 |
 |
 August 17, 2007
THE BLOGS OF WAR....Noah Shachtman reports on the results of an internal Army audit that was recently released after the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a FOIA lawsuit:
So: official sites cranked along at an average of 2.06 OPSEC violations per site. Milblogs had 0.05 violations per site. The conclusion is clear: blogs are an operational threat and need to be more closely controlled. Roger that. —Kevin Drum 12:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)Comments
Blogs are a threat to the official story line. Did anyone ever believe it had anything to do with security? Posted by: thersites on August 17, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKI'll hazard a theory: Blogs - written by actual members of the military. Official sites - written by contractors. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on August 17, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKBlogs carry personal responsibility; official military sites do not. Be careful! We are all susceptible to the Padilla Treatment now, and no judgement by fearful peers will protect you from state calumnies. Posted by: Brojo on August 17, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKHaving worked in classified environments I got the impression that most security breaches came from upper management. Either they wanted to brag and included details they shouldn't or they didn't really understand the classification. On one project I wound carrying a small razor knife. Inevitably when there was a briefing with handouts the handout would associate information whose association was classified. Thus people would either have to destroy the handouts or excise enough so the handout no longer contained classified information. Posted by: MonkeyBoy on August 17, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKThere's a mirror or parallel to that at the related site (also was or is still run by Noah) Defense Tech: ">Link I think, different commenters can post separately at the two places, so that might be good to check for scoop. Posted by: Neil B. on August 17, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKwhere's the post bashing the US News rankings? Posted by: Princetonian on August 17, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKthis is just more rancid MSM bullshit. if this was true, ConYankee and Ace would've uncovered this months ago and worked tirelessly to make sure it was fixed. but they didn't. total bullshit! Posted by: cleek on August 17, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKI'm no fan of the policy but I do have to point out the possibility that any leaks of classified information is generally bad and anything that can be done to avoid that should be done. That being said I think the better place to focus attention on should be the one leaking more classified information. I also think there would be better ways to stop leaking over blogs without shutting down the entire system. Posted by: Tcox on August 17, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINKTcox, I do have to point out that sometimes information is classified because it is embarrassing rather than a risk to security(well, I guess you could argue some things are a risk to job security.) Agreed that the bigger leaks should be plugged first. Posted by: kenga on August 17, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINKMonkeyBoy >"...I got the impression that most security breaches came from upper management..." Hmmm, for some reason the name "Scooter" comes to mind... "...human security can be defined better as 'knowing risks' rather than 'eliminating risks'." - Hans van Ginkel Post a comment
January 2009
December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
|
||||||||
