What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
170 Comments
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -36/+161This is absolutely nothing to get upset about. The risks involved with military personnel blogging are tremendously high.
The blogs would be very difficult to police, and even apparently useless information could be pieced together to form some kind of intelligence over time.
NO job gives you freedom of speech anyway. Most contracts disallow the discussion of work with people outside of the workplace, so I don't see it as any different from that.
America has never truly been a free country like the government would have you believe, so wake up and smell the coffee. - ckSubs, on 10/12/2007, -18/+94Loose Lips Sink Ships.
Ever seen written letters with black bars through half of the words? That's how the military's been doing it for ages now, but in the digital world that's not exactly going to work. So they ban blogs to prevent the spread of intelligence to the enemy.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this policy. It will likely save the lives of servicemen and others in Iraq. - itsameericle, on 10/12/2007, -36/+80God forbid we learn about the reality of war and how undesirable the cruel consequences are for the participants.
- EztliNahua, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50Yeah, I'm not going to trust this unless I see some citations.
Please note: They must be in proper MLA format. - HipOldGuy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+43I don;t like this new policy but.....as they said in WWII - Loose Lips Sink Ships.
Sorry, but you give up certain things when you go into the service, I know all about that.
This is not really that new, just a revision to cover the realities of how the Internet has changed communication.
Mail has been restricted and checked before this war, and rightly so. - roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41avsol...
The terrorists over there, they ARE killing innocent people. They aren't, for the most part, targeting our soldiers. IEDs on the side of the road are about the extent of their assault on our forces, and while proven deadly, the toll on our military is nowhere near the toll on civilian lives, with suicide bombers walking into markets and blowing up nothing but civilians.
Anyone who supports the new government, or rather, anyone who isnt actively fighting the new government is, in fact, a target. Why do you think civilian death is so much higher than military death? The reason we're still there right now, is that we're trying to stabilize it, and provide protection for the average Iraqi, which is a difficult task when you really cant tell who has a bomb strapped to themselves.
As for the story, thats a bit "no *****".
Soldiers cannot speak to the press, their letters are generally screened, and they have been for years. 1 person's innocent remarks are one thing, but when you have thousands of soldiers, none of which are intentionally giving out sensitive info, but each of them providing a little bit of context, you can put together many stories and actually acquire a good bit of information. There is a reason that you only see high-ranking officers in the press, speaking to them. Because they have been trained on how to answer questions, and more importantly, that have a broader understanding for what information is sensitive, and what subtle clues could tip someone off. - Calypsoaf, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41"I'm not in the US now, and I was not born there. That does not make me not-American..."
Actually, I'm pretty ***** sure it DOES make you not American. - panicofficer, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41avasol: I'm really sick of uninformed people implying that the only reason a person joins the military is because they feel they have to financially. People like me, with friends and family in the military, are quite personally offended by generalized statements like that. While there are likely some who have joined for that reason, most do not.
- InfidelAl, on 10/12/2007, -22/+44Got an email that said that some Army MP is in a world of hurt because of his MySpace page. He used it as a diary while he was in Iraq. I guess he posted the results of an unsuccessful mortar attack that happened on his post. He talked about where the munitions landed and that if they had been placed a little farther back and higher that there would have been casualties. Apparently, two days later they attacked again and took his advice. Three soldiers died.
- opticsnake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Yeah, that rumor was floating around when I was deployed back in 2004. It's Army urban legend.
- crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18terrorists reading Myspace.
if that isn't cruel and unusual torture, i don't what is... - zostix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27This is yet another reason that I will be letting my service expire next may. Half way to retirement and I feel forced to choose a right to personal privacy and rights over what the Army says. Hell I am probably in violation for even posting this.
- inactive, on 05/23/2008, -0/+16When I was in Iraq, we weren't allowed to write blogs or post any sort of information about ourselves. But it wasn't truly regulated. I used to write a blog on Migente (when it was popular) but I never spoke about what I was doing or where I was. Despite me being able to write a blog, I could see how it has to be regulated now because there are those few idiots who post up vitally important information along with detailed descriptions. This makes it particularly scary to even want to operate in Iraq. For example, we had a "club" on the other side of our base in Iraq. For New Years, they posted flyers all over the base promoting its News Years Party. I refused to go although my friends kept taunting me. On New Years Day, we were ambushed by mortar bombs everywhere. That was a scary situation to go through.
