Pentagon Takes Head In Sand Approach To Wikileaks: Blocks All Access To Troops... Though Everyone Else Can Get In
from the that's-not-going-to-work dept
The Pentagon's laughably inept response to Wikileaks just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. The latest is that all military personnel are barred from going to Wikileaks and downloading material. Apparently, the military has actually put in place ridiculously crude filters that will block access to any URL that says Wikileaks. Of course, everyone else can still get to Wikileaks. How does this help at all?Obviously, the government doesn't want military staff to leak stuff to Wikileaks, but this ban won't do that. If anything, it'll just call a lot more attention to the site. And the whole reasoning behind the ban is so nonsensical that it'll probably just make members of the military scratch their heads:
[W]illingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material [constitutes] the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.The thing is, the US military isn't who's interested in viewing that material, or the one who matters if they access that material. All this does is take a head-in-the-sand approach to Wikileaks, that maybe if military staff can't reach it directly, everyone will forget about it. We noted that the Pentagon's response to Wikileaks is like the RIAA's response to Napster, but this might be even more brain-dead. It would be like the RIAA setting up a filter for record labels so they can't even look at file sharing sites. It makes no sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, filters, pentagon, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think it would be more like banning musicians from looking at file sharing sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, just because something is freely available doesn't mean it's not classified, so they have to treat it as such. The military is a huge bureaucracy. They're not going to relax on enforcing a rule just because it's pointless in the particular situation. Moreover, the military mindset tends to focus on obeying all rules/laws/orders, even where they are pointless. It's not exactly a "think critically for yourself" sort of setup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The checking from home ignores the rules for official government computers and all the issues that come with the potential for classified spillage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- Watching classified documents at work: Bad!
- Watching classified documents at home: Ok!
I see, it's kinda like porn then.
---
All kidding aside, the documents are already public. Why not declassify them and just avoid all of the bureaucracy altogether? Or is the pentagon just trying to hide something from the troops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would be terrible!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Erm, exactly. But the point is that in this case the "spillage" has already occurred and the information is available to everybody on the planet. What is the point of enforcing those rules now, when the only effect is to give military personnel *less* information than that available to their enemies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's also serving as a reminder that any classified information that is similar or even identical in nature to the leaked info is *still* classified.
I'm guessing they just feel its best to treat spills in a black & white nature as opposed to grey areas. The spill itself is being treated as any other spill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are trusted to have the keys to the building, the codes to deactivate the alarm and control over the CCTV system, but they aren't trusted enough to be permitted entry to the building...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Erm, if it's on Wikileaks, it is already publicly available to anybody who might want it, so who cares if it's in a cache?
"just because something is freely available doesn't mean it's not classified"
But what point is the classification at that time?
"It's not exactly a "think critically for yourself" sort of setup."
Not exactly an excuse, but true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did find this bit of it interesting though:
"Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;"
This seems to indicate more than anything it ought to be declassified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did find this bit of it interesting though:
"Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;"
This seems to indicate more than anything it ought to be declassified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be far nicer, if 'laws' like that were actually ran through congress instead of like 'decrees by Caesar'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, those are completely different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
well, until you realise how completely made of fail the idea of congress (or any democratically elected body on a large scale) is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, if you want to play that game, let's go back to Billy boy, ol' William Jefferson Blithe Clinton...
Let's count them, shall we?
2001 - E.O. 13186 - E.O. 13197 (12 Executive orders issued)
2000 - E.O. 13145 - E.O. 13185 (41 Executive orders issued)
1999 - E.O. 13110 - E.O. 13144 (35 Executive orders issued)
1998 - E.O. 13072 - E.O. 13109 (38 Executive orders issued)
1997 - E.O. 13034 - E.O. 13071 (38 Executive orders issued)
1996 - E.O. 12985 - E.O. 13033 (49 Executive orders issued)
1995 - E.O. 12945 - E.O. 12984 (40 Executive orders issued)
1994 - E.O. 12891 - E.O. 12944 (54 Executive orders issued)
1993 - E.O. 12834 - E.O. 12890 (57 Executive orders issued)
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html
I believe that total comes to 364, thus dwarfing the # that Bush signed. Conveniently left that off your comments, didn't ya. Didn't suit your agenda, did it?
