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."

53 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Machupo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We don't want the stable-hands still inside to see that the horses are gone.

    --
    *insert pithy sig here*
    1. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There may be good reasons to do this, such as legal reasons. Just because they are public knowledge and everyone in the world has access to them, it doesn't mean all these documents are suddenly unclassified.

      Therefore, looking at classified material and leaving them up in a web browser might be a legal breach.

      Congress needs to pass a law stating that any publicly available document is automatically unclassified for this to be OK!

    2. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
      I picture a bunch of high ranking Air Force guys in their fancy uniforms sitting around on futons in someone's apartment. There's a blacklight on, Pink Floyd's _Dark Side of the Moon_ is playing, and they're passing this enormous bong around the room. After taking a really deep hit, one general turns to the other and says, "Whoa... dude, I just had the most amazing idea! For years we've worried about the secrets getting OUT. What if, instead, we worked to keep the secrets from getting IN?" And then the other generals turn and say "Whoa... deep, man, deep! Wow... does anyone have anything to eat?"

      At any rate, that's how I imagine people might come up with this kind of policy.

    3. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Air Force, meet Streisand Effect.

      You to are about to get to know each other quite well I think.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by rally2xs · · Score: 2

      This is a good thing, as it protects service members and civilian employees. The problem is, it is a really _bad_ thing for these folks to end up with classified documents on their computers. Just becuase WL went and released a bunch of classsified docments does not mean that they are now unclassified. They are still confidential, secret, or top secret. An employee with this sort of material on his/her hard disk could be in a lot of trouble, not to mention that the computer in question would have to be processed to positively remove the classified material. This could involve destruction of the hard disk, as simply erasing it might leave a trace of the classified material if the erase head didn't exactly track the previous path of that write head. A thin strip of classified could still remain. So, total destruction of the hard disk might be required, with obvious loss of not only the value of the disk, but possibly other material the user was working on.

      Better to block these sites, and avoid the problem from the get-go. And I'm not sorry to see these site lose the traffic. Its a mild punishment for the major damage that it has done to the country, and possibly more horrific consequences to come if insurgents / Taliban find a use for some of the names that may be exposed.

    5. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's superficially logical, but it seems to centre around "keeping data secure because it has a classification attached to it", as opposed to the (subtly but importantly different) "keeping data secure in order to prevent it from being disseminated to the public". Surely classification is a means to an end; a way of limiting access? If that end has been compromised, the classification has already failed. It's accepted that these documents are widely available to the public already - wouldn't it make more sense from all perspectives, including that of the military, to declare the Wikileaks-redacted versions declassified?

      If they do manage to bring any court cases for the leaks, the fact that they were classified at the time of release isn't changed by a subsequent declassification. They don't have to like it, and it's not an admission of defeat, it's just a logical action that actually enhances the consistency of the classification system by preventing situations where documents widely distributed to those without clearance can't be seen by those with clearance.

    6. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by mr100percent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, so when the Taliban do read them and the US forces don't, it will put the Americans at an advantage?

    7. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that the military isn't a closed ecosystem. That becomes useless when the answer to the question can be as simple as "My [wife, brother, friend, preacher, ...] told me in a phone conversation last week."

      No, this has nothing to do with any of the altruistic purposes that folks have suggested. The reason is pure and simple. The government wants to punish the news media for its role in distributing the information. Expect other federal organizations to add similar blocks in the next few days. I'm actually surprised it didn't happen sooner. It's just like how the previous administration punished the media for being too critical of Bush by throwing their folks out of the White House press corps. The Obama administration likes to use the word "transparency", but in truth, like all governments, they only want transparency when it doesn't cast them or their cronies in a bad light.

      If the federal government costs those news organizations enough eyes, they'll think twice before crossing them again, and more to the point, so will all the other news organizations. This is why freedom of the press must be near-absolute, and why the government should be disallowed from any direct action to block websites for any reason. (By "direct action", I'm leaving a loophole for K-12 public schools to pay a non-government vendor to maintain a block list.) The government has shown time and time again that it cannot be trusted to sit back and allow the free press to criticize it and air its dirty laundry---that it cannot be trusted to allow the free press to do its job as a watchdog and as a check and balance against government abuse. Because it cannot resist the temptation to interfere inappropriately, it must not be allowed to interfere at all.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps so, but that is a *really* bad technicality.
      Anything in the public domain can't really be classified, let alone when its distributed in such a massive way like how Wikileaks does it.

