The reason for that is that classified information doesn't magically become unclassified when it is leaked. It keeps it's classification until it is formally declassified.
This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense.
the US Army was restricting access to the UK version of The Guardian's website
So you're saying that because it's classified information, trusted Americans (the soldiers) are going to be prevented access but the rest of the world will be able to read it freely. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
I was serving in Afgh when the Afghan Warlog were leaked, and we were told not to read the released leaks because that would constitute a breach of our 'NDA' or whatever that document we all signed that hold us responsible for proper handling of classified documents.
"Reading" enters their definition of "handling". You can't consume classified info for which you don't have the required security clearance.
You certainly can 'consume' classified information without the required clearance. Every reader of the Guardian supports this. Soldiers that have not been read on, soldiers that do not possess a clearance, can be guilty of a security violation yet they've never had access to a classified system.
What this proposes is that every system with classified information on it is to be classified to the level of the information it contains. Because the system was not approved for housing classified information, the system is subject to destruction. Because the DoD does not own the Guardian's systems, they have to assert their authority over the systems they do own: theirs and those of their soldiers.
Do you not see a difference between the soldier that breaches the NDA by disclosing information and the soldier that has been exposed to the information in the public domain?
I think it might start to make sense after your explanation especially if all Army employees are also forbidden to access the Internet through civilian channels.
I'll point out that any device connected to a military Information System is subject to monitor and interception for the expressed purpose of penetration testing, personnel misconduct, network operations and defense, COMSEC, etc.
Do you believe your laptop is a device connected to Google Information Systems when you access GMail?
Soldiers must use their AKO/DKO portal for college coursework, medical appointments, webmail, annual certification and training, and so on. Any system can access AKO/DKO, which includes a personal laptop. Soldiers staying in barracks often have high speed internet access they pay for themselves but they could go to an internet cafe and browse the web.
Is it a civilian channel if a soldier buys a Macbook and reads a Guardian article at Starbucks? If there is a random barracks inspection, which the soldier is subject to, and the Guardian material is found in browsing history and/or cache, the soldier has committed a security violation. S/he will be subject to the same UCMJ action as a soldier that knowingly copied classified information from a classified system and transferred it to their personal computer.
And how then are the soldiers supposed to find out whether their orders are legal or not when the information needed to acquire such knowledge is kept from them by law?
This is my concern, as well. Their command tells them what is and isn't lawful. In this case, command is making explicit what will be considered unlawful. And the unlawful act isn't accessing DoD classified systems inappropriately; the unlawful act is accessing public, unclassified systems, which have been classified at large, in reaction to the leak.
I cannot overstate my concern that this is a classification of the Guardian as a whole to criminalize soldiers's accessing it. It classifies all of the Guardian at a TS level equivalent to the data leaked by Snowden.
You were for sure reminded that you where out there giving your with sweat and blood for democracy and free speech.
While others, more important people, told you what to read and explained to you the difference between handling and reading and the meaning of security clearance.
You also swear to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. You further face UCMJ action for following unlawful orders. When the soldier is not qualified to know the difference between a lawful and unlawful order, they default to obeying the orders of senior commissioned officers. Thus the directive from the senior most command. The soldier has no choice but to obey a lawful order and this is meant to clarify the lawfulness. This is making the access of certain unclassified, public systems unlawful according to UCMJ. We are in a position to reject this notion and speak out against it. The soldiers are not. We have an obligation here. I do not believe our obligation is to remind soldiers of the contract.
The soldiers have zero right to use the Internet at all on work hours.
The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites when you're using government computers for government work".
The military already frequently bans stuff like YouTube when dipshits keep clogging up the network watching Bieber while other people are trying to do work, or things like Reddit.
> The government could as easily have said "just focus on .mil and .gov sites when you're using government computers for government work".
This is a great point. They could have given guidance on avoiding exposure to the leaked documents. Instead, they criminalized the consumption of publicly available information. Keep in mind that a soldier does not keep 'work hours'. They are not off-duty at any point. They are subject to UCMJ, as well as uniform and appearance regulations, even on the weekends. This includes using a personal computer to access the Guardian on the weekend from a Starbucks.
I think the point, made earlier in this thread, is that the access of that information was already criminalized, from before it was released (due to it's classified nature), and that releasing it does not automatically unclassify it.
In that light, the blocking of the Guardian may be viewed as preventing soldiers from accidentally performing a criminal act.
This is making the access of certain
unclassified, public systems unlawful
according to UCMJ.
I think that's indisputable. If the public system has classified material on it, then it is unlawful for someone without the proper clearances to read it.
We are in a position to reject this notion
and speak out against it. The soldiers are
not.
Last I checked becoming a soldier was currently a voluntary act.