And to be fair, I'll even post #'s for George 41, Reagan and Carter.
Total EO's
GW Bush: 166, 1 term
Reagan: 547, 2 terms
Carter: 320, 1 term (thank God)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a presidental power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm...and why do you this so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uhm...what you do why say what this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike you are an idiot ...
Saying, this information is out there, does not change the law. Until the law changes on this, any government machine that has downloaded classified information that the individual does not have access to or machine is not secured for needs to be scrubbed and re-imaged.
Yes, it seems simple, the information is out there. But we live in a society of laws and rules. The laws and rules are currently coming into conflict with the reality of the situation.
Technology is moving faster than the rules and laws can adapt, expect no rational debate just reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm...
What we may need is a way to ease the rules or clarify what to do in a situation such as this.
Rest assured, something else will be leaked. It's just a matter of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm...
Agreed, politicians keep making laws with no chance of working, never check to see if they are working, and never check to see if they have become obsolete. They stay on the books becoming a burden to society.
My point was that the military has to work with in the rules and you are seeing the result of that. It isn't a matter of them sticking their heads in the sand. Until the documents are declassified they can't be on government systems. The military is doing what it should. Now imagine what would happen if they could ignore the rules when ever they choose to. Its not a pretty thought is it.
"There's so much red tape and the ways to get information so inept, that Wikileaks does it far more efficiently than any bureaucrat who is only interested in their job."
You forgot to mention what job they do more efficiently. If you are talking about spreading information any publicly accessable web site can do that.
The red tape goes back to the burden of the rules that are in place never being re-examined to see if they are working efficiently, doing what they were meant to, or are just plain obsolete.
"What we may need is a way to ease the rules or clarify what to do in a situation such as this."
We have the declassification route, and to allow arbitrary loosening of the rules is a disaster waiting to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are an idiot ...
The system will find equilibrium in one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time for a subdomain "wikikeaks.YOURDOMAIN.com"
haha
EPIC stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As McLuhan noted wayback in 1969: The day of the individualist, of privacy, of fragmented or “applied” knowledge, of “points of view” and specialist goals is being replaced by the over-all awareness of a mosaic world in which space and time are overcome by television, jets and computers — a simultaneous, “all-at-once” world in which everything resonates with everything else as in a total electrical field...
Oh & by the way, the US military is a dictatorship & acts accordingly. Interesting that it now has its own Great Fire Wall just like China. But if you get a VPN then wikileaks is ok. Okey Dokey Smokey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of site, but very much on the mind.
Could it even be possible that one of the great minds in our military even thought about this leak and guided the response? Our military is the single government organization capable of critical thinking and making use of all their resources.
They should thus understand the value of this information and the stupidity of keeping their personnel purposely uninformed.
Realizing that there will be no punishment for the wide availability of this content the military SHOULD NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW THE LAW especially if breaking the law bears NO CONSEQUENCES.
I'd like to see every computer that's accessed the wikileaks site confiscated please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has Anyone At The Pentagon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has Anyone At The Pentagon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun with Classified Documents
It may seem silly from one perspective, but it's logical from another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
And if it's the latter, how would that apply to servicemembers' families? What happens if the wife or kid of an Army officer looks at Wikileaks on her cell phone or laptop? Can they bring charges against the officer for his family's behavior? Can they go after the wife and charge her directly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they should be prosecuted. Will WikiLeaks appologize to the Afgan widow for her husband being murdered? You can talk all you want to about rights and be safe in your mothers basement, but what happened in the WikiLeaks situation will cost people their lives.
Who pays for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I admit, I don't see it as a huge problem myself, but it strikes me a semi-reasonable reason. Keep in mind soldiers home's are often on base, as well, which means the military might control the ISP there, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]