Slashdot Mirror
US Military 'Banned' From Viewing Wikileaks
Following up on its risible demand that Wikileaks return the Afghanistan documents, the Pentagon has banned military members from viewing the documents. The Washington Times obtained copies of Navy and Marine Corps messages to their troops saying that accessing the documents even from a personal computer is "willingly committing a security violation." Wired notes that terrorists everywhere are under no such restriction. Reader carp3_noct3m writes "I am personally left almost speechless at this disconnect from reality demonstrated by the military. I am a USMC Iraq war vet, and find these policies completely ridiculous. They show the inability of our supposedly technologically knowledgeable military to fuse this knowledge with policy, mostly due to the political pressure that has erupted to 'take care of' the Wikileaks problem."
If the material is currently classified, wouldn't it be against the UCMJ or other military policies to view such material?
The fact that the documents have been leaked did not immediately and magically change their status, thus they are still considered 'SECRET' by the military. Likely the military will eventually change this classification, but that won't happen overnight (there 90,000 freaking documents). Until that does happen, it's a security violation for a military member to access documents for which they are not cleared.
I'm thinking the motive is to prevent damage to morale, but I can't see how the order is any less destructive on morale than the contents of these documents.
Is the bit of fulmination we're seeing from outside the government a symptom of some serious pressure being applied within? I mean first it was Marc Thiessen calling for the United States Government to basically declare war against a person, and now this irrational command.
I just can't help but wonder if these things aren't just signs of a lot of behind-the-scenes scurrying.
...that military security automatically scans their machines and networks for classified documents in the wrong locations, and that every time someone downloads the file set from Wikileaks it sets off a dozen alarms, and that's why they're banning the downloads.
throw a party and not invite Julian Assange.
What if they accidentally come across the documents on a coral cache or a tinyurl? Or simply look at the cached pages on Google?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Things have to be a little more subtle than "information wants to be free".
no its all about witchhunt.
While I see your point, I would like to be sure in a firefight that the guy who has been ordered to watch my back is actually there and not on a plane home because he/she decided they didn't want to play war any more.
You need to balance the "if you want to leave you should be able to leave" with "if you have been ordered to go to X and do Y we need to be sure that Y is actually going to get done or people will die".
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
This was already restricted information. The rank and file had no right to it and presumably there are laws that state they should not access it.
The laws are still in effect and even if there's no intention to prosecute, they should be reminding soldiers of their duty to obey the law if there is a rumour going around that this does not apply.
This is coming from the people that buy an OS that they can't secure. Make note of the fact that they can't use USB drives, but they can transfer files via write once media like CDs/DVDs Look at the farce that is NMCI. The Navy doesn't even own its computers. They can't install anything that's not already approved.
Yes, they are very much disconnected from reality. The inmates are running the asylum and they have 1 -5 stars or go by the title Assistant Deputy Sec/Deputy Sec/Secretary of Defense/Army/Navy and Marine Corps. They really don't have a fucking clue.
Aside from the security classification not having officially changed, you also don't want your troops getting into the habit of taking "leaks" off the Internet at face value. It may not be relevant to these documents, but there will come a day when deliberately altered documents are released (by friend or foe) as part of a propaganda campaign. Best to remind people not tasked with doing the analysis to stay away from the koolaid.
Is it me, or is everyone attacking the fact that these documents, which are apparently so horrible that they need to be banned, were leaked, and not the fact that the events that happened in the documents shouldn't have happened to begin with?
The "volunteer" part of "all volunteer army" doesn't mean what you think it does.
I'm not a member of the military, never have been, nor am I a cheerleader for them, but if you don't clamp down on things like troops going AWOL or deserting in a military, you needn't bother depending on them at all.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
No, it doesn't make much sense. But there's very little of the genius cloak 'n' dagger stuff going on in the military these days compared to, say, back in WWII when we were trying to hide from the Axis that we had in fact broke their encryption.
Classified information is mostly just administrative nowadays... maybe more like a way to dish out "job security clearances" for work that only American citizens can perform so it won't be outsourced. For example, there are plenty of vehicle performance parameters listed in the Jane's guides. If that information comes from a cleared person, it's classified. But if the exact same information comes from an open access source, it's not. But even if data is out in the public, a cleared person is not able to confirm or deny that the public information matches the classified information.
So it's probably this kind of thinking that is driving the DoD to react this way. Like the BP oil spill, this set of leaks is being treated more like a PR disaster than a natural / national security disaster. So if the soldiers who were actually involved in any of the operations are not allowed to view the leaked documents, the press theoretically could not get any of those soldiers to confirm or deny their accuracy and authenticity. Probably the most boring form of administrative INFOOPS measures possible. But the military has entire divisions dedicated to winning the "war for hearts and minds" nowadays.
anything thought of as 'banned' is sure to have juicy info inside.
getting me a copy, now. thanks for the heads-up.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Here's the thing, guys.
If you knew how military officers work, it goes like this: Something is wrong, they do *SOMETHING*. It doesn't matter what it is, they just have to be seen doing something.