It is not my intention to quibble with you. I respect that you see this differently than I do. I wanted to be explicit about this because I do disagree with the conclusions you draw but not because you are drawing them.
The problem with making the access of public, unclassified systems punishable by UCMJ seems obvious to me. I do not think you agree with this being a problem. I'm open to your exposition and I hope you are to mine.
If tomorrow is the day that Greenwald will publish Snowden's leaked information then today the Guardian is a website that a solider can access without UCMJ consequence. The common soldier does not possess a security clearance. Among those who do, they do not have access to the material Snowden leaked. That is highly compartmentalized. Therefore, even soldiers with a Top Secret (TS) clearance would not recognize classified information leaked by Snowden as being authentic. The information is on an unclassified system on non-mil, non-gov domain. Greenwald and Snowden claiming it is leaked classified material isn't sufficient for a common soldier to regard the data as such. This requires verification by senior commissioned personnel. Command must inform unwitting soldiers that the information they are reading is classified. Until they do, the soldier cannot be certain. This is effectively classifying any information published by the Guardian as TS. It is unlawful, then, for the soldier to use an unclassified system to access a classified system. If this was only about justifying a block or filter then there'd be little to discuss. But this is about making the soldier's exposure to classified information unlawful, witting or otherwise. Most problematic to me is the fact that command issued this statement to formally classify the information as the soldier is concerned. That is one shade of grey apart from command divulging classified information to personnel that do not possess the clearance.
Command recognizes that they are partly corroborating Snowden's leak if they specifically refer to the content of the documents. They've been careful to cover their ass, though. Instead of explicitly citing the classified information, they classified the source- the entire system. This is the precedent that concerns me. This is command classifying information to empower them to leverage the maximum authorized penalty under UCMJ. This is worse than censorship. This makes reading certain public domain a criminal act.
To your final point I cannot understand your reasoning. Yes, it is a voluntary act. It is a service that people volunteer for that benefits the entire nation. It benefits many other nations. And for this you want to strip them of something? These individuals volunteered to be engaged in the needs of the military. That's to say they aren't guaranteed they will be or do any particular thing. They will be and do what they are told. In some situations that's compromised the individual in ways that would be criminal outside of service. And to that we say, "you volunteered and signed your life away"?
The soldier volunteered to do a job others wouldn't. In cases like these, the soldier hopes civilians will volunteer to do what they cannot. I elect to speak out against this and demand clarification. I charge this is unlawful and dangerous beyond any soldier reading a website might be because the soldier cannot.
What course of action do you propose to a soldier that might be reading this? If what was happening was unlawful in your eyes, what would you suggest is done by the soldier?
Can you tell me which conclusions I've drawn? I'm just stating fact here. Accessing secret information via public channels is still breaking the law. Is it right? That's a very difficult question to answer since the people whom this affects (people without need-to-know) have entered into that world willingly and presumably know what they've signed up for.
> The common soldier does not possess a
> security clearance.
I'm not sure I follow this. Laws against reading privileged information apply to everyone no? Again, I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that's the condition that we live in.
> This makes reading certain public domain
> a criminal act.
No one has been charged with anything. The have Internet filters set up to block that site from certain government machines. I'm not sure that this extends to being prosecuted for reading the Guardian recipes section at home.
> want to strip them of something
They are not stripped of anything. They were never allowed to read classified information that they were not given explicit access to. That the entire Guardian site is blocked is more likely a matter of laziness than evil.
> you volunteered and signed your life away
That's a bit dramatic and I never said that. My only point is that they signed up knowing that they are barred from accessing information not meant for them.
> I charge this is unlawful
My point is that I don't think that it is. It sucks for sure.
> what would you suggest is done by the soldier?
I've never been a soldier, so I don't know what their channels of recourse happen to be.
No, your being advised to not to so you don't in the future confuse the source of information you are free to give out.
Having worked in a secure communications group before there is an art in knowing what can be discussed and what cannot. An important part of that is not confusing two similar sounding documents that are protected differently. They can both touch the same subject but not the same details. The danger is, you forget which is which.
So, don't muddy the waters for them unnecessarily.
Except that they are - by definition - not trusted; they lack security clearance. Just because other people who lack security clearance have some classified documents doesn't mean that we should give it to everybody.
If none of this information was really a leak of actual classified information, then there would be no reason to block the Guardian. Blocking The Guardian implicitly confirms that some of the information that they are released really is classified information.
Not really. The Guardian claims to be sitting on a pile of additional information that it hasen't yet released. So blocking the site could be a preemptive measure to deal with potentially classified information potentially being published at any given time in the future.
This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with the zeal of some to follow the rule to the letter, even when it makes no sense.