Go to Original
Bloggers Beware: Army Tightens Regulations
By Michelle Tan
Army Times
Friday 04 May 2007
Recent changes to the Army regulation on operations security created
quite a stir in the blogosphere as writers protested what they
believe is an attempt to eliminate soldiers' ability to blog about
their experiences.
"Now, we all know that passing classified information is a very, very
big no-no in the military," according to an entry titled
"Reporters=Foreign Spies?" posted on Wired News. "But what's
so
troubling about the Army's regulation is that it treats the handing
off of unclassified, so-called 'critical' and 'sensitive'
data as
almost as serious a matter."
The regulation, AR-530-1, was revised March 20 and directs Army
personnel to "prevent disclosure of critical and sensitive
information in any public domain to include but not limited to the
World Wide Web, open source publications and the media," and "consult
with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC officer for an OPSEC
review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum."
Those forums includes letters, résumés, articles for publication,
e-
mail, blog postings and discussions on online message boards, the
regulation states.
Army officials say the new regulation maintains the troops' abilities
to post their writings and the service's need for operational security.
The Army "welcomes blogging and we always have," said Paul Boyce,
an
Army spokesman.
"We've tried to strike an extremely careful balance with the blogging
community so they can continue to do what they want to do and need to
do," he said.
The Army doesn't keep track of how many soldiers have blogs, Boyce
said, adding that "we're not going to try and track a blog database
or anything like that."
Milblogging.com, a Web site that tracks military blogs, on May 4 had
1,709 military blogs from 30 countries and 3,240 registered members.
Since July 2005, soldiers, who receive annual OPSEC awareness
briefings, have been asked to register their blogs with their chain
of command, and they receive briefings on what they can and can not
post online, Boyce said. The blogs could be monitored, but "it's
basically a trust system," he said.
"For the most part we've been doing this now for almost three years
and everyone's been extremely cooperative," he said. "No one
wants to
see anyone get hurt, or worse, get killed."
As for e-mail, it would be impossible to monitor all the e-mails that
are sent from theater, Boyce said.
"Commanders have a responsibility to inform their soldiers of
critical information for their unit and how to protect it," Boyce
said. "Once soldiers and Army personnel are informed, the Army trusts
that they will protect that information to ensure the safety of
themselves and other Army personnel."
The Army tells its soldiers to "be mindful of what you're saying
and
what you're doing," Boyce said.
The revised regulation also states that Army personnel should
"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."
One Army blogger expressed mixed feeling about the updated regulation.
"Overall it's very, very chilling, but the other way of looking
at it
is nothing has changed except the language has changed in the
regulation, in that it's more specific," said Jason Hartley, a
sergeant in the New York National Guard who turned his blog into a
book called "Just Another Soldier."
"The soldier part of me is like, 'OK, commanders could always do
this,'" he said. "The blogger side of me is like, 'Wow,
this is
scary.'"
Hartley, 33, kept a blog while he was in Iraq in 2004. His blogging
led to a demotion from E-5 to E-4.
"My argument's always been that our commander didn't like
my sense of
humor," Hartley said. "On paper the reason was I was violating OPSEC.
I was blogging during a time when there were zero guidelines."
Hartley recently was promoted to E-5 again, and he doesn't update his
blog as much anymore.
"The blogging community for the most part is heavily conservative and
family-based. They're cheerleaders rather than detractors," Hartley
said. "What I think is the most interesting is that people who're
pro-
Army, pro-Iraq, they're pissed off. Guys like me will always be upset
when we're not allowed to write, but when the cheerleaders are pissed
off, it's pretty significant."
It would be unwise to dismiss the updated regulation, Hartley said.
"It still has a potential to be very chilling," he said.
Other revisions to AR 530-1 include:
- Designating "For Official Use Only" as the standard marking
for all
unclassified products that meet one or more of the exemptions for the
Freedom of Information Act, and which if released to the public could
cause harm to Army operations or personnel.
- Emphasizing punitive measures for violations of specific directives
from commanders and leaders to protect critical and sensitive
information.
- Addressing recent technology concerns such as e-mail and blogs.
In a Powerpoint briefing by the Army's 1st Information Operations
Command at Fort Belvoir, Va., titled "OPSEC in the Blogosphere,"
one
slide lists "media" as a nontraditional domestic threat, along with
"drug cartel."
The 1st IO Command is part of the Army's Intelligence and Support
Command.
The Army does not consider the media a threat, Boyce said. Instead,
the slide was referring to information within the media that could be
a potential threat, he said.
"We're trying to avoid getting our soldiers killed and when possible
frustrate the enemy," he said.
American news outlets have been very responsible in working with the
Army about OPSEC, Boyce said.
"They also do not want to cause harm to our soldiers," he said.
The bottom line is, people follow very closely any updates to Army
regulations on topics such as OPSEC, Boyce said.
"We take OPSEC very seriously but we caution people not to over-read
the changes," he said.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story