Some news organizations say the military isn't accepting PTSD? Fine, every returning troop is basically TOLD they have PTSD. The VA sells it to you. The military psychs try to talk you into it. They make videos, brochures, send people out to spread the word, loud and clear: It's okay to admin you have PTSD (even if you don't)!
The military ALWAYS has an answer. Parachuting into powerlines? Wigle your body front to back in cadence to the song "Wire Wire Wire". Does it work? Who knows...but they had to have an answer in case someone asks.
A few people kill themselves? Oh jeezus...double the Suicide Prevention briefs. More powerpoints. More online classes. More assessments and dollars spent! Does it help? Who knows...if it doesn't then we will double it again! We'll keep them in suicide classes 24/7 just to keep an eye on them!
So someone is mad about wikileaks? A general gets an email, and before you know it...here we are.
THL phish sticks
That usually isn't as much of a problem when the soldiers support the cause of the war.
Is this just a ham-fisted attempt to control those who they can, or is there specific content they don't want the soldiers (in particular) to see?
leaving when they know its unhealthy
is called "Desertion" and a capital offense in wartime. "Cowardice before the enemy" is also traditionally a capital offense in wartime.
The fundamental principle is this: if you're a lawful uniformed combatant in a combat situation, you have two legal choices: fight or die. And if you're gonna die, you're supposed to die fighting. "Surrender" is a viable option, but if you do it before justifiable in the eyes of your command that's probably unlawful.
Self-preservation is not a prized personal value in warfare.
Oh well. In my military career, the existence of the "unlimited liability" of a sworn military member gave me an excellent explanation to my wife when my commanders wanted me to do something uncomfortable, inconvenient, or silly: "'Reasonable' does not apply to an organization which can require me to lay down my life for absolutely no good reason."
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
If you don't want to be there, shouldn't you be allowed to leave?
If you allow people to leave when they want to, then the moment the bullets start flying, you would lose all your troops. You are given the choice to stay or go when you enlist. If you enlist, you relinquish the right to decide whether to stay or leave. That decision is up to your superior officer.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
When you sign up for the military, you sign up for a term of service. You can't just take the training and then quit if you don't like your assignment. Commitment like this isn't unique to the military or even employment. Pro athletes and actors/singers sign contracts promising to perform for X years, and they can't quit at year X-2 because they feel like it. I am committed to living in my apartment for another 3 months, and I have a (very specific and time-limited) non-compete clause in my employment contract. My landlord needs assurances that he won't be unexpectedly stuck with an empty room, and my bosses need assurances I won't leave them for a client.
Nope, as I posted above, it's NOT some Big Brother attempt to censor the material. Give the military leadership SOME credit - they're not so dumb to think they can put the genie back in the bottle.
Instead, it's reminding servicemen and civilian agencies of the fairly strict policies about what happens if they view classified material on unclassified computers - or even on computers without need to know. If it's done (especially on purpose), it's punishable by pretty nasty penalties, including removal of security clearance, permanent banning from military computer resources, etc..
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
If you don't want to be there, shouldn't you be allowed to leave?
It's been decided that we can't afford to have military members leaving unexpectedly, much less during wartime/before combat, etc...
I'll note that if you TRULY don't want to be in the military anymore, there's plenty of options to get out. You just have to accept the consequences. Some are worse than others. Faking/revealing you're gay at least used to be popular, but it's a bit uneven today as in many areas they more or less ignore the 'don't tell' part of don't ask/don't tell, as you'd practically have to do it IN the commander's office, with him there, to get them to care. At which point there's other UCMJ laws they can make your life unpleasant with.
Generally the easiest is to simply let your enlistment run out. Nets you the most benefits and doesn't burn any bridges.
I don't read AC A human right
The likely concern the government has with this publicly-available classified information is the chance that someone with legitimate access to related information might download and (perhaps unintentionally) combine it with unclassified information. That act causes the all that data to become classified... thus causing an information "spillage" on many unclassified systems. Cleaning up classified information spillages is very expensive for the government... even minor ones.
Thus the main idea here is to stop this problem from occurring before Murphy's Law can take effect. Nothing sinister, just pragmatic.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
Or cups of water and a sinking ship. I'm sure there's an idiom for this.
it's under construction
The military is getting this right, legally.
"There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true." - the US Navy.
Their position is that the material is classified, and processing classified material on non-approved equipment is a crime.
They aren't taking the fallacious position that "everyone's doing it" eliminates the criminal responsibility.
So, yes, I'm saying that anyone who's downloaded those documents has, in fact, committed a crime.
Now it's up to the DoJ to figure out what to do about that.
That's why you should never join the military (or register for selective service).
The message from the linked Washington Times article does not ban military personnel from visiting WikiLeaks - it only appears to remind them that downloading classified material on/through public networks is against the rules, and attempts to put to rest the idea that just because a classified document has become publicly available does not automatically change the status.
