Military Prefers To Keep Its Head In The Sand: Bans All Employees From Visiting The Intercept
from the because-that'll-work dept
Not this again. A few years ago, the US military blocked access to a bunch of news sites, including the NY Times and The Guardian, in an attempt to block military members from reading the news because some of the news included the leaked State Department cables that Wikileaks had released in conjunction with those news sites. Last year, the Defense Department blocked all access to the Guardian after it started reporting on the Ed Snowden leaks. And now, The Intercept reports, the military has also banned access to The Intercept. Of course, no one in the military will know that the public knows about this, because they're apparently not allowed to read about it.
“Even though I have a top secret security clearance, I am still forbidden to read anything on the website,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. “I find this very disturbing that they are threatening us and telling us what websites and news publishers we are allowed to read or not.”As we've said in the past, this is just silly. And, yes, I know the rationale that defenders of this kind of ridiculous argument will make. There are rules about how classified material is handled, and if a classified document gets on a computer when it's not supposed to be there, it's a massive horrible emergency and creates a huge mess for the IT folks. But let's take a step back from that and deal with reality. As we've noted, when it comes to things like non-disclosure agreements in corporate settings, there's always a clause that says if the same information becomes public through other means (i.e., not the signing party releasing it), the information is no longer considered confidential and subject to the agreement. That is a sensible, reality-based policy.
If classified documents are being reported on in the press, they're publicly available. Continuing to pretend that they're still classified is just ridiculous. It means that those in the military are suddenly less informed about issues that they often need to know about. I can't see how that makes any sense at all.
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: classified, journalism, leaks, military, snowden
Companies: the intercept
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
try it yourself ;-)
Perhaps because your brain didn't turn green yet.
Spending a few years in the military might help you to understand their totally reasonable view on these things :-D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q: What is the difference between the Boy Scouts and the military?
A: The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if The Intercept just published a document, then the version that The Intercept just published is, for any realistic purpose, not classified. If you got it from an unclassified public source, then that particular copy should not be considered classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even though everyone affected by it already knows the sky is blue, them's the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SNAFU
Dude, that's just about the very definition of "military intelligence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More accurately, it's a threat. This is the Intelligence Community and the people at the top of the DoD reminding the little guys that dissent won't be tolerated. Questioning the validity of anything, having doubts about the legality or ethics of your duties, or considering making a complaint (including using the "proper internal whistleblower channels") will result in a lifetime of problems. They are telling the troops that they are always being watched, and that even innocuous activities can turn out to be violations of regulations. Step out of line, and suddenly charges for a whole host of innocuous and trivial misdeeds may be brought to bear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually a smart move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have seen such a clause many times, but it by no means universally used because numerous situations arise where its inclusion in a document will quickly be revealed as the personification of "What could I have been thinking to put that in the terms? I hope I can weather the storm and keep my job."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The clause is probably put there to avid making the NDA unconscionable, or taking it too close to unreasonable requirements, but many US states have such lousy employee protections that that isn't an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"there's always a clause that says ..."
Not in NDAs that I've been forced to sign. Anyway, it seems to be a blanket rule that contracts in general can be expected to have stuff in them that's not enforcible -- and that's the whole point; this "kitchen sink" approach is a legal bluff designed to overwhelm and intimidate people. Everything written into a contract (whether legal or not) is there to benefit the party that wrote the contract -- and the more draconian clauses thrown in, the merrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "there's always a clause that says ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "there's always a clause that says ..."
Further, there is no point to including anything in a contract that is unenforceable. If it can't be enforced, not only does it have no value or meaning, it also lessens the standing of the entire agreement.
Lastly, under no circumstances is anyone ever forced to sign a contract. It is always a choice, an agreement. If you disagree with the terms, change them. Strike out clauses you don't agree to, provide a counter offer. If there is a large disparity in negotiating power (e.g. consumer contracts), then you need to make the value judgement of whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and if not, go to a competitor. In most other scenarios (employment agreements, business agreements, etc.) you have some negotiating power, as you have something the other party wants. If you didn't, there wouldn't be a contract. Determine how much negotiating power you have, and apply it as best you can to change the agreement to your benefit. The only time you will ever have zero negotiating power is when you believe you have zero negotiating power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "there's always a clause that says ..."
