Are soldiers being censored... for political reasons?

[Norman Bernstein]

Was anyone aware that the US military censors Internet access by soldiers in Iraq?

This wouldn't be all that surprising; one might expect that for reasons of secrecy and security, Internet access by soldiers in Iraq would be constrained.

However, what's more enlightening is just WHAT is being censored.

Take a look at the list... political censorship? (from a Wonkette posting)


Wonkette – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion.”

Bill O’Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) – OK

Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”

Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) – OK

ABC News “The Note” – OK

Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”

G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) – OK

[George.]

Are they allowed to look at the bilge?

[ishmael]

Control of the troop's gripes is as old as armies. In order to be affective an army has to have control over its story. I don't like it, it's bloody undemocratic, but get used to it, or abolish war.

The substance is often wrong. Patton's soldiers said "blood and guts, yeah our blood, his guts." But Patton had the best casualty numbers of any European commander, Brit, U.S. or Russian. His troops complained, I think, because of his style, not his substance. And because troops complain. Who can blame them?

[ccmanuals]

Norman, actually "censorship" or "content filtering" is mandated on ALL .mil systems. Whenever you sign onto a system connected to a .mil network the first thing you see and must acknowledge to log onto the network is the notice and consent banner which reads:

"This is a Department of Defense computer system. This computer system, including all related equipment, networks, and network devices (specifically including Internet access), are provided only for authorized U.S. Government use. DoD computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability, and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized DoD entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed on or sent over this system may be monitored. Use of this DoD computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal, or other adverse action. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring for these purposes."

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, actually "censorship" or "content filtering" is mandated on ALL .mil systems. Whenever you sign onto a system connected to a .mil network the first thing you see and must acknowledge to log onto the network is the notice and consent banner As I noted in the original post, I didn't find it in the least bit surprising that military connnections to the Internet would be constrained.... it makes perfect sense.

However, unless you've got some explanation why the mil filtering system produced the results cited.... I'm going to have to assume it's just blatant partisan politics.

And worse, it really strikes at the heart of what America is supposed to be about: the First Ammendment. Soldiers surrender many Constitutional rights as part of the contract they make with the military... and they do so willingly.

They do NOT surrender their right to think for themselves, however... only their ability to act on those thoughts.

It's the sheerest of hypocrisy to criticize totalitarian regimes for censoring the Internet based purely on political motives... and then do the same to our own soldiers, without a substantive security or secrecy reason.

[ishmael]

Oh stop, you can't be serious. Go from civilian to soldier and you give up some rights. Certainly, you can think for yourself, no one has come up with a way to stop that. But first ammendment rights of freedom of speech(which is an action?) Fugetabout it. Your ass it the army's, or the navy's, etc.

It's unfortunate, but that's the way it works. Complaining, making comparisons to totalitarian regimes, is just political wanking.

[Keith Wilson]

Restricting internet access can be justified. Can anyone justify (on other than partisan political grounds) restricting access to Air America while allowing access to Rush Limbaugh?

I am beginning to suspect the beginning of politicization of the American military. I can think of very few things more dangerous.

[ 03-07-2006, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[ishmael]

I've never been in the military. But I suspect comanders exercising control over what their troops are exposed to is perrenial. Why is it, suddenly, an issue?

[ 03-07-2006, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Restricting internet access can be justified. Can anyone justify (on other than partisan political grounds) restricting access to Air America while allowing access to Rush Limbaugh?
That is precisely my point, Keith. I personally don't give a rat's ass if the military denied the use of Internet browsing completely, for the purpose of enhancing security or whatever reason....

However, permitting Internet browsing but censoring dissident political sites while permitting supportive ones has no justification.... other than a political one.

[ccmanuals]

The proxy content filter systems block ALL access to Network News Transfer Protocol [NNTP], Usenet News, and Chats. This is from AFI 33-129:

"12.7. Operations Security (OPSEC). The Internet access available to personnel at home is an additional security factor. OPSEC training and education apply to computer use just as it does in face-to-face and phone conversations and correspondence. Policies restricting communications with unauthorized personnel also apply to Internet communications. Newsgroups (Network News Transfer Protocol [NNTP], Usenet News, Chats, etc.) give personnel the opportunity to converse electronically to a worldwide audience. Military and government employees will not discuss work-related issues in
such open forums. Such discussions could result in unauthorized disclosure of military information to foreign individuals, governments, or intelligence agencies or the disclosure of potential acquisition sensitive information. For example, news media monitoring the Internet may construe an individual’s “chat” as an official statement or news release. Limiting details is an easily applied countermeasure that can decrease vulnerabilities while still conveying essential information. Follow these additional
steps to eliminate improper postings: verify official need for posting, apply the OPSEC process (identify critical information, analyze threats and vulnerabilities, assess risks, and apply countermeasures), use the required clearance process, protect information according to its sensitivity, and provide training."