There is the question of whether the rules make sense, but the only purpose of the messages appears to be to clarify what the rules actually are for publicly-available but still-classified documents (sounds like there was a wide-spread rumor that public disclosure of classified documents automatically removed the classified status). Until the documents are officially declassified soldiers must follow the rules and treat them as classified documents, which means not attempting to access them if they do not have the proper clearance level, and even if they do have the clearance to access them, they cannot do so over a public network (or store them on a non-secure system).
Note that I'm not saying the rules make sense, just that everyone is getting all riled up about the military simply clarifying the rules so that service members don't get themselves in trouble. This is analogous to your lawyer telling you, "Just because you can find copyrighted material freely available on a web site does not mean you legally have the right to download that material". Of course in this case it results in a perverse situation where everyone outside the military can access these classified military documents, particularly those the classified status was meant to prevent obtaining the documents, but until a rule change or declassification of the documents members of the military still need to follow the rules.
Sorry if that scans as a troll. I meant it sarcastically, in a deep, disappointed voice.
It's been a few years, but at one point the major networks put up a document marked 'secret', something about a senator's aide sneaking out classified in his socks then claiming 'I didn't know I wasn't supposed to do that'.
As a result, we blocked the major news networks for a few days - CNN, Fox, NBC, etc...
We've also had issues where we block the sites of hostile parties(or perceived hostile parties) such as the Taliban, Al Jazeera, etc...
It's mostly a Knee-jerk reaction among the higher ups.
I don't read AC A human right
Dear Service member,
It has recently been brought to our attention that the television has been used to distribute various information still considered classified by the US government.
As a result, all members of the armed forces are hereby unformed that viewing the tele is strictly forbidden.
Violators of this policy will be flogged.
By the Order Of,
General Karmahoer
I disagree. Civilians can read what they choose. The military could stop it. They have the weapons to do so if they choose. They have not. In a very structured and disciplined environment such sacrifices are to be expected. The military has its own courts and no draft is in effect. I am normally very adamant about free speech issues and I have contributed to organizations that promote these views but the military should be granted some latitude.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Unfortunately, the only way to accomplish that mission is to eliminate the source. No, I mean the secrets, not Wikileaks.
"If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
I am personally left almost speechless at this disconnect from reality demonstrated by the military. I am a USMC Iraq war vet, and find these policies completely ridiculous.
Maybe I'm a little more jaded from my time in the Army, but I don't find this terribly surprising. I might have a little perspective I can offer.
If you're in a combat unit, especially deployed, you're facing the reality of actual people backed by a large network or foreign government trying to kill you. Bullshit has a short half-life in such a situation.
Unfortunately, the further removed you are from the hard rain, the less intrusion you have from reality. The sergeant doing paperwork just can't say, "fuck you sir, this could get someone killed!"
And the higher echelons have, much like corporate culture, a certain unreality built in. I've seen how it starts with a first sergeant, who is responsible for a company of troops. He knows he has to lead by example, so he forces himself to always appear motivated, even when it's socially inappropriate. Senior officers sometimes appear to be squarely in the uncanny valley.
Add to that the telephone game played by the insane rank structure. A senior officer puts out his intent, and it is then passed along from subordinate to subordinate, with each re-interpreting it every step of the way. Who knows where this originated, and how much it's changed along the way?
You got it backwards.
Step 1 is call the security folks
Step 2 is to disconnect everything
Step 3 is to follow the security folk's instructions on how to destroy/remove everything.
Why this order? Deleting/destroying the stuff could destroy any evidence on HOW the classified got where it was, who put it there, etc...
Anyone in the defense world in possession of classified documents they shouldn't have is in violation of employment agreements and potentially laws.
Depends on how they got it...
I don't read AC A human right
I'm sure doing it your way would have been a smashing success on Omaha Beach or Tarawa or Saipan or Iwo Jima.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country." I just wish Patton had really said it. The lionization of death in combat always seemed ridiculous to me.
It's all about blockin' teh intarwebz for great American justice! All Your WIkiLeaks Are Belong to US...A!
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
When something is classified and you aren't supposed to view it, then you're not supposed to view it. Something doesn't become declassified because some idiots stole it and some other idiots published it. You say you are war veteran but since you don't seem to comprehend this simple fact you know and don't understand about Security clearances and the purpose of classified documents you know, your speechlessness is understandable. Crimes were committed to acquire these documents, people will go to jail for it. People have died because of this security breech and I do hope that the United States government is able to shut down Wikileaks and end their own disconnect from reality. To think that they will escape the consequences of their actions is the ultimate disconnect as far as I'm concerned.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The clearance is only half of it - you also have need to know.
I don't have any need to know for the documents on wikileaks. Most military types don't.
