U.S. Army Block Access To The Guardian's Website Over NSA Leaks 331
New submitter crashcy writes "According to a spokesman for the U.S. Army, the military organization is 'blocking all access to The Guardian newspaper's reports about the National Security Agency's sweeping collection of data about Americans' email and phone communications.' The spokesman goes on to state that it is routine to block access where classified materials may be distributed. The term used was 'network hygiene.' 'Campos wrote if an employee accidentally downloaded classified information, it would result in "labor intensive" work, such as the wipe or destruction of the computer's hard drive. He wrote that an employee who downloads classified information could face disciplinary action if found to have knowingly downloaded the material on an unclassified computer.'"
They lied, even to their own people (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only did NSA chief General Keith Alexander lie to the people, he lied to Congress, he lied to the President, and of course they don't want the foot soldier knowing the lie.
Push comes to shove, everyone of your foot soldiers should remember that you swore an oath to defend the constitution, not the crook at the top.
1984 is finally here (Score:3, Insightful)
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Although admittedly, we've had the ignorance bit down for quite a while.
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about preventing employees from knowing. It's about keeping classified information off of unclassified networks.
I hear a Sousa march in the background - (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the Washington Post? Is the Army also blocking access to 'the newspaper of record for the Federal government"?
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about preventing employees from knowing. It's about keeping classified information off of unclassified networks.
By blocking a publicly accessible journalism website?
Oh, right this is the Army, where Process A Requires Solution B, So Do C Instead is command's modus operandi.
A real distinction, which they're bungling (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked for a military contractor once and was told that there was a good reason not to talk about classified material even after it appeared in the press. Our enemies couldn't be sure that the press reports were right, not without confirmation from classified sources.
The military has now done what I was told not to, confirming the authenticity of the Guardian report.
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what the process is for officially declassifying the information, but I don't see how you can really call something that's public knowledge classified anymore.
Re:They lied, even to their own people (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why I chose to not re-enlist. Granted, my re-enlistment window was over a year ago (before this all came out), but what I saw our elected officials doing made me realize they were a greater threat to our freedom and constitution than any terrorist would ever be... I couldn't in good conscience swear an oath to defend the constitution from both enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, and sleep well at night knowing I was breaking that oath every day I marched in step to the idiots that are leading our country into the "dustbin of history." I know Ronald Reagan isn't the most popular president here on Slashdot, but here is a very cogent remark he made:
“Someone once said that every form of government has one characteristic peculiar to it and if that characteristic is lost, the government will fall. In a monarchy, it is affection and respect for the royal family. If that is lost the monarch is lost. In a dictatorship, it is fear. If the people stop fearing the dictator he'll lose power. In a representative government such as ours, it is virtue. If virtue goes, the government fails. Are we choosing paths that are politically expedient and morally questionable? Are we in truth losing our virtue? . . . If so, we may be nearer the dustbin of history than we realize.”
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unlikely to just be the Guardian, at least in the future if not now. If other sites have the stolen documents available they'll probably be blocked too.
Classified information remains classified until declassified. It may sound silly, but there are some practical reasons to do that.
Re:network ignorance (Score:2, Insightful)
Classified information is not declassified just because it is made public! It still carries whatever classification was originally assigned to it until its classification is formally changed. If you work in an industry where classified information is present (ANY industry in the US, not just the military) and you access leaked classified information on an unclassified network (your phone, your home computer, etc.) then you are in violation of the rules. End of story. The Army isn't being stupid or trying to hide things, they are trying to protect their own people.
Re:They lied, even to their own people (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt NSA lied to the President. And they only lied to Congress because they knew that the Congressmen didn't really give a shit and were just putting on a nice show for the cameras. If they had thought for a second that Congress might actually follow up on their answers (or that the press even had the ABILITY to follow up), they would have parsed their language much more carefully.
Re:A real distinction, which they're bungling (Score:4, Insightful)
Our enemies couldn't be sure that the press reports were right, not without confirmation from classified sources.
I approve of your choice of words. That's exactly how they see every single person, everywhere. Guilty until proven innocent.
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Classified information is not declassified just because it is made public! It still carries whatever classification was originally assigned to it until its classification is formally changed. If you work in an industry where classified information is present (ANY industry in the US, not just the military) and you access leaked classified information on an unclassified network (your phone, your home computer, etc.) then you are in violation of the rules. End of story. The Army isn't being stupid or trying to hide things, they are trying to protect their own people.
Of course, if they were really trying to protect their people, they could say that "Previously classified information that has been released to public news organizations and made publicly available may be accessed by military personnel with no repercussions." Do they really want their own personnel to be less informed than the general public? It's not like preventing soldiers from reading the information is going to keep it out of the hands of the "enemy".
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
The Army doesn't have the authority to say that.
Then whoever classified the information and had such little control over it that a low level analyst contractor could walk out the door with thousands of pages of classified information should be saying it.
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about preventing employees from knowing. It's about keeping classified information off of unclassified networks.
By blocking a publicly accessible journalism website?
Yes. What's so hard to understand here? There are a bunch of federal employees and contractors who simply aren't allowed to have access to various sorts of classified information, no matter where that information comes from or how public it is.
Re: network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:network ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They lied, even to their own people (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is available from a public web site then the information is no longer "classified", but public knowledge. You can not put the genie back in the bottle.
The internet has no delete button and the Army has no neuralizers.
The thinking and the process here is flawed. Once information is leaked it should be "de-classified", since that's what it is. To continue trying to operate as though the leaked information is still somehow magically top-secret is insanity.
Re:network ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's printed in a newspaper worldwide, how the hell are you supposed to know it's classified information?
Official stance is that, should you accidentally encounter classified information somewhere (e.g. Wikipedia), you neither confirm nor deny its accuracy. Then report it. Then the "powers that be" essentially nuke the computer from orbit.
Seems more logical to neither confirm nor deny, then proceed to ignore.
Hold on - doubletake (Score:2, Insightful)
I just read this article again and realized that I overlooked the fact that THE MILITARY CAN CONTROL WEB ACCESS.
I'm not sure which is more uncomfortable -
1. the fact that the ARMY (the fucking ARMY) can control the INTERNET as they see fit, or
2. the fact that I read it and just soft of overlooked it as being a problem due to the flood of control issues since the early 2000s.
Conundrum.
Re:network ignorance (Score:1, Insightful)
People without the proper security clearance and "a need to know", are forbidden by Federal Government regulations (and possibly laws) from "looking at" these leaked documents. This is policy and is reasonable. This is for Federal Government employees only. It does effect their viewing anywhere at any time because of the regulations. The DoE asked our company's employees not to look at the Wikileaks/Pvt. Manning documents. Had anyone without an appropriate security clearance and/or a "need to know" viewed these documents, they would have violated the regulations that they had willingly agreed to and would lose their security clearance and/or their jobs. This is a reasonable regulation and policy--just as a non-disclosure agreement is reasonable.
Re:network ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's not as silly as it sounds.
Actually, it is. Wiping disks to get rid of malware is an entirely different thing, and has absolutely no correlation with army personnel somehow having to somehow "unsee" or pretend they can't see something that is already in the public domain.
Re:network ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
It is nothing more than a state of denial.