Note: I manage a network for a large military agency and believe me no one gives us any kind of guidance on exactly what kinds of web sites to filter. It's all done by content selection with a proxy server.

[Norman Bernstein]

The proxy content filter systems block ALL access to Network News Transfer Protocol [NNTP], Usenet News, and Chats. THAT part sounds totally sensible, to me.

However, you'd have to explain to me why the filter blocks access to Air America, Wonkette, and Al Franken, while permitting access to Limbaugh, Liddy, O'Reilly, etc... all of those sites have 'talkback' links, so presumably all of them would be blocked for access to those links... right?

[Garrett Lowell]

Originally posted by ccmanuals:
Note: I manage a network for a large military agency and believe me no one gives us any kind of guidance on exactly what kinds of web sites to filter. It's all done by content selection with a proxy server.Aw, man! That ruins the conspiracy theory. Oh well. It's hard out here for a pimp.

[ 03-07-2006, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Garrett Lowell ]

[ishmael]

It's not political. Well, not just.

Take a brigade who've been listening to Al Franken into the field. Report back.

I don't like it. In a perfect world it wouldn't exist. But I understand it, and think it's right, given realities.

[Norman Bernstein]

Take a brigade who've been listening to Al Franken into the field. Report back.
Ah, I get it. So, soldiers should be denied access to Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post, or ANY media that contains dissenting views of the war, is that it?

Frankly, this attitude is truly frightening.

[ishmael]

You're too easily frightened. Stick your head up, look around. It's been going on for as long as people have gone to war.

[TomF]

Originally posted by ishmael:
You're too easily frightened. Stick your head up, look around. It's been going on for as long as people have gone to war.Which makes it "right, given realities?"

What about all this freedom and democracy stuff? Where does that come in?

[ccmanuals]

Soldier's are not denied access to this media. They are denied access to the types (chat rooms, rss feeds, streaming media like radio etc.) that may exist inside these media sites. Much of this is do to bandwidth concerns. Can you imagine 100 soldier's listening to streaming media over a single comm line.

[ 03-07-2006, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: ccmanuals ]

[Garrett Lowell]

How nice to even have internet access! The first time I was over there we had only the Stars and Stripes (military "news" paper), AAFN (aremed forces radio and television, when we could get that) and mail, whenever we could get it. Even that was tightly controlled. Email would have been a blessing.

[troutman]

Sounds perfectly possible but allowing access to pill boy Rush and denying access to wonkett or Franken? I'd have to read that in the Economist or have rumsfeld admit it and then try to defent it. Just too wacky. I'll hold off on this one.

Speaking of soldiers and media. One morning in Viet Nam we were firing up the PC's for a trip down a minefilled road when a CBS film crew got on my track. They had wind up Bolex's with wooden rifle stocks. I asked why they were on my PC, number two in line and they told me they wanted to get shots of number one getting hit. Sure enough it did hit a small mine, hurt the vehicle but not the crew. When we got it tended to and started off, I was now number one and they all piled off onto the vehicle behind me.

[ 03-07-2006, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: troutman ]

[John of Phoenix]

It will definitely work, but it won’t work indefinitely.

NEVER underestimate the ingenuity of the American GI.

[Norman Bernstein]

They are denied access to the types (chat rooms, rss feeds, streaming media like radio etc.) that may exist inside these media sites. totally understood... but it still doesn't explain the phenomenon noted in the start of this thread. My bet is that all these sites have such links.... it's easy to block access to the specific link types (like streaming media, etc).

From the error messages shown, it appears that there's some sort of filtering which is based on a description of the site... things which end in 'opinion'. However, it's unclear just who determines this classification.... it's not any sort of Internet classification. Al Franken is opinion, while rush Limgaugh is NOT? :D

[Keith Wilson]

ccmanuals, you obviously have much more first-hand knowledge of this than the rest of us. In your experience, is the original quote in error? Particular sites are not restricted because of their political opinions, while access is allowed to similar sites with different opinions? Do you know if this is general policy for soldiers in the field?

[ 03-07-2006, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Garrett Lowell]

While I agree it's easy to block specific link types, managing the blocking of the specific link types on a large scale is quite difficult, if not impossible, without breaking a host of other things.

[John of Phoenix]

Of course there is censorship at work. The whole story of this administration has been "Control the message." They lost control of the main stream media with the Plame fiasco and Judith Miller and it’s been down hill for them since. This is classic “grasping at straws”.

