would involve themselves with such a thing is no better than a Somali pirate or a group of middle aged men who miss their youth and want to feel tough while wearing black leather and riding around on a particular brand of motorcycle?

unknsldr7• 13 years ago

To #1, there's quite a bit of latitude so long as you aren't in uniform. You can, for example, participate in a rally on 'your time' so long as you do not endorse an ideology/candidate wearing your uniform. If speaking out against the Commander in Chief is taken seriously I suspect there would be a lot of violations (particularly surrounding DADT introduction and dissolution). There was in my unit mostly by senior NCOs and Warrants.

#3 Day job? I don't think there was any such sentiment around me. There are times when grooming standards are relaxed and affordances are made (drinking, for example). But if a soldier held the position that soldiering was a day job they'd be shown the light. Further, I'd like to hear from you regarding the AKO disclaimer that any device connected to the IS is subject to COMSEC monitoring, counterintelligence investigations, personnel misconduct (in particular), and so on. Your personal laptop is authorized for use with AKO. Should your personal laptop be found with Guardian content, as a soldier, you have committed a security violation. You mention in #2 about life becoming miserable. I'm sure you know how hard command can come down on you over a security violation. Linking to the Guardian (tweet, retweet, like, share) constitutes proliferation. In this case, you aren't being protected or helped here. The policy memo and official statement explicitly state that these blocks occur under preexisting filters designed to prevent accidental transfer of classified information to unclassified systems. In other words, the memo states command's classification of Guardian material as classified. I'm pretty certain they class it to the level of the leak. They can't classify by article or it would confirm/deny aspects of the leak. So they broadly classify the Guardian. As you state in #4, reading those documents, reading an article in public domain found on an unclassified system, will fall under UCMJ. Back to the idea of day job, you can't do this on your personal computer at a Starbucks on the weekend, either.

#4 The rules and regulations soldier agree to pertain to classified systems being inappropriate accessed. Soldiers know well the red banner versus the green banner. They don't know they are reading classified information on the Guardian until they are told they are. This is so far removed from what you depict that I do not believe it pertains.

#6 You can go straight to IG but your command won't appreciate not having the heads up. You can go to your congressperson but you had better work through your official channels first. You start with your chain of command. You complain about an overstep of information classification? Senior command explicitly detailed the overstep is lawful. This is no longer open to debate. The congressperson takes counsel on these matters. How many do you suppose would side with a soldier on a classified information matter?

#7 I'm certain your commander would take issue with your characterization that the military exists to kill people and break things. If you voiced something like this during a CA event you'd be reprimanded. My last tour OEF-A began under "find, fix, and finish" ROE. Our patches and kit had skull and daggers markings. Change of command brought change of climate. No more skulls. No more daggers. Consider black roses for symbolism. The new ROE was "find, feel, and understand". You can't make this up. I was combat arms and this was coming from the top. Your sentiment here is out of step despite being sound. I'll tell you a 'rule' written in blood. If you are threatened, engage. If you suspect see a MAM, investigate. If you suspect ordinance, shoot from a distance to prevent trigger. But all of these are violations of ROE. Those rules and regulations weren't written to protect expensive or sensitive hardware. Those were written to protect relations. In many ways they are at the risk to the soldier.

#8 I understand. My points aren't intended to be contentious so much as an illustration of the different set of "BIG PROBLEMS"

ryanmarsh7• 13 years ago

I can appreciate ROE/posture changes with command changes. I was in OIF '04 to '05. When I got there it was "kick in doors and take names", when I left it was "please come out and have tea kind sir". When I say that the military exists to kill people and break things I was speaking from a historical perspective. Why do peoples create armies? There was a point in history where people groups became large enough in size that the job of protecting the group became the role of less than everyone. Those in the protecting role did what primarily? Kill people and break things in between long stretches of boredom.

Put another way, what is the primary capability that modern militaries build?

Army restricts access to The Guardian in the wake of NSA leaks

Related Stories