      I assume they arent arresting Air Force personnel for having a dead tree copy right?

    9. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by senlis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As I commented further down, this order is an attempt to keep classified documents off unclassified DoD (department of defense) computers. Simply because a document is leaked does not mean it is declassified, and viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is on the public domain, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation. In response to such an incident, we have to spend many man-hours containing and clearing the classified material from the DoD network. It makes perfect sense in that context.

    10. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Forgot to mention that such rigid over-reactions are exactly the kind of jiu-jitsu that Assange is looking for.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Air Force, meet Streisand Effect. You to are about to get to know each other quite well I think.

      I doubt their intent was to keep this thing under more wraps. I would guess this is someone who is just trying to cover their ass. The "in order to keep classified material off unclassified computer systems" sounds like something that, despite being completely idiotic in this case, is still someone's job. I could definitely imagine a general or congressman getting upset because airmen were viewing wikileaks and, I don't know "getting demoralized" or something, and someone's ass being on the line as a scapegoat for that technicality.

      The fact that it will do nothing in terms of the information getting out doesn't matter to the people doing it: their jobs are still safer. It seems to me that extremely few people in the military or government ever got in trouble for erring on the side of "censor it."

    12. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...viewing leaked classified documents, even though it is on the public domain, on an unclassified DoD computer results in a security violation."

      No, the policy makes no sense on its face and is worthy of laughter and ridicule.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    13. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by protodevilin · · Score: 2

      Logically, and from a civilian perspective, you are correct. But this is the US military, whose ability to function is heavily dependant rigid, black-and-white, often traditional regulations. The rule is: no SIPR information on NIPR networks, period. Just because some SIPR information can make it onto a NIPR system doesn't mean it's permitted, or that the rule is suddenly going to change.

    14. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Gogo0 · · Score: 2

      No. is not.

      How does one determine classification? Only the originator or an uninterested third party is allowed to even VIEW the document, as need-to-know disallows even the highest information security officer (going by Army reg, at least) from even looking at the contents.
      When a content or perimeter scanner catches a file based on SECRET markings, it doesnt automatically tell us what the file is and if its on WikiLeaks or not. it needs to go through a formal identification, classification, and possible necessary sanitizing procedure.
      keeping classified data off nonclassified systems SAVES taxpayer dollars because we arent wasting our time doing spillage procedures against data that has been either intentionally or unintentionally "declassified" (quotes only for the latter).

      though if you want, you can continue to pretend to know what the f*ck youre talking about as you continue to give your tax dollars to people like me who do this for a living.

    15. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Viperpete · · Score: 2

      I am ex-military and held a secret clearance.

      The methodology is flawed. A secret everybody knows becomes common knowledge and is therefore not a secret. It does not even have the pretension of being a secret everybody knows but does not discuss because everyone thinks that it is still a secret and wants to keep it secret from others. The wikileak is known by everyone to be known by everyone so the point of hiding it anymore becomes moot.

      Personally, I just see this as the USAF being pedantic.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    16. Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!! by Teancum · · Score: 2

      On the contrary. These airmen are indeed being told explicitly that they are not allowed to read these newspapers at home. I've read the general memos and talked with people being impacted here, and that is precisely what they are being told.

      As a matter of fact, if they read some of these Wikileaks documents, they have to go to a security officer and go through a debriefing process. Furthermore if their computer, their home computer, receives these "classfied" materials they are also being instructed that they need to "sanitize" their computers.... at home... to erase these document from their own computers.

      RTFA before you appear as a bigger prick than I think you may be, but then again you may be worse yet. Then again you were a gutless wonder to be posting as an AC to boot.

      That perhaps some of the other service branches may not be as idiotic as the Air Force may be true, and hopefully there will break out some common sense here.

  2. Millitary inteligence by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Millitary inteligence by Cwix · · Score: 2

      They have weird rules in the military, and this may just be the guy in charge of keeping classified material off of classified computers covering his ass by following the letter of the rules.

      Shoot they had us fly with our weapons a few times, but they still took away our lighters.. go figure.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:Millitary inteligence by ToadProphet · · Score: 2

      Possibly a dumb question, but is information published in the NYT still 'classified'?

      --
      It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
    3. Re:Millitary inteligence by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2

      Actually, I believe Julian Assange is also being kept in the dark. On the ABC (Australian radio) at lunchtime I heard they're keeping him in solitary confinement; that they gave him a copy of Time magazine to read, but removed the cover because it featured him.

