Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Blocks NY Times, WaPo, Other Media
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Air Force, not content with blocking WikiLeaks and its mirrors, has begun blocking media sites carrying WL documents. "Air Force users who try to view the websites of the New York Times, Britain's Guardian, Spain's El Pais, France's Le Monde or German magazine Der Spiegel instead get a page that says, 'ACCESS DENIED. Internet Usage is Logged & Monitored'... The Air Force says it has blocked more than 25 websites that contain WikiLeaks documents, in order to keep classified material off unclassified computer systems. ... The move was ordered by the 24th Air Force... The Army, Navy, and Marines aren't blocking the sites, and the Defense Department hasn't told the services to do so, according to spokespeople for the services and the Pentagon."
We don't want the stable-hands still inside to see that the horses are gone.
*insert pithy sig here*
Each passing day big brother becomes more real :(
well if everyone becomes a wikileaks mirror, they wont be able to get to anything.
So the ONLY people willfully kept in the dark are the soldiers meant to protect us? Are the very people who are the most likely to know the dirt anyway?
F$%^ing brilliant. Next up, weapons ban limited to the army.
Hey soldier, this dam is broke, please fix it... here's a spoon
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
The servicemen may be able to fly a fscking jet fighter, but they are probably not able to get to wikileaks documents through a non-airforce internet connection !!
Read radical news here
Blows my mind that their approach is to close their eyes and hope it goes away. What's the average age of soldiers, 21 or 22? I'm guessing if they really want to read the stories they'll be tech savy enough to manage some how. I'm on the fence about Wikileaks but blocking news sites to try to suppress stories is moronic and shows how seriously behind the times they really are.
Perhaps the need to realize that material on a major newspaper's web site cannot by any stretch of the imagination still be considered to be "classified". Or is this just some pencil pusher trying to follow the rules are written?
...caused a lot of the ugly chapters of history. Being part of an organisation makes you responsible for it's actions.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Most of the guys at the top making these decisions are old and don't understand how the internet works. It's kinda cute, really.
Similes are like metaphors
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press
The military is, of course, under control of the Executive branch, which is bound to enforcing the law, not creating or ignoring it (even the little bit of autonomy, such as treaties and appointments, is subject to Congressional approval).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
It's like confiscating matchbooks but not lighters from the stable boys after THE ENTIRE TOWN HAS BURNED DOWN !
Yet considering what I saw when I was in the military I'm not that surprised. A plane buff I knew on base wrote to the Library of Congress (as a normal civilian using his civilian address) asking for info on the SR71 Blackbird. They sent him some cool media materials which included a poster sized drawing of the plane, all standard and unclassified press packet stuff. During an inspection of the barracks a stupid officer saw it and wanted him arrested for spying and stealing classified material.
Because of things like that, do I get surprised when some military moron goes off half-cocked and without bullets? No, I've become convinced that most of them don't even understand the security rules or pretty much anything else that exists outside their egocentric imaginations. (And I'm pretty sure that 3 of the 5 generals I actually met were senile at the time. 4 of them were also complete assholes, but that's a different issue.)
FTA, "...websites that contain WikiLeaks documents, in order to keep classified material off unclassified computer systems..."
IOW, computer systems that host WL docs are classified and USAF computers are not?
Hope the air farce criminals have lots of fingers to plug them leaky holes with. There's gonna be a lot of 'em. Might just be easier to pull the plug entirely.
Of course we wouldn't want the people most likely to be affected by this material (the military) to actually be able to see it. They might perhaps, become better educated! Aieeeeee!
the soldiers won't find this information in other ways? I'm sure the news is being spread verbally; What are the people in charge gonna do next? Prosecute people for simply knowing the info? No, this is simply a childish attempt to uphold a structure which Wikileaks has shown to be corrupt and misguided.
By putting a bucket underneath one place where water was seen to have started to trickle
Ignoring the fact that the floor and walls are already soaked, the room is already flooded, there are 1000 other places in the room where there are holes in the roof, and for now the rain has mostly abated anyways.
The 1st amendment does not apply to military members. They do not have the same right, nor code of laws as civilians.
Speaking as a federal employee, we've already been told that we are not to access the classified documents leaked on Wikileaks unless we already have clearance and authority to view such documents (which I don't, of course). On the other hand, we were also told that we're not restricted from viewing independent reporting about the leaked documents; that is, if the NYT talks about what's in a classified diplomatic cable, we can read the article no problem, but if they serve up a copy of the document, we're supposed to avoid it.
This applies extra in cases where we're using government computers, because it creates a problem having classified documents on a system not authorized to have classified documents on it. I don't know whether they'd press charges if someone did this anyway, but at the very least it could cost someone their job, so I'm happy to steer clear.
