The Army program is apparently monitoring nonmilitary sites. These sites are PUBLIC DOMAIN and are not owned by the government or the Army.
"It's impossible to determine when something crosses the line from not a violation to a violation. It's like trying to define what pornography is or bad taste in music," said Spc. Jason Hartley, 32, who says he was demoted from sergeant and fined for posting a blog he created while deployed to Iraq with the New York Army National Guard.
Does this cross the line, or is it purely in the interest of national security?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_hi_te/military_blogging
2006-10-29 13:35:02 · 16 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think a soldier should be allowed 'freedom of speech' even more so than those without a dog in the fight.
2006-10-29 13:39:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well, if they weren't misusing a government/military computer by visiting sites they know they shouldn't be they wouldn't have anything to worry about. At the same time, the reason Government computers are monitored are for information security purposes and to ensure networks are available 24/7 by preventing viruses, trojans and malware.
I know OSI and CIS monitor sites like Myspace and other blog sites to enforce Operation Security (OPSEC) in order to make sure information about troop movements, deployments, exercises and other critical information doesnt end up in the wrong hands, whether intentional or not.
Whether you believe it is an "invasion of privacy" or a justifiable means of national security, one thing is for sure.. the enemy is listening. It is important to keep them from obtaining sensitive information.
"In one incident, a blogger was describing his duties as a guard, providing pictures of his post and discussing how to exploit its vulnerabilities. Other soldiers posted photos of an Army weapons system that was damaged by enemy attack, and another showed personal information that could have endangered his family." - Prime example of information people do not need to know.
Loose lips do sink ships. It's the way of warfare.
2006-10-29 14:08:41 · answer #2 · answered by King_aaron 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Public domain says it all. Open to monitoring.
Personally I think it is poor judgment to post a blog while you are in a war zone. But common sense seems to of flown the proverbial coop when you can have instant fame living on the Internet much these days.
2006-10-29 13:47:57 · answer #3 · answered by Akkita 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES & NO. Typically I am against any monitoring of private citizens correspondence in whatever form. However, soldiers are not private citizens while still commissioned by the US government. I believe it is in the best interest of the nation to monitor for certain kinds of information that would be considered pertinent to national secuirty
2006-10-29 13:41:25 · answer #4 · answered by Active Denial System™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
while the sites may be public domain and not owned by the government or army, a soldier IS owned by the government.I am a democrat and an ex-marine and I believe in free speech, however, it is up to the military and the government to police what is being said by soldiers because of the information they have available to them. Not everyone has the common sense to keep their mouth shut.
2006-10-29 13:41:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They shouldn't be monitored because they are a U.S. soldiers blog. The Government needs to stop trying to find problems where they don't exist and start looking where they do, like social security, national deficit, etc.
2006-10-29 14:41:43 · answer #6 · answered by Shifter 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
News to me. TY for the link. BTW, do you recall when the Republicans made a big stink about people in the military not talking dirt about Clinton. It came up then that the military is not permitted to Criticize the Commander and chief in any way. I think they should be free to say what they want. I also do not agree with Bush banning CNN News from Iraq. Anonymous FTP sites are easy.
BTW, the war powers act only applies in time of war. When did Congress declare war?. I missed that small detail.
2006-10-29 13:45:23 · answer #7 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think it's very clear to be not only in the interest of the Nations security, but also for the security and safety of the troops and their families. I don't see anything wrong with it, do you?
2006-10-29 13:45:06 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Boof 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends what the monitoring is pertaining to...to assure that there are no breaches in security I can see as justifiable...to monitor the language or "free speech" is crossing the line.
2006-10-29 13:40:24 · answer #9 · answered by Amy227 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. But it should be monitored by the armed forces. Just like servicemen's letters have been censored since the beginning of our country.
Public domain huh.
2006-10-29 13:38:13 · answer #10 · answered by Pancakes 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It crosses the line. There is no law that states what a servicemember may or may not place on the internet. The problem is that "in the interest of national security" the govt is prosecuting using this 'national security' badge instead of using laws. They are making the laws up as they go. BIG problem.
2006-10-29 13:42:00 · answer #11 · answered by ben_j_mac 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