I don't read AC A human right
If a person knows they are a poor fit in their role in the military and really doesn't think they can adapt, there are some options to get a formal discharge and get out. These work better when it's not just a response to personal danger, as it's assumed you understood that it's a dangerous occupation when you signed. In my own time serving, I saw people who had legitimate moral issues, and some of whom had effectively become pacifists, and others who were having psychological issues and experiencing severe stresses. In fact, I saw some people who had more trouble with stresses from non-combat service than many combat veterans did. Unfortunately, there was sometimes a tendency to assume in either case they were just cowards, but there are some safeguards in place, to at least try and deal with the cases where it's, as you put it, unhealthy, either for the individual or others around them.
The whole reason to have multiple categories of discharge is to deal with this issue, so that someone can leave, even under strained terms with the system, without it automatically resulting in a dishonorable discharge. People discharged after less than 180 days in service usually get an entry level discharge, which nominally has no good or bad connotations, and general discharges are usually used where the person was in longer but became either physically or psychologically unable to continue. The easiest way to get into real trouble is to just up and leave before seeking an official resolution such as these routes.
Who is John Cabal?
I was in the Air Force for four years, went through the entire enlistment, now out and going to school on the G.I. Bill. I'm aware of the loopholes though, especially from a few army friends who had to deal with year-long deployments (I think the highest in demand are getting 15 months at a time with a month at home now).
If anyone is in the military right now and can't handle it, revealing yourself as "suicidal" puts you on the fast track to a medical discharge.
Note that the one guy I know who actually did this, actually was suicidal, so faking it unconvincingly will probably get you straight up punished, or administratively discharged.
Administrative discharge isn't quite as bad as Dishonorable, but still causes you to lose all your benefits and sticks you with the "Conditions other than honorable" stigma for the rest of your life.
As dan mentioned, this would make things WORSE.
Remember, the military doesn't operate under the same rules system as civilians do. The UCMJ system is more flexible. It does NOT look kindly upon circumvention attempts like this.
For example, they can now hit you for deliberately inciting the transmission of classified over unsecure telephone lines...
I know of military members who were convicted under the UCMJ for having nudie pics sent to their military email address by non-military friends.
I don't read AC A human right
Remember when the Cult of Scientology banned its members from viewing critical content or leaked documents, and even distributed a sort of parental-guidance web censor? Can't find the source at the moment, but it was probably around 2008.
Keep in mind, we're talking about an organization that still considers some strategic documents from WWI to be classified. My God, can you imagine the damage if Germany finds how many Sopwith Camels we had in air worthy condition in 1917?
"Marine Welfare and Recreation" should have been shit caned years ago. They do far more to harm morale than these damn leaks.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Tom Clancy tells the story about security review of "Hunt for Red October" (published by Naval Institute Press, they routinely send stuff to the Navy just to be sure.) The review came back, "Can't publish, contains classified information." "Well tell me what that is, I'll remove it, and we'll be good to go." "No, sir. You don't have the clearance for that information."
After a couple back-and-forth, apparently Clancy went over his book, line-by-line, justifying everything in there as derived from open source (in the Intel sense, i.e. freely available from the press, unclassified technical reports, etc.). Eventually the Navy had to admit that, if there was something classified in there, it was derived from stuff that anyone could read and deduce on his/her own.
Yossarian is alive and well, it appears... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22)
The military could stop it. They have the weapons to do so if they choose.
Sure we could...
Let's see - we can go after Julian Assange, who is an Australian citizen. Apparently still in Australia. Attacking an ally's citizen, in that country? Yeah, that'd go over real good...
The servers? They're located around the world, as far as I can tell. Lots of bad press if we bomb those. Hacking them might work better, but I'm sure they have backups.
Lawsuit? Again, multiple countries, multiple jurisdictions, volunteer organization(limited funds at risk), 1st ammendment concerns.
I don't read AC A human right
You are mostly wrong. Pro atheletes and other people can withdraw from those contracts, they simply forfeit the money they would be paid to them. And you can move out of your apartment early upon forfeiting your damage deposit (and other terms depending on where you live). Non compete clauses usually have more to do with you sharing information with competitors, not you actually leaving your boss.
However, in the military, breaching your contract can end up in confinement. Does that not seem immoral? Why does wishing to fight WITH the military mean signing your life away? Isn't it the officer's job to ensure that he can rely on his troops, and if he feels he can't - then he should send them away?
Like deserting or going AWOL getting you court-martialed and either put in confinement for a month or 2/3rds of your pay or something like that. If you don't want to be there, shouldn't you be allowed to leave? Maybe thats why people end up so messed up in the military, because leaving when they know its unhealthy for them is pretty much an illegal act.
The military is a very different world. Members of the military are subject to and additional set of laws than normal citizens. A large part of that is due to the nature of their work. One finds oneself with extraordinary demands compared to most civilians.
As for leaving when you don't want to be there - that's certainly possible. You don't get to just get up and quit. But I've certainly seen people negotiate early terminations of their enlistment. I had one friend who was getting a great job offer but he had to shave off about 6 - 8 months of his enlistment. He had to really sell this to the Commander - but he did and he got his honorable discharge to pursue the offer. Granted, that's not always going to happen.