Military members have been informed that if they, or even their family members are found viewing or in possession of classified documents published by wikileaks they are subject to discipline under the UCMJ. The soldiers who know have permission to know, but the word being handed down is that if you aren't supposed to know, you are in trouble, and it doesn't look like an idle bluff.
This is so stupid, I just don't know where to begin.
I guess it's true what they say about military intelligence.
Of course it's a special kind of stupid that cares about following the letter that closely.
Ah, so you block the New York Times and Washington Post for posting 'traitorous' documents, but are they still rebroadcasting 'patriotic' Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in Iraq for the troops?
The military has a special TV and radio service called AFRTS that replays shows for troops overseas, but there's been accusations of bias for years (eg all conservative shows but no liberal ones)
Does an organization/company have the authority to prevent access to any internet site
that is not work related to their employees?
The hospital where I work blocked facebook.com, espn.com, and wizards.com, but
if you access WiFi as a patient using an itouch, none of those site are blocked.
I see that it's obviously suspicious for Air Force to block Wikileaks and related sites.
And if say my AT&T DSL Cable Company start blocking Wikileaks, I'd be Raging against
the Machine for sure.
But is it within their power as employers to dictate what employee's browsing options are?
I think it's an interesting question at least.
"The Army, Navy, and Marines aren't blocking the sites, and the Defense Department hasn't told the services to do so, according to spokespeople for the services and the Pentagon."
The Army isn't blocking entire sites but trying to access any web page that reference Wiki leaks will result in a access policy denied... I wouldn't even be able to access this page at work though the rest of Slashdot is accessible
I don't see any mention of the Washington Post in the linked article.
posting anon on purpose
Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c) is why you can't read wikileaks as a government contractor or a Government employee and why its being blocked by some AF networks (not all). We would lose our jobs and possibly be fined and/or prison time.
Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.
Well this proves that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, much like military peace, military justice, military accountability, or even.....military budget
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Such secret documents are no longer secret. Everybody has access to them.
Since the documents are no longer secret, it's so stupid to keep them classified.
They should better declassify them and stop wasting their time on blocking documents everybody else has access to.
--
Really - what did anyone think would happen?
So, lets assume that Wikileaks kept it to things pretty much anyone would consider to be a violation of basic human rights. That would probably have resulted in an attempt to kept stuff secret (for instance no removable devices and such), but for the most part life would have went on. But no, they had to simply release everything in a slow process to maximize publicity.
They didn't stop at embarrassing things said (much of which needs to be expressed but doesn't really need to be broadcast - two diplomats really need to confer that someone is a douchbag but it is best that it isn't publicised) to things that just are internal communications and could be used against us but really do not have embarrassing information (some of the procedural discussions and such). These communications are vital to *any* govt operating and are best not really being talked about (anyone think the US is the only one doing the UN spy stuff? I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell cheap - yet it is best left unsaid and just implied). Heck, you can't even have a working negotiation over your salary if you have that level of transparency let alone if the diplomatic channels did.
Given this they *are* going to lock down on the whole thing and, as many have pointed out that is difficult to do. Therefore the lock down is going to be harsh to limit it as much as possible. If they can still function and only have half the documents leak-able that is a win from that point of view. Further Wikileaks lost a great deal of its support in the last release because of that too. There is nothing that really had a burning need to be told and a lot that was only going to give concrete ammunition to people who would truly oppress your rights in major way. One can talk about all the vetting done before the release, yet the vast majority of people can see the information released and make up their own minds (and regardless of how much you call them "sheople"it turns out most do just that - see the last US election for how well running with that idea worked out, heck see the last three or four ones for everyone involved to see how well that idea worked out - turns out reality doesn't give a flip about how much you believe your fantasy).
But hey, lets all DDOS everyone that thinks this way and it will solve the worlds problems!!!! If you want to win then embrace a similar idea - until then you will, at best, get short periods of time where enough give you the benefit of the doubt. Love them, hate them. be indifferent but this is precisely why both Clinton and Bush did as they wanted for eight years each no matter who ran Congress and is why Obama is totally lost after 2 (even though Bush and Clinton were VERY different governing styles they each ran circles around the other side of the political isle).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Actually, this has to do with the handling of what, while leaked, are still classified documents. If you have classified documents on a military network for which they were not destined, then a considerable amount of paperwork is generated to identify, track, and justify those documents on the network. And it's a pain in the a$$ - each time you have a document, this paperwork is then required. Now, just think about how much paperwork is generated each time some random user accesses the same document. Over and over...
