Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Army spying on its own soldiers

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 10:27 AM on February 2, 2007.


Infringing on the freedom of our troops...
spying

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Our freedom as Americans was -- okay, falsely -- one of the paramount battle cries of the Iraq War. So it's that much more of a spit in the face to learn that the Army is, without any explicit criteria, spying on soldier blogs.

Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has filed a Freedom of Information Act request so soldier/bloggers and the public will know exactly what information the army finds "inappropriate," writes:

[A]n Army unit called the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell (AWRAC) reviews hundreds of thousands of websites every month, notifying webmasters and bloggers when it sees information it finds inappropriate. Some bloggers have told reporters that they have cut back on their posts or shut down their sites altogether because of the activities of the AWRAC. EFF filed its suit after the Department of Defense and Army failed to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about the blog monitoring program.

We can only conclude that the DoD is interested in spying on more than just militarily sensitive information. That it wants to spy on dissent.

Point is this: There is sensitive information that jeopardizes missions and lives and the Army has a good case when it comes to protecting that information. But when the dragnet is unspecified and soldiers know they're being watched they're naturally going to cut back on their thoughts and, in particular, their criticisms.

I emailed EFF attorney Marcia Hofmann and asked about truly sensitive information. Here's her reply: The military clearly has an interest in making sure that properly classified information remains secret. The problem is that some soldiers have taken down or changed their websites because they aren't sure whether the sites comply the military's guidelines. The Army must be clear about the standards it imposes upon soldiers' websites to ensure that those restrictions don't encroach upon rights to free expression.

It's a shame that America's Department of Defense is rolling back the freedoms of our own troops.

Digg!

Tagged as: foia, eff, dod, spying, army

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader
A leader among the "New Evangelicals."
Post by Joshua Holland. August 29, 2008.
John McCain is Older Than Alaska
23 years older.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 29, 2008.
Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner
These days Palin is all about praising Hillary's efforts, but she used to sing a different tune.
Post by Melissa McEwan. August 29, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A Little Background
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 2, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1- The DoD and the US Army have a legitimate interest in making sure that Operational Security is protected. Sometimes what might seem like the most innocent information, when combined with that of others as well as public information assembles a picture that can endanger lives and/or operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. In the age of the internet that information can be real time or near real time and can magnify the impact of such information leaks. It is a valid concern that protects many lives and prevents needless deaths & injury.
2- The first thing that you learn in the Army is that soldiers exist to protect & serve democracy- not practice it. You voluntarily surrender some of your rights when you join and subject yourself to double jeopardy as some crimes can be punished in both civilian and military courts. That's just the way it is and has long been upheld in courts all the way to the Supreme Court.
3- When you are on active duty you are subject to certain standards, lawful orders and command imposed restrictions 24/7/365. This has also been long established and upheld in court.
4- Most, if not all, soldiers serving in Iraq and AFghanistan are connecting to the internet through networks owned and maintained by the US DoD and are subject to restrictions presented to troops up front. Just like most any workplace, they monitor what is going on and this has been well established in courts as well.
5- This much power makes it easy for overzealous commanders and others in authority to overreach and unnecessarily restrict what the troops may do with regard to e-mail, IM & blogging. Some reasonable oversight would probably not be a bad idea, but would be difficult due to security restrictions of some information.

Like many a Drill Sergeant has told many a recruit:
"You are not back on the block, kid."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Love the military's new terror motif
Posted by: eddie torres on Feb 2, 2007 6:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the process of naming new units needs a PR purge. I thought "cell" (Army Web Risk Assessment Cell) was a word used when talking about bad guys.

Like "collateral" (enemy economic units) and "friendly" (UK and French targets).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rolling back troops rights
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Feb 2, 2007 8:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, well, they're only trying to keep up with the civilian sector. After all, when they go back to civilian life, you don't want them thinking they still HAVE rights when they don't anymore, do you?

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its legal, normal, and no surprise
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Feb 2, 2007 8:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the same thing goes on at any (or at least most) companies, especially public companies in which now, by law (Sarbanes/Oxley), actually are required to keep and archive all coorespondence and emails. The Army is no different (well, actually has even more of a reason to ensure secrecy and eliminate possibility of illegal actions, spies, or leaks.) Many even local governments also have similiar laws ("open meeting" laws, public records, etc.) When using company equipment and while working on company time you don't have the same "rights" as a private citizen in his own home or on a public street. You don't "need" to work in those places if you don't like the law and likewise you don't "need" to volunteer to join the government.
ps: I'm not saying that this is "Right" but its, sadly, the facts as we go to the police state so desired by both the Left and the Right for difference reasons. Today in Texas we learn that:
1) random "sobriety" check points are enacted in Williamson County as a test for future statewide implementation.
2) all girl children need to be vaccinated against cervical cancer by law. Parents cannot opt out for any reason (religion, questioning the science, other medical condition that might be impacted by vaccinations.)
3) More already-paid-for-roads are going to be sold off to a private corporation and 'tolled'.
4) the NAFTA Superhighway (owned by Cintra a Spanish corporation with King Juan Carlos as major investor) is still building their dream TransTexasCooridor and taking land by eminent domain for this private entity to "toll" it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Correct Posted by: NoPCZone