TransTracker 's Library tagged opsec →  View Popular

Some of the steps that are favored by the Obama Administration to open up government to public access and participation may be “useful” but they are nevertheless “prohibited” on U.S. Air Force web sites, according to a new Air Force policy instruction.

In a January 21, 2009 memorandum on transparency and open government, President Obama directed that “Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public…. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.”

The U.S. Air Force has a different vision, however.

A new Air Force policy on public communications (pdf) observed that “web-based message boards, threaded chat rooms, and guest books… allow users to post opinions, messages, or information openly on a web site.  They provide a useful means of creating two-way communication but are prohibited as part of public web site services (sec. 10)”

Social networking tools must be a core part of national defense, harnessing the power of communities of interest to collaborate and share knowledge to address a range of issues from analyzing intelligence data to post-war recovery initiatives, according to panelists speaking this week at the Open Government and Innovations Conference in Washington.

Social media software is being used by activists, businesses, governments and even criminals and terrorists worldwide and, as a result, cannot be ignored, panelists acknowledged.

Totalitarian regimes that do not want to give their citizens the right to petition government see the value of social networking tools as propaganda tools, said Lewis Shepherd, a former senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency and currently chief technology officer with Microsoft's Advanced Technology in Government.

Shepherd cited the recent elections in Iran in which the Iranian government used Web filtering software to block its citizens from access to Facebook. Later, the regime realized the potential of spreading anti-western propaganda through Facebook pages, which it set up through front groups, he said.

“You can’t win the [game] if you’re not in it,” Shepherd said, citing the need for U.S. defense and government agencies to embrace social media.

In an earlier era, “loose lips sink ships” was the military’s warning not to let even small details about military movements and operations slip in casual conversation. In contrast, social media Web sites today thrive on loose lips, making it even tougher to maintain operational security.

The problem is not so much people twittering away secrets as letting slip many smaller pieces of information that an adversary can piece together.

“There’s a tendency to think that if information is not classified, it’s OK to share,” said Jack Kiesler, chief of cyber counter intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency, in a presentation last month in Orlando, Fla., at the DODIIS Worldwide Conference for intelligence information systems professionals.

The Defense Department made headlines earlier this year when it blocked access to the sites from military computers. In May, YouTube officials said they were pushing the Pentagon to reconsider. But this month, Army officials said they have no plans to back down and may block even more sites.

That is, they seem to have been given a highly

negative sense of the blogosphere, and were discouraging soldiers from

posting anything that might affect anything. Which to me is sass-akwards.

Milbloggers, in my non-humble opinion, have done more for the war effort

and more to correct misleading reports than the entire Army Public Affairs

Branch has (note: this is not a slam on them, but praise for the MilBlog

community). The Army should be encouraging troops to give *more*

information on their first-hand impressions and how things are going, not

less. "Winning the War" begins at home - we're not going to be defeated

here, but may have to pull out because of people's impressions at home,

which in my opinion seem to be shaped by misleading reports of what the

overall picture here is. (Note again - I'm writing less from my own direct

experiences than from the impression I get second-hand, both talking to

people who have direct experiences and reading what I consider to be

reliable sources).

This attitude towards soldier-bloggers, which might be

limited to just the 4th Division, seems to be another example of the Army

shooting itself in the foot - making it's mission harder.

Rules on what can and can't be publicly posted are absolutely necessary. However, it seems that some segments of the military have shot themselves in the foot by going overboard. As a result, many first-hand accounts of the situation on the ground are stifled, and the public has to rely on often-slanted and sometimes-bogus media coverage.

I fully understand the need to be careful and cautious. The military has a duty to ensure that potentially sensitive information doesn't fall into the hands of the wrong people. On the other hand, I question whether those who shape policy that applies to milbloggers fully understand the value and importance of milblogging, particularly combat blogging.

I understand that it takes a while for a big bureaucracy, such as the Department of Defense, to embrace new mediums, and I have been heartened by their efforts, albeit slow, to use blogs, new media and other forms of technology to engage the public, but stories like this one leave many feeling that we're taking one step forward and two steps back. It's a difficult balance and it's going to take some time to get it right. The problem is, of course, that we're running out of time to get it right.

Next, be sure to read Major Elizabeth Robbins award winning paper about military blogs "Muddy Boots" - which General Petraeus praised.  It is pure genius and I'm glad Noah linked to it.  I believe that Major Robbins is or is on the way to somewhere dangerous.

The Bottom-Line to the this bad piece of regulation:  The soldiers who will attempt to fly under the radar and post negative
items about the military, mission, and commanders will continue to do
so under the new regs.  The soldiers who've been playing ball the last
few years, the vast, VAST, majority will be reduced.  In my mind, this
reg will accomplish the exact opposite of its intent.  The good guys
are restricted and the bad continue on...

Operational Security is of paramount importance.  But we are losing the Information War on all fronts.  Fanatic-like adherence to OPSEC will do us little good if we lose the few honest voices that tell the truth about The Long War.

Instead, the US Army should adopt Major Robbins recommendations, allow for unit bloggers, and restrict bloggers with the same rules as the military gives embed reporters (with UCMJ exceptions).  Maybe, then, we can start winning some battles on the information front.