So, it is very likely that the Air Force really does not care if the service members see the documents, so long as it's not on the .mil networks. Otherwise, the paperwork is just overwhelming...
My 2 cents.
This means only one thing: more damaging leaks are in the pipeline.
Aim High!
Bring me men!
Fly Fight Win!
Don't Peek!
Julian Assange is the first true dissident, prisoners of conscience of the English civilization.
I remember how the similar phenomena appeared in the former Soviet Union from the blue sky. Any structured society is based on certain set of generally accepted lies. And it is not always bad. For example, we say to each other "you look great", even in cases when it is not so.
These people however want to bring the truth come hell or water high. But the truth is often destructive. No matter what state did to frighten them, to silence them, it did not work. These were Anatoliy Scheranskiy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky , Elena Bonner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Bonner , Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Solzhenitsyn and some others.
These people had no fear of death, some aberration of nature. For the state based on organized violence it was a major glitch, which finally brought it down.
The Air Force is in a way right, that it recognized the potential danger of such seemingly soft spoken people. Julian Assange is a thing which may bring down the whole state. He may be stronger than all the ministries, army, fleet, police, etc. taken together. That is exactly what happened with the USSR. It is not possible to scare such people, not possible to execute them, and even less possible to silence them.
Mirror List Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 2174 sites (updated 2010-12-14 22:12 GMT)
Why does this suprise?
People in positions of authority, more often than not, got there because they have skills at manipulating people, and asserting control. NOT because they have some innate understanding of what they are actually in control over, or some special vocational talent other than essentially bullying and mind control techniques. (No, not the tinfoil hat kind-- the 'guilt trip, and glowing smile charisma' kind.)
As such, when the reality of the complete absence of a foundation for that authority is exposed, tight-fisted clampdowns happen.
A good example: Sobriety laws during prohibition. People flaunted the sobriety laws, "Authority figures" in government clamped down to maintain their authority in that matter-- ultimately lost.
This time we have Wikileaks and individuals in areas with sensitive data releasing said data to the public (Flaunting the "Secrets" rules and laws), and the authority figures impacted are clamping down, predicably, because they have no real power to exercise other than their ability to manipulate the opinions of other people.
This is precisely why the Mainstream media is performing rampant character assasination against Wikileaks, why the government is stamping its little feet in a tantrum and blocking sites en-mass, and why senators are calling for blood.
The power of our government stems from the strength of our military. (Because our government has become tyrranical. It keeps secrets from the public because it does not trust the public. It needs the muscle of the military and local police to enforce its will on the public. The second amendment was meant to prevent this, by keeping the government healthfully wary of trying this, but has successfully neutered the public's ability to revolt, and so now just relies on military power to maintain order. The intended design of our government was to be the inverse, where voting is a proxy for offing the government with violence; and where that is rendered impossible, to have the second amendment to fall back on to do the housekeeping when/if it becomes necessary.)
When the military [rather, the people in it] realises or is made aware of the abuses it is being made an accomplice to, (A-la manning) it may react contrary to the designs of those in authority, circumventing that authority. When that happens, the sword the government uses to exert its will starts to cut the other way. Naturally, they don't want that. Being exposed as impotent usurpers doing dirty, one-sided dealings is one of their greatest fears. The incompetent and decietful are always afraid of being found out. ("And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!" etc.)
As such, the people in authority in this situation have decided that the solution is *NOT* to change policy so that the military will no longer have incentive to disobey and go maverick on them when such information comes out, but instead to make the individual people in the military as ignorant of the big picture as possible, so that they can continue to abuse the power the military provides them, while minimising the risks of creating another Manning.
As such, I would expect the government to be enacting the following damage control:
1) Discredit the leaker as much as possible, and make an example of them. (Check!)
2) Discredit the organisation(s) that fascilitated the leaks, and blacklist them (Check!)
3) Distract attention away from security leaks as much as possible in the media, and focus on how the government is making people "safer." (TSA--Check, Murdock and pals demonize freed information and informants-- check, Government releases press releases about improved security as nebulously as possible- check.)
4) Compartmentalize all information sources, and enact strong-arm measures against government employees. Emphasize that all employees are being constantly monitored and will be sent to android hell at the first act of defiance. (Check.)
5) Create new laws premitting the government to harshly d
So bad, that someone should arrest you and put you out of our collective misery. Classified makes no sense if the information is widely available-- you might as well classify the value of pi.
Most of this has to do with the fact that if a classfied document gets on an unclassfied computer it causes a whole bunch of butt-pain. You have to wipe that computer. Probably replace the drive and do a crap ton of paperwork. So, rather than do all of that every time someone hits a site hosting the documents it's just easier to block them on the government owned computers until they're not in the news anymore. They're not saying you can't look at them. They're not pretending they don't exist. They just don't want the classfied stuff on the unclassfied computer.