      The fact that he's being held like this is a much bigger indictment of American policy than any unguarded opinions of the diplomats would be.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:Millitary inteligence by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      The point is, once it's actually been published in the NYT, what's the point of considering it classified anymore? What damage could possibly be done that hasn't already?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Millitary inteligence by ushering05401 · · Score: 2

      I don't think that is right, or at least hasn't been right in a while. Soldier means someone who maintains a separate contract with the social body and as such has various natural rights removed from their person.

      It is arranged along the same lines as citizenship. A citizen is in a neutral position with regards to the give and take of society - rights are bestowed so long as the social contract is observed. 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). On the other end of the spectrum are those that have violated the social contract, and they are deprived of rights in the same manner as the soldier, but are only restored to their rights later if the indiscretion was adjudged below a certain severity.

      This is why it is so dangerous to go into battle without a sovereign guaranteeing your rights. If you are not a soldier, but only a stateless enemy combatant the U.S. is not technically removing any right from your person via rendition. There was no law establishing your right to begin with unless you subscribe to the now defunct concept of basic 'human' rights. The U.S. no longer does and has not for some time.

    6. Re:Millitary inteligence by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Yes. Unless some government agency allowed to unclassify something, it is classified. If they classify the information that the night is dark this info must not be circulated by people who signed agreements granting them access to classified information. Whether it is common knowledge does not matter. That's the funny part about it: If you're not supposed to know it, you may talk about it.

      As soon as you sign a paper informing you about just how horrendous a crime you would commit if you ever talked about something that you'll learn under the seal of "classified", it starts being relevant for you. At least under most circumstances (there are actually other rules that complicate it even more, but let's keep it simple for now). So if you somehow happen to stumble upon the ultimate secret (personally I think it's kinda dumb to keep the "codes" for classified information and just how "secret" something is classified, but hey...), you can technically put it on your homepage. It might be treason if you can tell from the content (or the "labels") that it isn't supposed to be broadcast, but that's for some court to decide. If you have signed the relevant papers, you bypass the court, so to speak.

      But even if that information is published and you are under the oath, you STILL cannot talk about it, comment it or say anything about it. Not even "no comment". This information does not exist, as far as you are concerned. As odd as this may sound, it serves a valid reason: That way you do not confirm it. It's printed, but you saying "yeah, I know" would confirm its authenticity.

      Now, I'm not sure how the US system works in this context, but I can only assume that their soldiers have to sign some documents stating that they will not spread information given to them and that they do not attempt to gain information not given to them. And that latter part would be in jeopardy if they read media that distribute the leaked cables.

      So, in short, I guess this move is less one to keep the soldiers "dumb". The idea seems to be to keep them from accidentally breaking their "classified" agreements.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Unclassified by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    in order to keep classified material off unclassified computer systems.

    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?

    1. Re:Unclassified by Tiger4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Information is remains classified until someone with the proper authority de-classifies it. Just because it is released into the wild does not de-classify something. No more than if a thief sells your property to a third party it is no longer your property. You may not have physical possession or control of it, but you certainly would assume you still owned it.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    2. Re:Unclassified by Drishmung · · Score: 3, Informative
      secret

      1. done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others

      2. kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secret

      If everybody knows it because it's plastered over the front page of the New York Times it is no longer a secret. Your thief analogy is inaccurate. Regardless of the legitimacy of how it got there, you can not reasonably believe that it is, any more, 'secret'. To look at it another way: a thief stole your vase and smashed it. It is now a broken vase. Just because they had no right to do so doesn't unbreak the vase.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    3. Re:Unclassified by tombeard · · Score: 2

      Well, you can classify it any way you want, but it is still common public knowledge. RIAA et al aside, you cant "own" knowledge. Cost of reproduction is zero. Once you display any information it is owned by us all.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    4. Re:Unclassified by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      You inherently can't steal knowledge. Therefore your entire argument is moot. This isn't about stolen physical goods (where the original is lost). This isn't even about exact copies of documents (which can be protected by copyright). This is in large part about paraphrased descriptions of documents that contain information of historical relevance. The only reasonable comparison would be with corporate trade secrets, and even that is a stretch given the compelling argument that the public has an inherent right to know much of this information.

      More to the point, the argument is not about whether it is acceptable to possess a copy of the information. The argument is about whether it is useful to continue to pretend that classifying information is still useful when the information is readily available. When it comes to corporate secrets, as I understand it, once published, that information is no longer secret, so republication cannot typically result in civil or criminal charges; only the first act of publication is illegal.