Finally, as for people ending up messed up... I'm not so sure. I didn't get messed up. I know lots of folks who didn't get messed up. But the pressure is certainly there. I saw a couple people crack during different times in my career.
Administrative discharge isn't quite as bad as Dishonorable, but still causes you to lose all your benefits and sticks you with the "Conditions other than honorable" stigma for the rest of your life.
Uh, no. It doesn't. Dishonorable is Dishonorable, nothing else comes close. Dishonorable discharge is the equivalent of a FELONY CONVICTION.
Admin discharge is effectively honorable in most cases, just that you're not suitable for the military. You might not have enough service time in for all benefits, but you can still qualify for quite a few.
Medical is definitely honorable, and should include discharge for psych reasons.
I don't read AC A human right
seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about, methinks.
This information came FROM the military. It is still classified data until the appropriate classification authority directs that it be declassified, or until the data has aged the appropriate time (10 years, I believe?) with no extension of classification, at which point it automatically is considered declassified.
Military personnel without proper clearance to see this data who went and looked at it would be breaching the security they are supposed to be maintaining.
Maybe Mr. Assange knows something we don't - but the Dutch government's decision wasn't an event that 'just' happened. The Dutch government originally stated (a promise to the public), in 2009, that they would be withdrawing their military operation from Afghanistan in 2010 as agreed upon in 2006 (though at the time with the option for extending the mission). It's early in 2010 that one of the governing political parties - already having a little fight with one of the other governing parties - pushed the issue.. with the other parties going "well, maybe we should consider staying a bit longer...". In the end, a vote was held, and the party that essentially was in favor of keeping that promise (whether or not this was a power play is another discussion - if it was, it only had short-term success) won with the support of a lot of the smaller parties. It was one of many events leading up to the fall of the Dutch government and its currently on-going formation process after the elections from a few months ago.
So not only was it not an event that 'just' happened.. it is in no way directly related to the release of these documents whatsoever - not sure why Mr. Assange is trying to make that connection. Information that -also- happens to be in those documents may have played a part in the above, of course.. but that's happenstance.
A medical discharge would be honorable, yes.
Administrative discharges vary between honorable and "Other than Honorable." And can include all sorts of benefits being granted or taken away.
The reason I put that in there is because it's entirely possible if you're faking "being suicidal" for the purposes of discharge, and they figure it out, you could be given an "Other than Honorable" discharge.
OTH is different from Dishonorable, because yes, Dishonorable is the equivalen to a felony conviction.
There are few Generals with comprehensive intelligence. A lot of them are jacked-up little men who have developed skill in only a narrow range of activity. They learn when they get slapped upside the head, usually not before.
They'll come round, eventually. But by then, though, circumstances will change again and they'll get slapped upside the head all over again. And soldiers die.
Another reason war sucks.
I would be worried to if I were these politicians and generals. I can't imagine how much bullshit our troops have seen, and it would be hard to keep the propaganda machine running smoothly with pesky things like this popping up on wikileaks. Frankly I imagine they just want to keep a lid on it until they can get them home and disarmed. The problem will be not what content is on now, but the fact that wikileaks has proven to the world that they will run things that they get that are dangerous to them. They have proven they have enough balls to stand up and put things out that would serious piss off the mighty US government.
This can only encourage those who have access to fucked up shit, with a burning conscience, to send it in to wikileaks, because they KNOW they will put it up for the world to see. I don't suspect they are so much worry about "the enemy" seeing this, as they are our own troops and our own people. I predict we haven't seen the last of it, in fact it's just warming up. I think we will see some major crap come out now that the heat is turned up and the focus is now on them. Before they were just some geeky nutjobs with an obscure website, but now they have credibility via their intense US Government opposition.
For the US Government to become heavy handed in this would be a vast mistake I feel. The reactions I have seen so far are amateurish at best, arrogant at worse. To simply ignore them gives miles of deniability because you don't lend them any credibility. Now that we have shot our mouths off, we have to do something or we will look even more stupid. To do anything about this is going to seriously step over boundaries in a rude and arrogant way that violates the neutrality of the Internet in ways that may not be able to be repaired once broken. Sure, China can get away with it in their own country because the entire world knows they are assholes. But at least they are assholes in just their own country.
I see they want to create a whole new branch of the military for "cyberwarfare". Something about that makes me afraid, and I am a citizen. I can't imagine WTF the rest of the nervous world is thinking about it. It can't be optimistic, FFS.
Take the Red Pill.
While I see your point, I would like to be sure in a firefight that the guy who has been ordered to watch my back is actually there and not on a plane home because he/she decided they didn't want to play war any more.
What happens when said person shoots you in the back because they weren't allowed to go home willingly? Better to let those who don't want to be there to go home, instead of having people there either indifferent or who will work against you.