This was one of a handful of lessons being in business taught me. If you've reached the point where you're signing things, the other party has already made the decision that they want the deal to work, and they become flexible to reasonable changes in the contracts.
Before I learned that, I emotionally reacted to contracts as "if I make a stink now, it could ruin the whole deal". That is rarely true, and when it is, the deal was too shaky to sign off on to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you know how much goddamn sand there is in the middle-east? Try to take the sand out of YOUR head there.
- The Military
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oxymoron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can the Military...
A ban on what News sources personnel are permitted to get their News from is an affront to Freedom of the Press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes perfect sense from a military point of view. The fact that a classified document has been leaked to the public does not change its classification (obviously the "secret" is out, but the classification is still the same). The standard answer for any question concerning a sensitive or classified situation is that "I can neither confirm nor deny that." So telling military members not to visit a site that may have leaked classified documents means that the person can truthfully say they cannot confirm nor deny.
Plus, remember that part of having a security clearance means managing what one knows of a classified nature. In other words, the individual is required to know they have clearance to see a particular piece of classified material. Hard to ensure that if you visit a web site known to include random leaked classified documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The real issue is that if you have obtained a copy of the data, it makes it harder to determine if you got it from (say) The Intercept, or if you gave it to them.
[1] On the one hand, they're more likely to be loyal to the government, so less likely to use that information in a harmful way, OTOH, they might know some related information which then combined allows them to make deductions they shouldn't. That's not in general a big issue, unless the information they already have is something they'd not leak (or have tortured out of them) because it appears too trivial, or because it looks innocent unless you know the other information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This statement is a common misconception. The fact that you have a given security clearance level has nothing to do with what you are allowed to see.
The security clearance is only step one. You also have to have a need to know, and Top secret and above clearances have hundreds (if not thousands) of sub categories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we have received information from our higher headquarters regarding a potential new leaker of classified information, Although no formal validation has occurred , we thought it prudent to warn all employees and subordinate commands.Please do not go to any website entitled "the Intercept" for it very well contain classified material, If you have accidentally or purposely gone to the above mentioned site please report to the infirmary for immediate thought and eyeball extraction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any website?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any website?
But that raises the question: what's meant by "entitled"? Do they mean specifically the "title" attribute, or can it be in a description, url, or heading? Depending on what they mean, people might not know that the site is entitled "The Intercept" until they go there. This memo is stupid on so many levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Things Work
2. You inadvertently read classified information that some other division is churning out. Combining what you already know with this leaked information, you suddenly realize that government employment is stupendously boring. You conclude your life would be much better spent drinking beer on a Mexican beach.
3. The government has to find some new shmuck and stupid him down enough to tolerate your old job. It's work. Bosses get involved; irritation ripples down through the ranks, resulting in increased pie consumption in the cafeteria. Waistlines expand. The government has to buy everybody new pants.
4. Your reading of leaked classified information has caused a nationwide shortage of pants. So don't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe they don't want to use people who have knowledge of top secret information, like the cyber-security kingpin for this administration. Why use someone who knows what they are doing when you can find someone who speaks well and looks good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He speaks real good, is sort of suave looking I guess, and he apparently doesn't know shit about anything his administration is doing at any time, until after he reads it here on TechDirt.
Obviously the perfect man for the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(a) I agree with the jokes. They exist for a reason.
(b) The policy is stupid.
(c) My daughter's Marine (lance corporal) boyfriend agrees with (a) and (b).
(d) My father would have agreed were he still alive.
(e) I did not enlist in order to tell civilians they couldn't have an opinion or say it. They do not have to keep their comments to themselves. If you disagree with their opinions, try educating them instead of attacking them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FBI: We'll con some poor deluded fool into letting us steal his foot, sew it onto you, then shoot it off.
CIA: We'll take your leg, replace it with a prosthetic filled with cocaine, then pay ISIS to shoot the amounted foot. We will then be surprised when they shoot your remaining foot too, but that's OK because we can stuff your other prosthetic with guns and demand a doubled budget.
SIS: Anywhere you like, but did you know it only fits clown shoes!!!! And it can kick you in just 47 minutes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frame iframe xframe Surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait just a fucking minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait just a fucking minute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]