ARMY CLAMPS DOWN WITH NEW OPSEC POLICY
A new U.S. Army regulation on Operations Security (OPSEC) would sharply restrict the ability of soldiers to participate in public life without supervision and authorization from superior officers.
The regulation also encourages Army personnel to view attempts by unauthorized persons to gather restricted information as an act of subversion against the United States.
"All Department of the Army personnel and DoD contractors will... consider handling attempts by unauthorized personnel to solicit critical information or sensitive information as a Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army
(SAEDA) incident," the regulation states (at section 2-1).
"Sensitive" information is defined here (at section
1-5(c)(3)(e)) to include not just vital details of military operations and technologies but also documents marked "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) that may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
It follows that inquisitive members of the press or the public who actively pursue such FOUO records may be deemed enemies of the United States.
In what seems to be a serious conceptual muddle, the new regulation conflates OPSEC, which is supposed to be a defense against adversaries of the United States, with FOIA restrictions, which regulate public access to government information. As a result, it appears that OPSEC procedures are now to be used to control access to predecisional documents, copyrighted or proprietary material, and other FOIA-exempt records.
A copy of the new regulation, dated April 19 and itself marked For Official Use Only, was obtained by Wired News and is posted here:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.pdf
Taken at face value, the regulation would spell the end of military blogging and would severely curtail military participation in public life. It imposes a non-discretionary pre-publication review requirement, stating that "all Department of the Army personnel... will... consult with their immediate supervisor... prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum." (sec. 2-1).
It was reported by Noah Shachtman in "New Army Rules Could Kill G.I. Blogs (Maybe E-mail, Too)," Danger Room, May 2:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/new_army_rules_.html
The terms of the Army regulation are so expansive as to create innumerable new opportunities for violations and infractions.
Just this week, for example, the Army's own 1st Information Operations Command ironically posted a briefing on "OPSEC in the Blogosphere," marked For Official Use Only:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/opsec-blog.pdf
(Thanks, again, to Entropic Memes at www.slugsite.com.)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
Regardless, look at our history, censoring has been pretty light handed so far especially considering how little most people seem to care for those in harms way
I am extremely liberal, and may research this and perhaps change my mind, but I think that some censorship must be allowed for military personnel to prevent possible damage to their deployment. Sorry, this was a tough one!
The problem with the Army's new policy is that it will tend to sacrifice the daily benefits of active military participation in public debates, without eliminating the inevitable mistaken disclosures that occur from time to time. It's not good information policy, and it's not good security policy.
How many of you have to get a pass to go to town on your day's off? Military personnel have a lot more constitutional rights restricted than just our 1st Admendment rights.
This law was enacted for a good reason, not because someone wants to crap on us more. These bloggers are running maverick and need to be controlled.
These restrictions do, however, seem to effect the activities, livelihoods, and interests of the citizenry. That aspect may prove to be a valid constitutional argument. A certain level of transparency and oversight of the military, by the people is mandated as a protection for the health and welfare of the nation.
One would hope that modifications to the UCMJ are subject to review by at least some type of congressional powers.
Is there really a problem with classified information being leaked out by the people who sacrificed to be part of the military?
Congress needs to get it's own act together. And the executive needs to do the same.
All you need is an Internet connection, a Firefox browser and an random IP generating add-on and you're in business.
Discipline discipline discipline, it's what make the military work, and families too. American soldiers are a priveledged class that needs the respect it deserves. It is a daunting task to be in harms way, and for the families the prospect of losing a dad, husband, or as modern warfare has it a wife is a 24 hour a day presence. Who Rah!
It follows that inquisitive members of the press or the public who actively pursue such FOUO records may be deemed enemies of the United States.
Shades of Joe McCarthy?
But the military like every other big organization has an abundance of middle management with nothing much better to do than make up rules to make themselves feel potent.
We just have to keep stuffing the BS back in the bag. It is a never ending battle.
Army to Bloggers: We Won't Bust You. Promise.
The Army appears to be backing away from new regulations that require soldiers get their approval from their bosses before they blog and send e-mail. In a fact sheet and in comments to the Associated Press, Army officials are saying, in essence, not to worry about the precise wording of the rules. The service won't enforce 'em anyway, they promise.
The Army's fact sheet, released a few hours ago, says:
In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor.
Steven Aftergood, with the Federation of American Scientists calls this "a much more sensible approach to the issue." Unfortunately, he notes, it is also "significantly at odds with the language of the Regulation." In paragraph 2-1g of the new rules, it states that Army personnel must:
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.
For the rest of the story, see the WIRED Blog: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/army_to_blogger.html
"Article 22b We, "the powers that be' shall have the right to demand your first born for breakfast should we decide to do so."
---- Now don't you worry yourself about that little rule. We would never do any such thing! We just kind of put that there as trial balloon and it is just so much work to erase it and all. You can trust us.
Oh gee! I was worried there for a moment, but if you say it was just too hard to press the delete key I'll believe ya.