From an OpSec perspective having a bunch of accesses to specific documents on the wikileaks server is a BAD IDEA. Anyone with access to the logs on the server will be able to correlate the IP addresses doing the accessing with the specific documents of interest. With 75,000+ documents, there are sure to be some really interesting needles in that haystack. The people most qualified to recognize those needles will be military personnel - so one guy finds something "surprising" related to his personal work and forwards the URL to all his buddies who also check it out because its "surprising" to them too and now wikileak's logs have a great big arrow pointing at the document that got an order of magnitude more hits than all the others. Someone decides to investigate and now whatever made that document "surprising" is well known to public and "the enemy" too.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I work for the defense department. I completely agree with the personal computer requirement. The DoD calls this "spillage", referring to the viewing of a higher classification of data on a lower classification medium. As for the rest of this story, I have no opinion.
No, it's all about the law.
People who have security clearances, or join the military, give up rights that civilians retain.
In this particular case, it means not reading documents that are 'publicly available'.
Please explain exactly how they're "so damning"? I haven't seen any actual evidence of war crimes being uncovered, just a lot of talk about how "they might" show evidence from Mr. Assange & his supporters.
I'm really curious whether or not you have some special knowledge of the docs in question, or if you're just uncritically accepting the tenet that the military can do nothing right, and therefore any document written by the military will probably give evidence of some heinous crime against humanity?
Unless you are US military - of course!
Documents that only military personell could read are now documents that everyone but military personell can read. What's the classification tag for that?
Be careful not to read a newspaper. You might get exposed to some classified information. You might accidentally commit treason. You know those journalists. They investigate; they report; they cause all sorts of trouble.
These are explicitly spelled out in the contract, or there's a law regulating them. Where I'm currently located, I'm liable for the rent until they find a new tenant or the original lease expires.
What happens when said person shoots you in the back because they weren't allowed to go home willingly?
You kill them. I am not joking. You get it for stealing tanks, too.
Qxe4
I heard that after the press conference the other day, before reporters could ask questions, the pentagon spokesperson closed his eyes and started yelling "You can't see me! I'm invisible. You can't see me!"
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Flamebait? For pointing out shit that really happens? Only on Slashdot. *sigh*
Rationale: let's ban our people from looking at the leak, so there is no leak!
Little do they know their asses are still out there.
Maybe Wikileaks is collaborating with U.S. counter-intelligence. The strategy? Instruct Wikileaks to post a lot of legitimate, apparently sensitive military documents that are ultimately irrelevant to OpSec. Make a giant fiasco in the press about it, demanding that Wikileaks remove the offending documents. Now that people believe Wikileaks is a safe source to report their knowledge to, and to offload sensitive military documents, they will do so. These people can then be identified and thrown into military, CIA or FBI lockup with no formal charges filed against them.
When I was in the military if someone told me not to look I damn sure would not have. Service members are held to the UCMJ, when someone asks you to jump the only question you may have is how high.
Got Code?
Military members are not civilians, a superior officer tells you to do something you just plain do it, no questions asked. The general military occupations do not have the clearance and or need to know to access this information.
Got Code?
Check it out sometime. Don't equate adult military personnel with babies that don't think.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
However, in the military, breaching your contract can end up in confinement. Does that not seem immoral? Why does wishing to fight WITH the military mean signing your life away? Isn't it the officer's job to ensure that he can rely on his troops, and if he feels he can't - then he should send them away?
Yeah, you screw over a landlord or employer that way, you face fines. You screw over our fighting forces that way, you face jail time. Just like how the punishment for busting into a nuclear silo is more severe than the punishment for breaking into someone's home.
You don't get to be a fair-weather solider. If you sign up for the Army, you sign up to war and peace, victory and defeat. Given that we have a volunteer Army, and the punishment for desertion is confinement instead of death, we've come a long way historically. If the life isn't for you, don't do it. It's certainly not something I could do, and I have a lot of respect for the people who can do it and who do do it.
I didn't say they are damning. I said they are considered damning because of the uproar coming from the DoD. Everyone is making such a huge debacle about it, which usually means there is something in the huge pile that they don't want public. The whole thing about putting people at risk is moot since no specific people are mentioned when wikileaks releases the documents.
I'm not even going to answer your straw man. I don't recall saying anything about any other documents from the military.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
If you took your policy of security very seriously, wouldn't you be a little upset about somebody taking about 90,000 "secured" documents, and publishing them on the internet?
If you took the safety of people who are providing you with intelligence seriously, wouldn't you be in an "uproar" if somebody leaked 90,000 documents in which some of those people are mentioned by name, village, and even occasionally GPS coordinates?
Wouldn't that be enough to cause an uproar? Or must there also be some hidden evidence of war crimes for it to cause an uproar?
Have you bothered reading or listening to a BIT of the coverage? BOTH sides have acknowledged that it absolutely identifies specific people, by name, village, GPS coordinates, and sometimes even references to other family members.
Honestly, do you only get your news from the /. comments?
It's not a "straw man" dummy, it's a question about your thought process. You seem blithely - almost vapidly - unaware of anything about what's in the documents, but that doesn't stop you from characterizing them as "considered so damning." Thus I'm forced to ask if you reach this conclusion (despite your admitted & demonstrated lack of any knowledge of what's actually in them) based on some predisposition to believe that anything related to the military must be sinister, or if you have some other information that nobody else is privy to which allows you to assert that they're so damning?