      Based on that, I would say that any expectation that our government's secrets should be somehow taboo under similar circumstances is prima facie absurd. Once published, it is no longer secret by any useful definition, and any notion that the material is somehow classified is pretty much bureaucratic pedantry.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Unclassified by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      You're very good at following rules. But not very good at understanding consequences.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Unclassified by spinkham · · Score: 2

      You're not stealing the knowledge, as you are not depriving them of it.
      What you might be doing is depriving them of the benefits of having a monopoly of that data collection. What you are not depriving them of is the data collection itself.

      Copying without permission is not theft of the item being copied. That doesn't mean it's automatically morally or legally ok, just that it differs from theft in substantial ways.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
  4. Re:1994 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shit! Only 10 more years backwards and we'll get back to 1984! Somebody blow up the flux capacitor!

  5. Blind obedience to authority without morals... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:Blind obedience to authority without morals... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aye. It's like the age-old Death Star contractors conundrum.

  6. Keep in mind... by not+already+in+use · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Keep in mind... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Most of the guys at the top making these decisions are old and don't understand how the internet works.

      These decisions are made by Congress. Not everyone in Congress is old, and not all of them are guys.

      Look, the military is just following the law. Which is what they should do, even when the law is stupid. They don't make the law.

  7. Hmm. What part don't they get? by msauve · · Score: 2

    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
  8. Wow, that's so stupid and pointless! by meerling · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.)

  9. Re:Definitely !! Surely !! by meerling · · Score: 2

    True. Most of the USAF pilots I've talked to are pretty stupid. They are really good at flying their planes, but other than that, most of them are dumb as bricks. And they tent to have egos larger than their multi-ton planes.

  10. Re:so the USAF is unsecured? by Tiger4 · · Score: 2

    Right. Think about it. If a government system was serving up classified documents to anyone that asked, it would be a major scandal. People would rightly want it shut down or disconnected. You certainly would not want classified stuff leaking out into the world, or crossing into systems it doesn't belong in.

    OK, so now we have WL serving up classified documents. So what does the government do? Disconnect from the systems doing the leaking. Can't shut down WL itself, legally, but you can minimize the leakage into places the information doesn't belong.

    --
    Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
  11. Re:Gives me a lot of confidence in the military by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/library/airforcepersonnelstatistics.asp

    Average age of enlisted Airmen is 29, officers are 35

    Average age of the United States military is 28, Army and those would be your soldiers is 29 and the Marines are younger, 25.

  12. Restrictions on classified materials by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. Balance? by mr100percent · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

  14. Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c) by senlis · · Score: 5, Informative

      (c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information. This is the key part of the order. Just because a document is leaked into the public domain does not automatically declassify it. Any viewing of leaked material on DoD (department of defense owned) computers would constitute a security incident causing many man-hours to be spent containing the classified information on the network. The order this article is talking about makes perfect sense. It is so Air Force personnel do not accidentally view classified material on unclassified machines and causing major problems. I would appreciate it if people who obviously don't know what they are talking about wouldn't make ignorant jokes.

    2. Re:Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Transcription:

      The barn door being wide open shall not constitute cause for action. You are not to notice the barn door being open, unless a civilian source tells you that the barn door is open. If the civilian source makes pictures available which might show the barn door being open, you are not to look.

      No!
      . It makes no absolutely zero sense to anyone whose head isn't stuck firmly up the military's ass.

  15. The first dissident of English speaking world by Max_W · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The first dissident of English speaking world by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Julian Assange is the first true dissident, prisoners of conscience of the English civilization.

      This just demonstrates your ignorance of Western history and its figures. What about Bertrand Russel? Marie Equi? Eugene Debs? All them were imprisoned for their views which they none the less advocated their whole lives. Every civilization has its dissidents in all eras. Quite frankly imprisonment is about the best treatment a hardline dissident is likely to receive, given how many were historically executed.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  16. English language needs an equivalent of "dolboyob" by Alex+Belits · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  17. SF 312 NDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  18. I sincerely hope ALL US authortities do the same.. by ColdGrits · · Score: 2

    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.
  19. You are of course correct... by ujoronen · · Score: 2

    ...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?

  20. I wonder what those in the military think... by forkfail · · Score: 2

    ... when they get told that they're fighting for freedom.

    --
    Check your premises.