This is one of the things that would be properly identified and probably even avoided if English language had an equivalent of the Russian word "dolboyob".
It's a word that describes this very combination of stupidity, blind adherence to the rules in situations when it causes nothing but harm, and being a massive asshole about it.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
...it must be really difficult to criticize China, their Great Firewall and their government policies anymore. I really feel sorry about the good people living in your country, and all other affected by your country's crimes.
The Air Force does not want classified documents on unclassified computers so now they have to block access to websites where classified documents are available. It actually makes a lot of sense from the Air Force perspective.
What does not make sense is that some buffoon is publishing stolen classified documents (while himself using encrypted communication with his cronies) and is receiving lots and lots of sympathy for his brave actions aimed at embarrassing democratic countries (not much from North Korea or Libya, but it's probably just a coincidence).
Now let's see if Wikileaks will publish the details of the movie deal that Assante will get when this is all over. Seriously, this guy is a bigger joke than Mafiaboy.
lucm, indeed.
Speaking as a federal employee, we've already been told that we are not to access the classified documents leaked on Wikileaks unless we already have clearance and authority to view such documents (which I don't, of course). On the other hand, we were also told that we're not restricted from viewing independent reporting about the leaked documents; that is, if the NYT talks about what's in a classified diplomatic cable, we can read the article no problem, but if they serve up a copy of the document, we're supposed to avoid it.
This applies extra in cases where we're using government computers, because it creates a problem having classified documents on a system not authorized to have classified documents on it. I don't know whether they'd press charges if someone did this anyway, but at the very least it could cost someone their job, so I'm happy to steer clear. by Dachannien (617929)
on Tuesday December 14, @10:39PM (#34556550)
How does it make YOU feel? You probably won't respond to that. I can understand: They're using THREATS now, thinly veiled ones no less (more or less telling you "You read that, & you can kiss your job good-bye boy. Think of your kids and your own plans, and then think again about taking a read of the material Mr. Assange was given...").
Personally? I think it's HORSESHIT! That's what I think/feel about what you wrote (not you or what you said, but rather what's being DONE to "you & yours" like you (federal employees)). The thing that spooks me a bit? Well, if it goes over on you folks, how long before the rest of us have to deal with such shit??
More and more, the USA is becoming like Communist nations are... "freedom of speech", an "inalienable right" is being circumvented all the time (e.g. "hate speak" - give me a break: If you don't like what's being said, then DON'T LISTEN TO IT!).
Look at it this way though (the "bright side", & you were smart enough to allude to it yourself in what I quoted from you above): You can still get enough "by osmosis/accretion", just by reading what others write about it after they read it.
(So, You can learn purely by the context of others that have read it and understood it).
The problem with the "powers that be" today? They're just not that smart. Oh, they're good crooks, but that doesn't require much intelligence. The reason I state this, is simple: Whenever, for example, you see a warning of "under penalty of (insert whatever here), you may be imprisoned, fined $xxx,xxx etc./et al OR both"?
You KNOW they have a "weak spot" & have to use fear, the threat of pain (financial or physical), and the like to TRY to make you afraid to exercise your own rights.
Think about that.
The WSJ is not blocked, at least for USAFE. Different commands might have different policies, or we just haven't caught up due to the time change.
Good fact checking though....
Forgot to mention that such rigid over-reactions are exactly the kind of jiu-jitsu that Assange is looking for.
Yes, reading Assange's famous essay, this is almost a parodic example of the reaction he expects authoritarian power structures to adopt in response to leaks, in his view, to their own detriment.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
most of what i have read is so stupid at being classified secret it reminds me of a ploy once done to me about shaving when i got classified access....IT was a test.... BUT apparently the us is a total differant ball a wax. a music tunes safety via ACTA is national security and obama said so. Just funny.NOT My problem you outsourced your entire economy and only have britney left....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think the blocking of websites that carried the leaked diplomatic cables is Air Force wide or not. I just checked from the Air Force network and I was able to reach each of the news sites listed in the article, with the exception of the New York Times. With the New York Times website, I didn't get the usual 'ACCESS DENIED. Internet Usage is Logged & Monitored', but a 'A communication error occurred: "Operation timed out"', which may or may not mean that it is being blocked. I'm not sure if it's just certain portions of the AF network have implemented the block or if there never really was a block in the first place. In any case, some of the comments in response to one of the stories posted here on Slashdot itself contained part of the leaked cables and I wasn't even looking for the information. That's not to say that the Air Force won't block the sites in question, but at this time, they don't seem to be blocked. I understand that the classified information doesn't automatically become unclassified just because it was leaked to the public, but that information could be hiding anywhere once it does get out. Therefore, I don't see what good it would do to block a few sites that are known to have the information and leave the internet open to other sites that haven't been blocked by the normal filters. Like I said, it's easy to come across that kind of information from other websites without even looking for it. Being a member of the military means feeling ambiguous about this type of information being leaked to the public. On one hand I understand the need to maintain certain information away from the public. On the other, I do believe the government classifies way more information that is absolutely necessary even though we receive instructions not to classify information just because it may be embarrassing to the government or have details about potential violations. In any case, these types of debates are what help us as a society evaluate our priorities and decide what really is important. I haven't seen any orders come down restricting us from reading the wikileaks documents yet. Although, I did see an e-mail sent to one of our contractors from his company prohibiting them from looking for and reading the diplomatic cables. I tend to think it ridiculous to prohibit it now since it's a little late in the game. Also, if the cables are off limits, why not all other classified information that have ever been leaked?