GI's aren't stupid. They know what's going on and many won't appreciate it. My bet is they already have a work around.

[Garrett Lowell]

I disagree, John. Our men over there have more access to more information during wartime than any other war at any other time in history. Period.
I note some of you were all upset about Google being subpoenaed by the boogeyman for search habits, but either said nothing or turned the other way when Google bowed to the Chinese on censorship. What's the word for that again?

[TomF]

Originally posted by Garrett Lowell:
I note some of you were all upset about Google being subpoenaed by the boogeyman for search habits, but either said nothing or turned the other way when Google bowed to the Chinese on censorship. What's the word for that again?Pragmatism. Not the word you were looking for, I suspect.

Unlike the US, the Chinese have never told the world they were interested in promoting freedom, liberty, and democracy. They're acting in a way that's consistent with their stated values.

[troutman]

O jeez, not another perfectly nice conversation scuttled with allegations of hypocracy.....

[BrianW]

According to the article, they can access those sites at the MWR or on their personal computers.

[TomF]

Originally posted by BrianW:
According to the article, they can access those sites at the MWR or on their personal computers.the sites (e.g. Franken, AirAmerica), or the interactive aspects of those sites?

There's no problem if Limbaugh's site is treated exactly the same way Franken's site is. But if Limbaugh's partly available over the military network, and Franken's is wholly blocked ...

[Art Read]

The source of this information please? An anonymous "imbedded operative"? Does ANYBODY know if ANY of the above mentioned "Forbidden / OK" designations ever really existed?

[John of Phoenix]

HA! The work around.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/armed-forces/wonkette-blocked-no-more-157745.php

[George.]

Originally posted by Garrett Lowell:
Our men over there have more access to more information during wartime than any other war at any other time in history. And if soldiers ever get access to enough information, and have the brains to deduce its meaning, war itself will be history.

[ccmanuals]

Let me see if I can explain it a little better. Content filtering is accomplished through what is known as a Proxy server appliance. The Air Force uses the Blue Coat systems http://www.bluecoat.com/index.html

With the device you select categories of content you want to block. For example, here are some actual categories, "adult/mature content; pornography; nudity; gambling; violance/hate/racism; hacking; phishing; cult/occult/; illegal drugs; games; spyware/malware; spware effects; chat/instant messaging; gay/lesbian; software downloads; peer-t-peer". So when a web page "passes" through this device it's content is analyzed based upon the content you want to select or let through. Although the capability exists in the device, specific web sites or urls are not configured in the appliance to block or accept.

To answer another members question, it's really pretty easy to install and manage these things. Many large companies utilize content filtering with these proxy devices because of loss of productivity due to workers playing on the internet all day.

[BrianW]

Originally posted by John Teetsel:
HA! The work around.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/ armed-forces/wonkette-blocked-no-more-157745.php (http://www.wonkette.com/politics/armed-forces/wonkette-blocked-no-more-157745.php)I read that too. Then realized that installing a new browser on an official military network would be a good way to get in trouble.

[Norman Bernstein]

Good explanation, cc... although it STILL begs the question as to who decides how to categorize sites... because it's hard to think of any method to categorize, which decides that Air America is a 'political/opinion' site, while Rush Limbaugh is not.....

However, it all may be moot, if in fact:

1) The 'non-work' computers aren't blocked (I don't have much sympathy for soldiers web-surfing when they're supposed to be working), and

2) The clever work-around exists, anyhow :D

[ccmanuals]

There is no work around for this type of content filtering. The content is blocked between the network router and the switch. Web browsers are a non factor. :D

Norman, you question about "who is blocking and makes the decisions" is a good question. In many instances this is somewhat arbitary. For the network I manage believe it or not I make the decision. Pretty scary ugh?

[ 03-07-2006, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: ccmanuals ]

[Hal Forsen]

http://www.1115.org/archives/kilroy.jpg

tongue.gif
HF

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, you question about "who is blocking and makes the decisions" is a good question. In many instances this is somewhat arbitary. For the network I manage believe it or not I make the decision. Pretty scary ugh?
Hmmmm...OK, so if you're in a position to decide to block access for your organization, what do you base your decisions on? Personal judgement alone?

[Ian McColgin]

One of my friends got an interesting first assignment as an intelligence officer in Vietnam after he'd received all that expensive Army Language School training in various Anamese dialects: He was set to investigating soldiers who had attempted to subscribe to Playboy which in the late '60's the Army considered a subversive magazine. He also had the job of removing designated bits from those Playboys that were delivered.

So, the Army has always had a pretty dumb notion about the intelligence, knowledge and patriotism of its own soldiers.

[LeeG]

Rush is a booster for the empire, Franken isn't. Don't want to dull the tools of empire.