“I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy . . . censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.” — John Lyle in "Revolt in 2100" by Robert Heinlein
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Which most military do, you agree to abide by the rules of material classification including clearance level and need to know.
This means that even if you have a Top Secret clearance, you are not allowed to view Secret-classified material to which you do not have an official "need to know."
Anybody with a clearance who does not have a need to know what is in the Wikileaks documents, yet obtains and reads those documents, is committing a security violation.
Very logical. Very simple.
I expect the original idea to have been along the lines of filtering the wikileaks domains so that uploading documents or finding address to email to and such was a lot harder from within the military net and CO with no technical experience revised it a little and past it up the chain of command, and the next did the same until the chinese whispers came up with this useless policy.
CUPERTINO, Calif. - August 8th - Today a spokesman from Apple, Inc. confirmed that the Pentagon has hired Steve Jobs to handle the WikiLeak problem. Pentagon has been under fire when WikiLeak released about 90,000 classified military files last month. Impressed by Steve Jobs' ability in handling the iPhone 4 crisis, the Pentagon tasked him with regaining people's trust of its ability of keeping secrets safe.
According to people close to Mr. Jobs, the Silicon Valley's No.1 chief executive plans to hold an emergency press conference on Monday with the following data points:
1. There is no Wiki-leak-gate. Compared to the 900,000,000 classified files maintained by Pentagon, 90,000 is only a very minor part. The leak is obviously blown out of proportion by the media.
2. The Pentagon is not perfect. The government is not perfect. We all have weak spots. We know that, and you know that. [ show slides of leak cases from various governments around the world in all times. ]
3. According to popular polls, this administration is doing a great job in maintaining document security. Out of 100 document, we only leak fewer than one more document compared to the Bush administration.
4. The government cares about its citizens. We will give out free eye-pads and ear-plugs to people who don't want to watch or hear this WikiLeak nonsense.
Mr. Jobs believes that these talk points will appease all of people's worried about the current administration.
32 C.F.R. PART 154--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATION ... ...
154.3 Definitions.
(p) Need-to-know. A determination made by a possessor of classified information that a prospective recipient, in the interest of national security, has a requirement for access to, knowledge, or possession of the classified information in order to perform tasks or services essential to the fulfillment of an official U.S. Government program. Knowledge, possession of, or access to, classified information shall not be afforded to any individual solely by virtue of the individual's office, position, or security clearance.
You are supposed to have two things to get any classified (SECRET, TOP SECRET) information: The appropriate security clearance, and the need to know.
TS/SCI enforces a strict documented need-to-know, but that doesn't negate that SECRET material is also supposed to be given on a need-to-know basis.
>People who have security clearances, or join the military, give up rights that civilians retain.
In fact, when you join the US military, you become US government property. I know guys who, while in the US Army, got drunk and fell asleep in the back of a truck and sunburned the hell out of themselves. They were court-martialed for "damaging government property".
This space intentionally left blank.
Look, it's more of a computer and systems issue than protecting innocent minds from classified spillage. If someone, on an unclassified US government computer, downloads a classified document, then the computer has to be sanitized. The stress on the IT staff would be enormous, and the exposure of the unclass network to classified would result in security violations. Yes, one might say that hey, it's out in public, why is it classified? Because the process of declassification does not include "because it's out in public". Just because something is exposed doesn't mean it's suddenly unclassified material; the reasons for classification still apply, and the expiration of that information (by default 10 years from production) still applies. This isn't anything I expect people who haven't worked in a classified environment to automatically know, and clearly, the press has no clue.
Military personnel (as well as anyone with a clearance actually) is prohibited from possessing classified material that they do not have specific need to know in any way, shape, or form, regardless of where it comes from. Not to mention having it on personal or other non accredited machines.
Doesn't matter that it comes from wikileaks and that half the globe hs this info - the stuff is still classified and they are to treat it as such: no exceptions.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
In some ways a soldier in war is the only one to know anything about a war. In other ways a soldier in a war knows less about his war than almost everyone else. One thing is certain. A soldier can be demoralized to the point of being useless by being exposed to some truths that he best never know. In situations like Vietnam it is a wonder that our troops did not go into total rebellion and attack their leaders. I suspect that the American public dare not know all that is behind the conflicts in the Arab nations. People might ask why we are so hated in that region. It is just so hard to have a full blown war these days with battlefields filled with millions of dead soldiers. Ah, the good old days!
Clearly the purpose of the order is so that the data trail remains clean. If the info is not endlessly duplicated throughout military computers everywhere, then places where it does show up may be signs of the path it took. They want to finish the forensics before everyone downloads it. Obviously the technicality of it not being officially declassified is a red herring. The absurdity of it is not the problem in itself. It is the clue to the real reason. The clue that you were looking for!