We have several words that are the functional equivalent of 'dolboyob'. Patriotism, nationalism, and blind obedience, for example.
"Jobsworth"? It's a common British term for an official who follows a daft rule because it's "more than his job's worth" not to. Generally it's only used against those who do so with relish and just use that as an excuse, so it seems to fit.
As usual, such stupid "logic" has unintended consequences. You could embed arbitrary information into a Cablegate memo (the cover text), by alternating the capitalization of letters according to the 0's and 1's of the plain text. The result is a classified document, with some strange capitalization. Suppose two people want to communicate covertly and securely, and they agree to only communicate by way of these encrypted, capitalization-modulated, classified cover texts. It seems the feds can't spoof this, because it would mean they were transmitting classified material to so-called anarchists -- their own rules obviously prevent them from doing that. Second, only individuals with sufficient clearance would even be able to initially PROCESS any intercepted communication. You certainly couldn't enlist the help of local law enforcement, because you know for a fact that the stuff they'd be tapping is classified, and you obviously can't have that, either. Suddenly, all of your communications are just as secret as the original memos themselves.
Wouldn't be surprised if somebody picked up such an idea and experimented with it just to see what would happen. It seems like it would either force the feds to break the secrecy laws, or they'd be forced to do something radical like declassify the documents, change the law in some way that itself would certainly have some really fucked up unintended consequences, or simply give up.
Also, if you sent a fax of a Cablegate to a federal fax number, what would happen, exactly?
One of my pet hates too. He's right! People need to learn to swear grammatically. :)
I fail to see where is the harm in it... ok, if anyone working there want to see the documents, they can do it from home or everywhere else, it is just "formal" adherency to rules that do not make much sense, but hardly harming at all.
Why can't
use sites like https://www.dartproxy.info/ and http://www.publicproxyservers.com/proxy/list_rating1.html
Unless I am mistaken, they are blocking access to media sites that are displaying all the documents that until very recently every single one of them had complete access to anyway?
It doesn't cover "being a massive asshole about it" part. Not only those people followed the rule that clearly could not be applied in any sane way (as documents are now everywhere on Earth, so "keeping them away" serves no purpose), they on their own initiative instituted a blocking policy that was not anywhere close to their job responsibilities.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The strict definition provided by the OED doesn't. Generally as used, it does imply being an asshole about it.
Another possible term is "little hitler", although that's more of a bullying "you will respect my authoritae" type attitude from a minor official.
They are already looked down on by the other services because of their lackadaisical discipline. Now they will be less well informed.
Wait... it's still funny.
Except that that would be way too rational.
And, if you think about it, for most of the cables it doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong, the damage they do it by the world thinking they are correct. So, puting in 70% wrong info and not telling anyone is like building a doomsday machine and not telling anyone. Hmmm.... now it sounds more like something an intelligence agency would do :)
If you are scanning unclassified systems for classified material in order to detect espionage, it probably helps to have most systems clean so that you are not running down a bunch of false leads. This may be an artifact of Air Force methods. Navy and Marines have secure computers even for unclassified work with physical tracking of users which might be a different approach. The Army is where the leak came from allegedly.
People cleared sign the SF-312 non-disclosure agreement:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf
The FAQ provided has a relevant Q and A:
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?
Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html
Some people like to define "insanity" as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. By that standard, I'm insane, since I keep reading stories on /.
I've been reading and posting on /. for almost 10 years. During that time, the fraction of people posting comments here on a particular story that actually know something about what they're talking about and say something sensible and worthwhile has steadily decreased. For this post, for example, maybe 1 post in 100 actually contains relevant, explanatory information. The other 99 in 100 are generally absurd comments made from complete and utter ignorance about the topic and issues at hand.