- Kamatz, on 10/12/2007, -49/+64Now this is something to get upset about, but just about all the mature diggers left for reddit and slashdot and all we have left is freakin idiot spammers.
- Mactard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22re: Kamatz--If you think they really left then I would like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17The reason is beyond that. It's for safety precautions, not just to 'deny them of their rights'
Morons - MadOgre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Loose Clicks Sink Ships.
- TruthKid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Terrorist in Iraq? You must be joking me, in Iraq the enemy are referred to as Insurgents. While this might not seem like a difference to you, war in anticipated in a combat zone so terrorism goes out the window. As for the story, this is nothing new. On my first tour to Iraq a couple years ago blogging was frowned upon, because you have the soldiers who give up valuable intel and end up getting their friends killed. Don't you think the enemy will use any and every resource it has to recon those they are trying to defeat? If you post a blog about what had gone on during a day of patrols or what not, the enemy is going to look for patterns, details about security checkpoints, etc. God forbid you have pictures in your blog as well and you've just done all the work for them. EVERY soldier was informed that it is not their freedoms they defend, but the freedoms of those back home. Sometimes you must suspend and give up your freedom to ensure liberty moves forward. I can see quite a few diggers who have no experience in combat or common sense which prevent them from making themselves look foolish crying about an order put out to protect our own people.
- aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I thought they did this anyway? All news from warzones must be cleared first, whether you're with CNN, the cook onboard a carrier, or someone in the front line. Its been that way since WW2 hasn't it?
- xobecide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@kilofox
Yes, I understand what age I am and that's why I wasn't going to pretend I was someone older and "wiser." Narcissistic? For looking at everyone else and trying to study and comprehend the problems and the potential answers? I haven't delivered any answers and I don't plan to until I'm old enough for people like you to take notice of me. I gather that 2 years of keeping my eyes open and ears to the ground keep me more well informed than those who keep their eyes and ears transfixed on the few people in power. I know there are others like me because of a community like Digg, where by joining it _should_ be your main function to find the news that pertains to the world around us.
As for bitter... perhaps my outlook on my country it is. As for my outlook on life it's far from bitter. I can't explain this to you because you're not me, but I'm sure an judgmental intellect such as your own can agree that you are not me.
And please, I'd like to know you're outlook on our government and how far into the future in can take us before it drives into the ground. I'm sure your 1-50 year head start on me can teach me something (no sarcasm). If you can't offer anything more than what this community and countless history books has offered me... then how are you any more well informed than I am? - Glynth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"How do you know its not plain old censorship? You the one monitoring the communication?"
A better question: How do YOU know it IS? The authorities that ARE looking into these things have said there's a problem with letting them blog whenever and whatever they want. What proof do you have that there isn't one? - h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17I'd rather not be killed because some myspace kid wanted to post on his blog. They can live without it.
- GRTWHT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@panicofficer, I am going to make an assumption (we all know the saying about those) that your friends/family are comprised almost exclusively of officers.
From my personal observations (retired after 20), there are far more officers than enlisted personnel that join the military for reasons of patriotism and morality simply because: only those who come from wealthy backgrounds (can afford college educations followed by living a life of fulfilling their ideals, not just paying bills) are able to 'choose' what they do with their lives.
The rest of the officer corps and the vast majority of the enlisted are made up of people such as myself who were unable to afford to go to college, were able to afford it primarily thanks to ROTC or monumental student loan debts, forcing us to take the first job which could pay the bills. If you aren't connected enough to beat out all the other applicants with matching qualifications and lack of experience and you have no interest in being a minimum wage slave (or simply can't afford that option), the military is one of very few plausible choices.
I was very happy to see this trend change after Desert Storm and even more so after September 11th when many more idealistic/patriotic types (who had the choice of what to do with their lives) chose to enlist. Sadly, the "War on Terror" and the "Iraq War" have taken their toll on this motivation and once again very few of those that have a choice are enlisting and now many that don't have much of a choice are choosing to work for $5 per hour with no real hope of advancement rather than risk life and limb for something they don't believe in.
I am also "...really sick of uninformed people..."
If you aren't one of us (or weren't very recently), don't profess to know who we are. - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I once got an email from the president of Somalia.
- HipOldGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The difference between then and now is:
Then, (postal mail delivery time?????)
