Army clamping down on soldiers' blogs

[LiberalNation]

Harsh, even these are message boards. Who'd want a lot of their comments reviewed first. Also happens to be very hard to enforce unless they're gona put a lot of people to searching the net for troop blogs and messages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/...xtkSeBHBp34T0D

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is tightening restrictions on soldiers' blogs and other Web site postings to ensure sensitive information about military operations does not make it onto public forums.

Soldiers in war zones are already subject to restrictions on blogging and public posts. But the Army's new regulation could affect service members who have returned from war zones and started blogs about their combat experiences.

Under a new directive issued in April, soldiers must consult with their immediate supervisor and an officer responsible for what's known within the military as operational security, or OPSEC, for a review of planned publications.

Reviews will be needed for Web site postings, blog postings, discussions on Internet information forums and discussions on Internet message boards, according to the Army directive.

E-mail that will be published in a public forum is also subject to review under the regulation. But Army officers said personal e-mails will not be reviewed, calling that impractical.

"We're not asking that people not blog but that people be cognizant of OPSEC," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

Blogs, short for Web logs, are journal-style Web sites where people publish their diaries or thoughts, talk about current events or link to other stories or pictures.

Their popularity has grown in recent years, including among service members and their families who often use blogs to post pictures from the war zone and link to stories about Iraq.

[Nuc]

Seems reasonable to me. When you join the military you give up a lot of your civilian rights. This is not a first amendment issue because there is no first amendment in the military. Since it's a volunteer military they are also volunteering to renounce some of the freedom they enjoyed as civilians. There are a lot of differences between civilians and soldiers. For example a civilian can't be imprisoned for desertion. You can just walk out of your job if you feel like it. I think the military should be able to put any reasonable restrictions they think are appropriate for the situation.

[LiberalNation]

I think they should be able to as well. Still seems harsh though.

[Gaffer]

Seems reasonable to me. When you join the military you give up a lot of your civilian rights. This is not a first amendment issue because there is no first amendment in the military. Since it's a volunteer military they are also volunteering to renounce some of the freedom they enjoyed as civilians. There are a lot of differences between civilians and soldiers. For example a civilian can't be imprisoned for desertion. You can just walk out of your job if you feel like it. I think the military should be able to put any reasonable restrictions they think are appropriate for the situation.

I read about this on michel malkins blog. I can see the concern for security reasons but at the same time many of these guys are doing a great service by passing on info you can't get from the MSM. Like gun control the good ones will comply and either stop posting or limit their posts, the bad ones will just keep posting like they always did.

I think its a bad move on the part of the military.

[Pale Rider]

How else are they going to keep a lid on secrets?

I was in the Air Force for eight years. I've been to area 51 twice. To this day, that's about all I can tell you about it, and I have no problem with that. I was temperarily cleared for "crypto", which is the highest security clearance there is. It is defined as, "knowledge that could cause GRAVE DANGER to the security of the United States of America."

We gotta keep a lid on secrets, and I knew guys in the military that "I" wouldn't have trusted with them. So what they're doing... I say it's justified.

[gabosaurus]

"sensitive information" = commentary not favorable to the Bushies.
The Bush camp would rather have the blogs and paid political commentary that glorify the war effort.

[Mr. P]

"sensitive information" = commentary not favorable to the Bushies.
The Bush camp would rather have the blogs and paid political commentary that glorify the war effort.

BS..I served under Nixon, Ford and Carter, you just can't flap yer lips about anything you want to. This has nothing to do with Bush.

[Gaffer]

"sensitive information" = commentary not favorable to the Bushies.
The Bush camp would rather have the blogs and paid political commentary that glorify the war effort.

Since most of the military blogs are supportive of Bush you couldn't be more wrong. You should try reading some of them. But your too busy hating to bother reading.

[darin]

Since most of the military blogs are supportive of Bush you couldn't be more wrong. You should try reading some of them. But your too busy hating to bother reading.

Guys - why to you tolerate her ignorance? You justify her existence on the board by giving her blabberings and rantings the benefit of a reply.

[Mr. P]

Guys - why to you tolerate her ignorance? You justify her existence on the board by giving her blabberings and rantings the benefit of a reply.

Nahhh not justifying, more like pointing at an idiot and laughing.

[Hagbard Celine]

Nahhh not justifying, more like pointing at an idiot and laughing.

I'll never understand how you guys can be so smug when everything you stand for is a joke.

[5stringJeff]

It's called operational security (or OPSEC), and it's a standard military operating procedure. All they are doing is adapting existing OPSEC procedures to new technologies.

[darin]

It's called operational security (or OPSEC), and it's a standard military operating procedure. All they are doing is adapting existing OPSEC procedures to new technologies.

Not nearly as fun as saying the Army is somehow unethically-censoring soldiers, is it?

[5stringJeff]

Not nearly as fun as saying the Army is somehow unethically-censoring soldiers, is it?

I'm such a killjoy. Bueller? Bueller?

[Gunny]

Harsh, even these are message boards. Who'd want a lot of their comments reviewed first. Also happens to be very hard to enforce unless they're gona put a lot of people to searching the net for troop blogs and messages.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070502/...xtkSeBHBp34T0D

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is tightening restrictions on soldiers' blogs and other Web site postings to ensure sensitive information about military operations does not make it onto public forums.

Soldiers in war zones are already subject to restrictions on blogging and public posts. But the Army's new regulation could affect service members who have returned from war zones and started blogs about their combat experiences.

Under a new directive issued in April, soldiers must consult with their immediate supervisor and an officer responsible for what's known within the military as operational security, or OPSEC, for a review of planned publications.

Reviews will be needed for Web site postings, blog postings, discussions on Internet information forums and discussions on Internet message boards, according to the Army directive.

E-mail that will be published in a public forum is also subject to review under the regulation. But Army officers said personal e-mails will not be reviewed, calling that impractical.

"We're not asking that people not blog but that people be cognizant of OPSEC," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

Blogs, short for Web logs, are journal-style Web sites where people publish their diaries or thoughts, talk about current events or link to other stories or pictures.

Their popularity has grown in recent years, including among service members and their families who often use blogs to post pictures from the war zone and link to stories about Iraq.

Not harsh at all. Good COMMSEC.