This has nothing to do with "closing the barn door after the horse has left" or any other effort to recover control over what has been leaked. This has nothing to do with an attempt to censor. There are specific, pragmatic reasons for this that have nothing whatsoever to do with either of these, and nearly everyone posting such things has never been cleared and has no idea what the relevant laws and regulations are here that would dictate such a step. But that doesn't stop 99 /100 of the posters in this story from posting with supreme confidence that they understand everything about what's going on and how silly the Air Force's actions are here. Common sense would seem to dictate that if the topic is something that one doesn't know much about, *getting educated about it* might be a sensible way to proceed. I know that's an absurd thing to hope for online in general, or at least it has been since the September that Never Ended. But it's still depressing to see the ignorance-posted-with-confidence here, getting worse every year.
And yet I keep looking in from time to time. That makes me insane.
Be they the CIA, FBI, **AA, police, DHS, the armed forces - every single one of them. Because then, all each of us has to do is include some of the Wikileaked documents on our personal sites, blogs, etc, and then none of the US authorities will be allowed to read our sites, thus protecting us all from their pathetic attempts to classify the entire world's population as dangerous terrorists. Result! Wonder if it would also stop the likes of Hillary Clinton from ordering for the illegal bugging of senior members of the UN? Opps, Wikileaked there...
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
from the front lines of the burgeoning infowar...
In what is being described as the first serious 'Friendly Fire' incident of the war, Bomber Command has shot itself in the foot by denying it's staff access to the main international sources of clean information. Troops will have to survive on dirty 'used' information from now on.
Reports from anon ops indicate that the new denial of service strategy will be to post news everywhere, thus denying opposing forces access to any information at all.
JOBSWORTH
Words (and Music?) by Jeremy Taylor
Now, I was just an ordinary English man,
Till I got me uniform, and hat,
And ever since that hour, I exercise me power,
Preventing you from doing this and that.
You'll find me on the turnstiles at the zoo,
Or outside the Roxy, marshalling the queue,
And if you turn up late, when I'm on the gate,
It's no good asking me to let you through... 'cause I'll just say:
CHORUS: Jobsworth, josbsworth; it's more than my job's worth.
I don't care, rain or snow, whatever you want - the answer's no!
I can keep you standing, for hours in the queue,
And if you don't like, you know what you can do! (A...a...ah...ah)
When you're trying to see, what the butler saw, ... and you won't get that from me,
I'm the one who says; "Come on, move on!",
And if you want to stay, you'll have to bleedin' pay,
And even then you can't stay long.
You may be almost dropping dead from thirst,
Or waiting for the toilet, fit to burst,
But I've got the key
Until I've had me little grumble first!
Chorus:
Jobsworth, josbsworth; it's more than my job's worth.
I don't care, rain or snow, whatever you want - the answer's no!
I can keep you standing, for hours in the queue,
And if you don't like, you know what you can do! (La, la, la, la, la, la, la la la la, la, la)
Spoken: (Yes, well, I died in the last war for people like you ... don't you forget it!)
Fishing in the river, on a summer's day, ... my ah ... foot, ...without a backhander.
I s'pose you think that water's all for free?
But, I've got news for you; everybody pays his due,
And right now it'll cost you 50p (plus VAT).
Don't think you can picnic on the grass,
Public amenity
And if you want fresh air, you'll find some over there,
But I don't fell inclined to let you pass
CHORUS: Jobsworth, josbsworth; it's more than my job's worth.
I don't care, rain or snow, whatever you want - the answer's no!
I can keep you standing, for hours in the queue,
And if you don't like, you know what you can do!
(A...a...ah...ah...)
Mornin' Skipper, what can we do for you? (Recitative) ... All right Chief, don't shout. (Recitative) ... you could try that shop around the block ... (sniff), ... Cock.
"Don't call me Skipper!"
Whatever you require, we're very sorry, Squire,
But it's ten to one we just sold out.
'Course
But I doubt if he's got any left in stock,
And if you think we'll get 'em through, inside a month or two,
I'm afraid you're in for a nasty shock,
CHORUS: Jobsworth, josbsworth; it's more than my job's worth.
I don't care, rain or snow, whatever you want - the answer's no!
I can keep you standing, for hours in the queue,
And if you don't like, you know what you can do!
When you get back home, you will heave a sigh, ... TV,
And thank the Lord that you've got rid of me.