Get over it!!!! What is it about these neanderthals that makes them think that they can silence or purge information of any kind once it is in the wild??? IT IS ON WIKILEAKS.....HELLO!!!! That means that it is stored, cached, saved, archived by SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, OTHER THAN YOU!!! China's failure to keep hackers or other intent individuals from gaining access to "prohibited" materials online should have been the clarion call to all of these schmucks that if someone wants to get to it, and it is available online, they can get to it!!!
-Oz
This leaking of information has consequences that may never be known to all parties involved. Unfortunate to some and cause for glee to others. Either way one would be a fool not to think that someone, somewhere, will lose his or her life and/or liberty over it.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Are you implying that people only die if orders are not followed ?
From my perspective it would be wonderfull if people decided they don't want to play war anymore.
At least the kind of corporate driven wars that have been conducted in the last half century.
But then how can you make a balanced decision on wether you want to fight if information flow to the public is managed?
> Let's be honest. The reason the military doesn't want their own people to see the wikileaks documents is because it doesn't want them to realize what a complete farce this war (and by extension the war in Iraq) is.
At first I thought they were just being stupid, but what you say makes far more sense. Interestingly The DoD advised soldiers not to watch HBO's "Baghdad Hospital: Inside the Red Zone" because they may find it traumatic but there was more to it:
"Senior Army officials have scaled back their planned participation in an advance screening of a coming HBO documentary about an Army Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad because of fears that the graphic footage could demoralize soldiers and their families and negatively affect public opinion about the war, Army officials said Friday."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/us/14cnd-hbo.html
To me this is pretty lame. Sure, soldiers have to fight wars. But "negatively affecting public opinion" shouldn't be their concern. Leave that to the politicians who start wars. Soldiers fight wars, but they're not supposed to "encourage" them. The same applies to so-called "Media Units" in the military.
Just because you can access it over the network doesn't mean you should.
In a Russia they already have these. Pentagon now can go and accuse russkies on a Red Square in front of Kremlin, and also do some "proactive action" in order to stop that. Yeah, go ahead... *me grabs a popcorn watchin that* :-)
I was being a little facetious. My point is similar to yours. Generally, when I am unarmed I think it wise to agree with those who are though. Based, on your signature, I take it you are very adamant about gun control and safety issues. I was not suggesting that common sense and PR would not be at issue.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
I would like to stand up for some of my fellow military members. Just because we are in the military, that does not mean we don't know what's going on the world. When we are home, we live regular lives just like everyone else, we have access to the same information. To stop this information from reaching us, you would have to disconnect our internet, take away our cellphones, take away our on base post office and force us and our families to stay on post.
If there is a conspiracy to keep information from getting out to the public, most of us are not aware of it. That of course does not mean that there are no higher ups trying to accomplish that.
I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are more complex than "we are there just for oil" or "we are fighting terrorism". Just like everything else in life, there is no black and white, just different shades of grey.
By banning wikileaks access, any subsequent access is therefore suspect. Also by banning access, any DNS lookup of www.wikileaks.org can set off the bells and whistles, even if the follow up is years later. Banning access reduces the number of leads to track down.
Yes, it can be "considered classified" at that point - because it *is* still classified. I don't understand why this seems so difficult for people to grasp - public dissemination of classified data does not automatically "declassify" it - it simply makes it "classified information that was leaked to the public in violation of security regulations."
The soldiers who have any need to see this data - primarily, 6+-month-old operational reports and updates - already have access, or can petition for access through the proper military channels to be granted access.
It's not about "putting the genie back in the bottle," it's about "following policies in place, because the public release of these documents has not changed the fact that the documents are still considered classified by the military - of which the soldiers are members."
There is a process and a policy for handling this sort of information. That process & policy does not include "Go read it on wikileaks for shits and giggles." If the military said "Oh well, it's just a security policy, who cares really? Go read it!" They would be undermining their own security practices by saying "It's not a big deal as long as it's on a web site where everybody can read it."
You may not agree with the policy, but that does not change the fact that the policy exists, and is expected to be followed by members of the armed forces.
They are afraid that people not cleared to see this classified data will see it. The rules for handling classified information are expected to be followed - pointing your finger at someone else and saying, "But he looked, too!" is not a defense. Most of these documents were *written* by people on the ground, and as I mentioned above, people with a need to see them *can* see them through the proper channels already, or *can* ask to get permission to see them through the proper channels.
Its not like the military causing more fuss about these documents will make people more interested and view them. This has never happened before in this history of anything in the world, no-sir-ee.
"Are you implying that people only die if orders are not followed ?"
That is a hell of a strawman you have there Dorthy.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
If you think the grunts don't know better than anyone else just how sharp or stupid their bosses are, I can't help you...
---dragoness
The ones a few steps above in the chain of command, of course. But I haven't encountered a lot of ranks at corporal or below who had a good grasp of strategy, and the how/why of decisions at the general officer level. They might bitch and complain in a broad way about the people at the top (who doesn't?), but genuine, hard-core proof that those people are screwing up gains made on the ground isn't common.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.