

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

======
ryanmarsh
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.

~~~
negativity

        #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.

~~~
ryanmarsh
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?

~~~
negativity
I was asking/am asking for an elaboration on #5 only.

I think I have an idea of what you mean by it, but it might be better if you
spelled out exactly what you're saying with #5, so that I don't misinterpret
it. I don't want to put words in your mouth on that one, or paraphrase it
unfairly.

The rest was actually about the #7 only.

~~~
ryanmarsh
Effective militaries require people who follow orders. Ours in particular
functions with a bit of honor, but still it is full of people who have been
indoctrinated to (and should) follow orders. Acting as an individual can be
very detrimental to the group. This loss of individuality should not be a
problem, because in effect we have not lost our individuality through the
proxy of our civilian leadership. If the civilian leadership of this country
(the elected POTUS and elected members of congress) decide that a thing is in
the interest of the people then we should be able to trust this. If the
civilian leadership is telling the military to do something it shouldn't, then
the citizens should vote those elected persons out of office. No matter who
the Commander in Chief is the volunteer members of the military have taken an
oath to obey them, and they will. What I'm trying to say is if you want the
military to be different, tell the civilian leadership, don't tell the
soldiers at the bottom.

~~~
negativity
Okay, I don't disagree with the ideals behind that sentiment. Thanks for
taking the time to respond.

------
AYBABTME
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.

~~~
gngeal
_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.

~~~
AYBABTME
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.

~~~
antocv
You were for sure reminded that you where out there giving your with sweat and
blood for democracy and free speech.

While others, more important people, told you what to read and explained to
you the difference between handling and reading and the meaning of security
clearance.

Big brother knows what is best for you.

~~~
fogus
I think you're forgetting that when you enter the military you're submitting
yourself to being told what to do. That's part of the contract.

~~~
unknsldr
You also swear to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and
domestic. You further face UCMJ action for following unlawful orders. When the
soldier is not qualified to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful
order, they default to obeying the orders of senior commissioned officers.
Thus the directive from the senior most command. The soldier has no choice but
to obey a lawful order and this is meant to clarify the lawfulness. This is
making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according
to UCMJ. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it.
The soldiers are not. We have an obligation here. I do not believe our
obligation is to remind soldiers of the contract.

~~~
mpyne
The soldiers have zero _right_ to use the Internet at all on work hours.

The government could as easily have said "just focus on _.mil and_.gov sites
when you're using government computers for government work".

The military already frequently bans stuff like YouTube when dipshits keep
clogging up the network watching Bieber while other people are trying to do
work, or things like Reddit.

~~~
unknsldr
> The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites
> when you're using government computers for government work".

This is a great point. They could have given guidance on avoiding exposure to
the leaked documents. Instead, they criminalized the consumption of publicly
available information. Keep in mind that a soldier does not keep 'work hours'.
They are not off-duty at any point. They are subject to UCMJ, as well as
uniform and appearance regulations, even on the weekends. This includes using
a personal computer to access the Guardian on the weekend from a Starbucks.

~~~
kbenson
I think the point, made earlier in this thread, is that the access of that
information was _already_ criminalized, from before it was released (due to
it's classified nature), and that releasing it does not automatically
unclassify it.

In that light, the blocking of the Guardian may be viewed as preventing
soldiers from accidentally performing a criminal act.

------
mpyne
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.

------
dendory
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.

~~~
andreasklinger
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
> 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.

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

~~~
justinschuh
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.

------
nemof
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](https://twitter.com/attackerman/status/350597454627995648)

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

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

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

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

~~~
bonaldi
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.

~~~
jedbrown
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.

~~~
Mindless2112
> but we're free to read whatever we want when off-site on our own hardware.

I would be willing to bet that the agreement you signed to get your security
clearance didn't have a 9-to-5 provision. You may not be charged for it, but
that doesn't mean you aren't violating that agreement by accessing classified
information for which you don't have "need to know".

~~~
jedbrown
Almost nobody in my division has clearance. As it turns out, assembling non-
classified information from various openly published sources can create
something that is classified, so we are expected to get review before starting
research on something that is nearby to a classified topic. Occasional review
of this sort is the closest we typically come to classified work.

Anyway, all employees received an official statement earlier in June warning
against viewing those documents using lab computers (including lab computers
used off-site), but with no warning against viewing them off-site on personal
computers.

------
drcube
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.

~~~
fogus
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.

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

~~~
VMG
Relevant: [http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-
Schmidt.html...](http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-
Schmidt.html#1029)

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

------
wahlis
Military intelligence?

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

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defen...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130627/22485123649/defense-
department-blocks-all-web-access-to-guardian-response-to-nsa-leaks.shtml)

~~~
vidarh
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.

