Restricted Web Access to The Guardian is Armywide, Officials Say
Source: Monterey Herald
Restricted web access to The Guardian is Armywide, officials say
By PHILLIP MOLNAR
Herald Staff Writer
Posted: 06/27/2013 03:12:16 PM PDT
Updated: 06/27/2013 06:00:12 PM
The Army admitted Thursday to not only restricting access to The Guardian news website at the Presidio of Monterey, as reported in Thursday's Herald, but Armywide.
Presidio employees said the site had been blocked since The Guardian broke several stories on data collection by the National Security Agency.
Gordon Van Vleet, an Arizona-based spokesman for the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, or NETCOM, said in an email the Army is filtering "some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks."
He wrote it is routine for the Department of Defense to take preventative "network hygiene" measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
Read more: http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_23554739/restricted-web-access-guardian-is-army-wide-officials
Crowman1979
(3,844 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)so our news media is the only authorized info source?
movonne
(9,623 posts)Many died. Where is the eff of compassion?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hey ...is that slime ball Rush still getting air time on military radio?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)was still getting air time on military radio (Eagle 810, Tokyo)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)As they proceed to censor the news.
"argle bargle" they added
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Sure, censor it at work. The employees can read it when they go home at night.
I beginning to think that the Bushies never left power. Why the fuck is this program still in place? And if this is a solution to the problem of informed citizens (as if that were a problem), then it is so idiotic as to be worthy of the Frat Boy himself.
Informed citizens are only a problem to authoritarian "leaders."
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Listening to Feinstein and even Obama go on and on about Snowden without even acknowledging surveillance abuses is sickening.
When do the grownups arrive?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I.e. don't continue to lie to us as they are instructed according to the daily government line.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)well over 2 weeks. It happens fairly regularly but in this situation it is because the documents on the site are still considered classified & therefore can't take the chance of having them downloaded onto our unclassified networks. That ladies & gentlemen is called spillage and causes the systems effected to be pulled of the network, wiped, & reclassified.
Not to mention we don't know if there are any viruses attached to them that could further compromise the systems.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)is on the military airwaves alongwith other "Conservatives" talk shows. Liberals, a no no. Tell me otherwise.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)I only found out about it because I tried to click the link to the article but have enough sense not to get anywhere near the classified docs. Unfortunately there are many in the military that don't have any type of clearances don't get the repeated training on spillage as often as they should.
It's not a restriction thing but a security issue.I just thought some professional insight might be helpful.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)How does the Army expect to think itself out of the mess it's in if personnel are averse to reading unauthorized sites that might contain "spilled" classified information? What's next to declared off-limits: The Washington Post?
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)material then yes. The docs in question can't be downloaded onto our unsecure networks because they are still considered classified & in doing so causes the systems that were used to download the info to now be contaminated. Once contaminated they have to be pulled & wiped & all sorts of crap. If 1000s of Soldiers are downloading these items, then all of those systems have to be pulled.
The military blocks all kinds of crap at one point last year they blocked ESPN for a while because of something stupid, there is many sites blocked at any given time.
Not to mention these are gov computers so technically they can block whatever they want since technically we aren't supposed to use them for personal stuff anyways.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)other words, military.
Once something is in the public domain, it should simply be treated as declassified. But, that would spoil all the nice straight lines and boxes that have been created.
"There's the right way, the wrong way, and the Army Way" - looks like that still applies.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)there is never an easy way to go about things in the military. I stopped trying to figure out most of th bs a long time ago.
I would be much happier if they would block Faux News on the TVs. The docs think my blood pressure is terrible & I'm a bit crazy because it spikes when I'm stuck listening to that crap in their waiting rooms.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)RILib
(862 posts)or videos of dolphins or something? It's always idiot blathering morons or Faux.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)annoying as hell.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)Is there anything surprising about anything anymore?
Bonhomme Richard
(9,001 posts)alittlelark
(18,890 posts)Cuz they might THINK ABOUT IT..........
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)smiles
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Leaking isn't declassification.
So if someone with a clearance pulls up a Guardian story that contains the leaked memos, that person will now be having a very, very bad day. Because they just put classified information on an unclassified computer. Now, that person with a clearance can read a story discussing the documents without causing a problem. But the documents themselves on an unclassified computer are a big no-no.
In addition to the shit they will have to personally endure, all the computer and network hardware between the classified person and the Internet has to be scrubbed.
Blocking the Guardian probably saves the taxpayers a pile of cash, since the Guardian folks love to put the actual classified documents in their stories without any warning.
If the Guardian doesn't want that, they should put the actual documents behind a "Click here to see the documents" link. That way, everyone who wants to read them can, and everyone who can't read them won't be entering an expensive shitstorm. This is what happened with Manning's leaks - the actual documents were behind links, so people with clearances could read the stories without hitting the documents.
OTOH, that would really interfere with all the "Look how Orwellian they are!!" charges.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)which is a complete falsehood as at the same time they are also pointing out that the website is accessible off base. Now if the US Government banned the site anywhere in the country that would be completely different.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the person with a clearance downloads the documents on their home computer, they're still in deep trouble.
Doesn't matter where they find the classified document, they still have to treat it as classified. If they found a document laying on the floor of a supermarket while they were on vacation in Canada, they still have to treat it as classified.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I'm not defending or supporting their access off-base, but stating that it's not something they can easily control. My main point is that on base (or in a Defense Department Building) an employer has the right to block a site. That's what people are pissing and moaning about. Instead of the government, use a bank and whether employees have access to porn sites (which could have viruses).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the person with a clearance reads the documents at home, it is unlikely that the security people at work will find out about it.
But that person is supposed to report it to the people at work. And failing to report it is a monumental, colossal, gigantic, there-are-not-big-enough-adjectives no-no.
So the person might get away with it. Or their next polygraph may end with handcuffs.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Never thought of that, good point.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Outside the base is another thing. The military is an employer. Obviously they can't stop people from accessing it outside the base. There are plenty of employers who block websites. My mom works for a hospital in the business office and several people spent time on Facebook, etc so they had to block it.
Am I for censorship? No. Employers do have a right to block websites with content that is objectionable.
As for Rush Limpballs, I wish they'd get rid of that crap as well.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)WTF are they willing to die protecting, again?
eaglesclaw
(15 posts)Any body who served in nam knows the AFVN radio Saigon was censored, and didn't allow heavy rock music. Hanoi Hanna played it, but we were also forbidden to listen to her enemy radio station. The third alternative was defiance radio from the base camp troops, and that was called the Bullchit band, and each battalion & division basecamps had their own radio station playing the heavy music the troops in the field enjoyed as well as delivering out news, etc. So there was Radio Bear Cat, Radio lai Kai, Bien Hoa, for all the Division camps, because the prc radios had a limited braodcast distance.
The bullchit band took a prc field radio set to an unused band, keyed open, and set next to a record player speaker. Some times these base camp radios were under the elevated tents, in a tent, in a bunker or cook shack, etc. There was kind of a game played out as the MPs attempted to locate these base radio stations and close them down by using tri- angulation methods. Meanwhile the night patrols could set up to that band and have the forbidden music.
In short - the radio was censored in nam to the troops.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)where were you? The military gave radio to people like Rush.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Liberal.
DemoTex
(25,407 posts)What is wrong with this picture?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Misinformation, but oh no the P word.
askeptic
(478 posts)especially when ppl like Limbaugh are allowed to propagandize our troops with their venomous rhetoric
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)The censorship is because they don't want our troops to know that the government is violating the Constitution that the military is sworn to protect and defend.