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."

Re:Unclassified

[Tiger4]

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.

Re:Unclassified

[Drishmung]

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 [reference.com]

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.

Restrictions on classified materials

[Dachannien]

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.

Balance?

[mr100percent]

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)

Re:Executive Order 13526 Section 1.1(4)(c)

[senlis]

(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.

Re:Quick, Close the Barn Door!!!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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

English language needs an equivalent of "dolboyob"

[Alex Belits]

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.

SF 312 NDA

[Anonymous Coward]

People cleared sign the SF-312 non-disclosure agreement:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf [archives.gov]

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 [archives.gov]