US Military Surrenders To Social Media, Changes Access Restrictions 96
Thanks to a new policy by the Department of Defense, members of the US Military will now have limited access to social media sites. "According to the memorandum, members of military departments and all authorized users of the Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNET) can now use the publicly accessible capabilities of various social networking and user-generated content sites, instant messaging, forums, and e-mail. This includes YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and others. Access to porn, gambling, or hate crime sites will remain restricted, however, and commanders can cut down on social media use if they feel the need to 'preserve operations security.'"
Re:No Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
This makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
I remember when I was serving in Iraq (Nov '05 to Nov '06) Facebook was just getting big. MySpace was all the rage. People would upload some pictures and videos. In our unit, we didn't really have a policy although our Operations NCO kept a handle on our accounts (he didn't have access to them, but would just check them from time to time to make sure we weren't posting anything that violated opsec). Also, if we maintained a blog we gave him the URL. I didn't think it was a big deal and I understood the rationale. You don't want to post anything online that can:
a) Be taken out of context by the media or others (or if you want to be cynical, anything that can put the military in a bad light).
b) Anything that violates opsec and puts the success of the mission or personnel at risk
Not all of us had access to the NIPR net. Most of us just went to the Internet Cafe (really, a small trailer with a satellite internet connection), the MWR (Morale Welfare and Recreation center), or pooled money to get internet access (2nd platoon pooled in money and set up a satellite dish and a modem, and then strung wires between the trailers). I'm not sure how effective this policy will be in these situations.
At the end of a drill weekend I'd usually be hanging out at the readiness NCO's office before I left and sometimes I'd forget I was using a military computer and try to log on to facebook only to see that it was blocked. Sometimes they blocked Gmail (but that seemed intermittent - I was able to get to it usually). Regarding the comment someone made earlier that the military should have a policy for requesting a site be unblocked, I believe it does. A buddy of mine works for the NGB's IT department (I forget the actual name) and he handles cases. It's very hard to get a site approved though unless you can demonstrate a legitimate use. It's not like writing code where you can find an example on some random dude's blog. The military has their own sites for resources, and anything you need to find can be looked up in a TM (Technical Manual) or an AR (Army Regulation), or DA PAM (Department of the Army Pamphlet), most of which are in digitized form.
I don't think people understand (Score:2, Informative)
that these rules serve to protect very sensitive information. It's not like protecting my personal photo album or someone sending annoying emails from my Facebook account to my address book ...
Social engineers can and will take advantage of the "human factor" within military networks if left to their own devices (i.e., social media retards). Listen, I was in the Marine Corps and although I loved my brothers in arms, not all of them were the brightest bulbs on the string.
Limited access with layers of approval is probably an appropriate model. However, when and where they feel it is necessary, the military should feel free to completely block without all the grief and criticism.
Re: US Military Surrenders? (Score:1, Informative)
You mean the military that went on to give rise to guys like these [wikipedia.org]? The one that lost more men then the United States army did in the whole of the war?
Re:No Slashdot? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ugggh (Score:4, Informative)
We're talking about access from the NIPRNET, not the right of military members to use social networking sites, they could always do that.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for preventing access to social networking sites among other things, from private networks.