But it won't be very long before your telephone goes wrong,
And you need someone to fix your
And add to that, your lights have all gone out, (Nya, nya)
And your central heating boiler's up the spout,
And when you're tearing your hair, and the wife's going spare,
You'll hear us in the distance calling out: (Two, three, four...)
CHORUS: Jobsworth, josbsworth; it's more than my job's worth. ...years in the queue,
I don't care, rain or snow, whatever you want - the answer's no!
I can keep you standing, for
And if you don't like, you know what you can do! (You can lump it!)
You know what ... you ... can ... do!
(Rump, duddie ah dah - rump dah - vroom)
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Now these guys had discipline! A good example, you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade
The Charge Of The Light Brigade
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Memorializing Events in the Battle of Balaclava, October 25, 1854
Written 1854
Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
...but this directive was never intended to apply in the case of such a massive breach. The context doesn't change the necessity of following rules though. There are a few issues that make the military's decision ot block the press sites laughable.
First, just because there might be classified information available, you do not ban members from a resource or location in it's entirety. This would be like banning military members without a top secret clearance and a need to know from Fort Meade or Fort Huachuca. Just as there are justifiable things to do in these bases that do not involve reading elint, there are justifiable reasons to read the New York Times.
Another issue is the fact that this policy does nothing to solve the source leak. As a former COMSEC NCO, I have to question the logic. Just putting a sticker on the phone that says "Ivan's listening" isn't going to solve this. Assange is not the spy. His organization is the vehicle by which military members and other government employees have used to break their vows to the government and American people. These are the people who need to be found and punished, because these are the people who have broken the law.
Finally, if unclassified military controlled computers are the only machines on the planet which do not have access to our secrets, are they still secrets or something else?
No way, that sort of makes a little bit of sense.
Now if they gave the soldier a banana with a smiley face drawn on it with a sharpy or a poodle wearing a tutu that would be more believable.
It's like a man that falls out of a plane and starts to flap his arms.
He is falling, there is nothing he can do about it, the result is inevitable, but maybe flapping his arms makes him feel better about the situation.
Sieg Heil!!!
A soldier is in a positive position, in that they are supposed to follow the direction of the social body for the protection of the social body and will receive unspecified later benefits after they have returned to right-holding civilian status (this is why I think soldiers shouldn't be allowed to vote).
That's an interesting thought... Though I think that there is a small conflict.
It is true that the military is supposed to follow the will of the social body... But IMO that's exactly why it is so important that the members of the military aren't removed from that social body! I live in a country with 100% conscription based army. One of the main advantages of that is that it is very difficult to use such an army against the will of the population: The views of the military and the views of the civilian population are the same because there is no selection bias (aside from gender) for choosing the soldiers.
The idea of disallowing soldiers from voting seems counter-productive, there. They are supposed to follow the orders but the orders should always reflect the views of the social body that they're a part of.
There are also massive problems with disallowing soldiers from voting if the army isn't conscription based, due to selection bias.
I see where the USAF is coming from on this one. For one thing, the fact that the information has been leaked doesn't make it unclassified; it's still classified. And as someone who holds a clearance, I've been advised not to go look at the data (aside from the fact that, as a person with access to classified materials, association in any form with WikiLeaks is inherently risky career-wise). But then, when I'm reading the Washington Post, I see a link to an interesting story...and reading the whole thing, I discover that it's from WikiLeaks only because they say so in the last paragraph! It's like being rickrolled in a way; if I had known that it was a WL-sourced story, I would not have read it. Same thing on the NY Times as well. If they'd put just a precursor to the byline, it'd be fine, but instead the only way to avoid accidentally violating the code of conduct I formally bound myself to, I have to avoid reading stories that have an international-affairs, national security or war-related bend to them. This is a way for the USAF to put pressure on them to at least make it easier for guys like me to toe the line.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1903798&cid=34559886 about HOSTS files, & Windows Defender/MS Security Essentials, because there is a "work-around" you may be interested in...
APK
"I saw an opportunity to troll you and get you out of the woodwork.." - by gmhowell (26755) on Monday December 13, @06:56PM (#34541134) Homepage Journal
FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34541134
and here also from that same exchange/thread:
"I never denied trolling you. And the only person I troll under the AC banner is tomhudson." - by gmhowell (26755) on Tuesday December 14, @01:55AM (#34543612) Homepage Journal
FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612
No denying it, is there, gmhowell? After all, your own quoted words in black & white with the links you posted them in are difficult to deny now, aren't they? LMAO!
You're very stupid.
People: Don't pay this trolling douchebag gmhowell any mind, he's an incompetent out of work ignoramus who has nothing better to do than admittedly troll others here and he admits to it above in his own words quoted no less.