"Dear Mom and Dad, We really gave it to the bad guys last month, we sat for 3 Days in a barn in the La Rouge, France, waiting for them to come out. They had no I idea we were in the big red barn with HAY FOR SALE on the side.. We surprised them good! Took over the base. Well the week after we hit Berlin, but you know all about that, Hitler is dead and we won! They did not expect us to come from the south up Route 213" Love you, see you soon, Give Walley a hug from me! Love to you all Ricky.
Now: (text from cell phone (intercepted??))
in red brn, in LaRouge frnce, sgn hay4sell, nazi going 2b suprzd, nxt wk berlin! rt 213! lol, lv ya rick - Killmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I know I guy who just got back from Iraq, he says don't believe the media.
- jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16What is dumb is how long it took the army to do this. Before the army was so in "Mission Accomplished" mode they thought the basic rules of war didn't matter. The fact they are putting an end to to now is just a sign of how poor a job they are doing in this war.
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15This isn't about censorship of "what it's like to be in war", it's about not getting people killed because little Johnny just had to share his photos of his exact location, or tell the enemy right where he is. This is about people being dumb. Well, that goes for all blogs but especially so here when your life literally depends on it.
- Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9How do you even believe that?
You know the chances of some Iranian or Iraqi insurgent even using myspace much less being able to somehow find a certain soldiers myspace? - kazersoza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is not news or anything new.. just a new realm of communication that is being monitored.. When you are in the service of the US military ..you do NOT have the same rights as a typical citizen. You are gvt property and all communication is watched for security of operations. Note: I did 8 years of service during 1st gulf war.
- Evildudetx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Whether anyone on Digg agrees with it or not, it doesn't matter.
Everyone who served signed on the dotted line and swore an oath....twice. If you didnt' want to abide by the rules and regulations then you could still get out before taking that second oath.
- dtzitz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Who dugg it or blogged it?" tab wanted for questioning
- reboare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4NEWSFLASH: You signup for the military and you have only one right and that is to FOLLOW ORDERS!
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't understand the problem with this, operational security hinges on tightly maintained secrecy.
A soldier signs up for that just as voluntarily as we sign NDAs, except their colleagues' *lives* are the stake.
Where's the freedom of speech problem? This is a responsibility to maintain secrecy, upheld among a group of adult volunteers. - dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4RE: r3zonance
Most in a war talk about the same *****, how much it sucks. Kinda like our day to day jobs. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The army is not just another job. Join the army and you give up your right to free speech.
If you don't like that, don't join. - caution, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey guys.
The new regulation (530-1) came out in mid-April.
It's an Operational Security policy.
The Army and DoD are struggling with the instant, public communications technology but mostly as it pertains to security. Technology moves much faster than policy and doctrine. Sometimes a new policy is too heavy-handed or is overcome by events or other directives by the time it's published.
When you join, you agree there are some things you can't talk about and some opinions you can't share with others.
This isn't as draconian as some seem to think. The policies as they are written now are very difficult to enforce on a routine basis, but can be used to reprimand Soldiers who cross the line. - FuZi0nDET, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah my company doesn't let me post anything about them and I don't have to worry about some one trying to kill me based off of info I posted on the web. I wouldnt doubt that the web would be used to find info used to support attacks against the troops. It would be different if you wanted to write an e-mail to you dad telling him about how people don't want to be there and are against the war and they rejected their e-mail request.
- CountryBoyRI, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's been their policy, yes. However, as the number of posted blogs on the Internet has shown, it hasn't been enforced. Also, Newsweek recently did a piece in which they posted the emails and letters of fallen troops on MSNBC.com.
The policy isn't new. The technology is. - roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15panicofficer,
avasol is obviously not from the US. Simply skimming through his rant will show that he has little to no clue about this country. - naes341, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Avasol,
Wow, so much dickheadedness in one post. You cant just cap someone because you think they are evil. This whole artical was not about anything related to your retard rant. It was about the military not being allowed to post info on the internet. I bet you typed that out with one hand, and jerked it with the other. - Spuy767, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Read a book on APA and MLA paragraph formatting.
- mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For Whom the Bell Tolls?
The draft is coming back. The draft is currently in Congress.
If this bill for the 2007 draft passes into law, or even if the president simply decrees the insurrection act is in effect, forget congress, most people here will also have to get approval for your email.
As soon as this bill becomes law, it's not just the ARMY soldiers who are going to be suffering such unfreedom of speech. You will too, become subject to government speech control.