(Payback's a bitch, and nobody's a bigger beyotch than gmhowell, the trolling scumbag waste of life).
Classified documents are still classified documents and if it's illegal to possess or look at them that's not going to change because one disaffected soldier leaks them to someone who makes it their business to harm the United States. The laws are very clear and here the Air Force is just making sure that some idiot doesn't put himself in trouble with the law. And it is blocking those sites from Air Force Computers! Not your computer, work computers used at work for work in the Air Force. Simple.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
As a liberal and pro-freedom-of-speech and transparency-in-goverment kind of guy, I kinda hate to say this, but....
This makes sense. Beliefs, one way or the other, don't apply in this situation. The USAF is part of the government, and these documents are still considered classified, therefore it would be illegal to make them available. I know blocking the entire New York Times site seems silly, but it's just more practical. There's no way they could monitor all these sites all the time and just block the pages that apply. There's too many sites with too many pages for that to be feasible.
Some of you will argue that the classified status of these documents no longer applies, as they're out there now. But that's not how it works. If you wrote a novel, then I published it online, then a few other sites published it, too, does that mean your copyright no longer exists? Of course not. And therefore continued distribution would be illegal. And the gov & military are obligated not to facilitate further distribution.
If you don't like that example, how about publishing your credit card numbers and social security number? You want the Air Force to facilitate access to your personal info?
It all boils down to their being obligated not to facilitate further breaking of the law, whether you believe in the law or not -- or whether THEY even believe in the law or not. No different that a cop who fully supports legalization of pot and thinks there's nothing wrong with it. As long as it is illegal, he's sworn to enforce the law, so if you're holding, you're going to jail.
If you don't like something, don't sit around and cry about everyone's reaction to it, do something about what happened in the first place. Don't cry about an unjust law being enforced, change the law.
... when they get told that they're fighting for freedom.
Check your premises.
Stop threadshitting on unrelated comments, you jackass.
"Bureaucracy" ?
In this case it is obvious that the beans are out of the can and it is too late to do anything about it, however that isn't always true. There are many times where information is leaked, but there is uncertainty about the reliability of the source. In those situations it makes sense to continue to treat the information as classified, and not to comment on it. Given that, someone has to make a decision as to whether there is value in keeping the information classified, or to admit any further attempts to contain it are futile. If you left that decision up to the personal judgment of each individual person who has a clearance, then you would almost always be able to find someone who would blab about it without thinking about (or even knowing) the full implications of what they are saying. It has to be done by the classifying authority who has the full picture, and can judge the impact of the decision.
Furthermore, with a leak this large, it will take a while to process. Until that decision is made, people a security clearance have to continue treating it as classified. Does it look stupid in this case? Yes. Any set of processes and rules you can make will have exceptions where they just don't make sense (I imagine Godel would have something to say about this). It is a balancing act between complicating the rules to cover all the exceptions (and thus making them harder to understand) having simplistic rules that err on the side of caution (where people will have to break them to get any work done), and simplifying the other way and not satisfying your security goals.
The USAF is just trying to preemptively save themselves from work interruptions and piles of paperwork. Information derived from classified information is treated as classified until otherwise unclassified, so the news outlets' articles technically are still disseminating classified information. The laws that govern this kind of information, for good reason, do not make exceptions for "common sense" (which is not nearly as common as one would hope) and individual judgment. So if someone up the chain decides to strictly act on the letter of the laws and regulations regarding classified material, do you know what would happen?
Every computer that accessed one of these news articles, every device attached to said computers, and the work spaces in which they reside would all become classified. Which would be a major, major impediment to actually getting things done. The USAF is simply making sure that, if some high-powered idiot actually enforces the rules to the letter, the impact to their operations will be minimized. It's one of those low-probability, high-risk scenarios. And whenever you find yourself saying, "...but surely the government would not be stupid enough to actually..." it probably behooves you to assume that they could.
The consequences of that information reaching an unclassified system are piles of paperwork, and having practically everything in that computer's vicinity become classified. Which, as you might imagine, is incredibly cumbersome.
Rules exist precisely because there are stupid people who cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment on their own.
More importantly, it keeps them from having time-consuming paperwork to do in the case that someone actually decides to enforce the law to the letter. Because then you have to contain a "security incident," and you probably have thousands of such incidents to deal with. The USAF is just being careful to protect themselves from the rest of the bureaucracy.
From your description dolboyob sounds like a good complement to Kafaesque. Too bad it doesn't appear in standard Russian dictionaries, only slang: A Russsian word equivalent to "dumb fuck." Nu i dolboyob! (what a dumb fuck!).
"Dumbfuck" is a very poor translation -- it reflects etymology but not semantics.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.