You think I am kidding? You think I am delusional?
Go read what your government has in store for you. Read it now, NOW!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.393:
This "universal" service means YOU! Not kidding here. Universal is the name, understand what it means.
FEMALES and males, age 18 to 42: Get ready to become a government worker.
You will be retrained as a government worker because your peacetime skills are not very useful. Why? Because we're not suing the terrorists, we're fighting them. We're not working cash registers for the terrorists, we're fighting them. We're not teaching the terrorists, we're fighting them.
Get it? Your peacetime skills, especially if you are an office worker, or a professional worker, in the majority of cases the skills you spent a lifetime developing, are just not terribly helpful for bringing the fight to the terrorists.
My friends, you are about to bear direct witness, exactly how multiple simultaneous unending foreign wars, bring unfreedom to America. Force abroad transforms into force at home.
Your only chance to avoid being forced into national service, is to stop these multiple simultaneous unending wars. - Flendon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@silver31u
I know the people who wrote this update. And that is all this is, an update that closed a loophole. Other forms of communication have been limited for years when directly related to tactics, damage assessments, and deaths where the family has not been notified. This just explicitly recognizes blogs as a form of communication.
I also know some of the people who monitor these blogs also. They use the same tools the enemy does to do it, Google. If they can find enough information to plan or improve an attack against American soldiers then the blogger gets in trouble. I've seen some of the blogs reviewed in this way: "Take a look at this picture of our armor! It saved our life! But if they had used X amount more explosives we would be dead know." Two days later they used X amount more explosives. Soldiers lives are on the line and strict checks and balances are in place for those in charge. Soldiers can still blog so long as they use common sense and remember that ANYONE can read their blog. - zostix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The way the new regulation reads:
"2–1. All Army personnel: Operations security is everyone’s responsibility. Failure to properly implement OPSEC measures can result in serious injury or death to our personnel, damage to weapons systems, equipment and facilities, loss of sensitive technologies and mission failure. OPSEC is a continuous process and an inherent part of military culture and as such, must be fully integrated into the execution of all Army operations and supporting activities. All Department of the Army (DA) personnel (active component, reserve component to include U.S. Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and DA civilians), and DOD contractors will—
g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.
(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation"
-- Basically this says that before sending out an email, blog, letter, or even resume (and it dosen't limit it to soldiers that are deployed, or even if they discuss Army related topics) that they must have the document reviewed by a commander and an OPSEC officer. By it being a regulation, if a soldier sends a letter to his mom that he is going to visit in July, he is violating the regulation. If a soldier violates a regulation he is subject to prosecution under Article 92 and can be sent to jail for upto 2 years per offense. It would be ludicrious for a command to prossecute for someone writing to his or her mother and saying he is going to visit in a few months, but this regulation gives them the power to do just that. I understand the need for OPSEC but this regulation takes it too far and gives commanders too much control over the details of a soldiers personal lives. - Spuy767, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They're not banning e-mail you *****. They're trying to stifle the distribution of potentially sensetive information like troop locations.
- opticsnake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't forget the second part of that paragraph:
(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and critical information.
Like so many others have said already, this stuff is nothing new. It's merely spelling out the policy that has already been in placed for years within the military. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that their personnel don't reveal classified and/or sensitive information which could bring harm to Soldiers. You don't post on the internet what time your patrol leaves the base and how many gun trucks you have and what the patrol consists of. Nowhere does it say that Soldiers have to stop blogging about how they feel and what's going through their head. - LostInTheWired, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You have to understand, also, that by joining the military and signing that document, you have suddenly given away a great deal of your rights because you are now a civil servant. All of your rights are regulated to the situation. The government, by contract of law (and all this military stuff was written by our forefathers, I believe, but I could be wrong) they really suspend your right to free speech. They also suspend your right to any real free will. In return, the government pays you, and, in my state, will pay for just about every dollar of collage, or at least a good bit of it depending on the collage (under the Montgomery GI Bill, they give $30,000 for school for a combat veteran). All pros and cons. They joined, they need to understand their contract to the government.
- itwasthursday, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Hahah, I've never heard that one. But I was deployed not too long ago and I couldn't believe what some soldiers were posting on their Myspace: photos of what building they slept in on base, or when their flight was departing, etc.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dude- take your meds. You'll feel better,
-
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is