[T]he Air Force is “tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read, cutting off access to just about any independent site with the word ‘blog’ in its web address.” ...Sites like The New York Times, however, will be allowed because they are “established, reputable media outlet[s].”
See, that's because the USAF is a government entity and The Times, well, they're "Authorized Journalists," so it's not like they have an agenda or anything.
Best to keep 'em unquestioning, I guess.
On the off chance this might work, here's the TinyURL address for WarOnGuns--perhaps that'll help bypass this.
In the mean time, let's do some asking around. We've learned from past experience, just because Reuters (an "established, reputable media outlet") says something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.
[Via 45superman]
Better learn how to hack, guys, or you won't get the truth anymore.
ReplyDeleteActually, (having been a Communications & Computer Systems Technician in the ARANG) all the USAF can control is the installation network stateside, and in-theatre overseas. Far too many Air Force personnel live off-base, or in base housing where the individual must purchase their own internet access for the USAF to control what they access off-duty.
ReplyDeleteI think (having not yet read the policy) the Reuters blog post is not entirely accurate. I read the Danger Room post and essentially this is an old conflict in the Air Force. I went through this same conflict between open access, bandwidth capability, and the need for operational and communications security back in the 1990's before I retired. Since I had the job of network security and Comm Center operations as a supervisor (thankfully not full-time), and I myself am a information hog, it created quite the conflict. Unfortunately for the USAF, they had already let the animals out of the barn, and have been trying to close the barn door ever since. They will never shut the door so long as they allow people to live off-base, receive out-of-network e-mails on their official e-mail account, and receive phone calls from outside lines while on duty.
On the other hand, the USAF and America in general have a huge problem with the cyberwar the Chinese have launched against us, which is on-going as I write this. Not a fun balancing act for the Air Force, or the people they restrict.
This is nothing new.
ReplyDeleteThe Air Force is always tightening restrictions on what people can surf--at work--using Air Force assets.
Official policy is that, if you're at work, you should be working and not surfing the web.
As an example, as far back as 2004 Aviano AB started blocking keepandbeararms.com, which meant that I could no longer read it at work.
As Paul said above, any private internet access a member purchases for their personal use at home or in the dorms is outside Air Force control--just exactly like your own home internet access.
The reason they will still allow access to "Authorized Journalists" is because those medial outlets DO have a stricter standard in their publishing process (even if the stories are shit, there is an actual process the stories must go through) unlike 99 44/100th percent of blogs.
Keeping up with current events is part and parcel of the "whole person" concept. As much as I enjoy reading "WarOnGuns", it is not a professionally run organization. As much as I distrust the MSM, they do supposedly have standards they MUST follow.
All I can say, Magus, is that some of your assumptions bear re-examination.
ReplyDeleteI propose the premise that the quality, integrity, and character of information available on the blogs and in the MSM is directly proportional to the quality, integrity, and character of the author.
My second premise is that, based on observable results, the professional information outlets, policies and procedures notwithstanding, have no more integrity, and probably much less, than this blog.
IMHO.
Thanks Gaviota. Magus, I'm sorry that the standards I apply here aren't apparent to you.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm interested in is R&R--people shouldn't be leisure surfing on any job, but what about when they're off, and their duties require them to be on base/in camp where there is recreational internet access?
Whoa guys.
ReplyDeleteStep back and re-read what I said.
First: I enjoy reading WarOnGuns. I find it to be quite informative. That being said, and whatever standards David applies for himself, there is only David deciding on what and how things are reported here. David--as far as his blog is concerned--is not part of an organization that supposedly has published ethical standards they MUST follow. Even if his personal standards, as actually practiced, are better than the MSM, he does not have any scrutiny on his publishing process.
If this blog is professionally ran or not, it is not part of any professionally ran organizaiton and that is ALL I SAID.
I ask either of you to go back and quote where I said that WarOnGuns didn't have standards. That being said, tell me what your published code of ethics is. The MSM has one (even if they don't follow it).
Y'all don't like it that is the standard the Air Force uses in determining what to allow or disallow on the network it owns--take it up with the Air Force, I'm just telling you that's policy.
To paraphrase Gaviota, "All I can say is that both of you should reexamine what I actually wrote, not what you assume I meant."
David, I am an active duty AF member. I used enjoy reading not only your blog in the mornings over the proverbial 'cup of coffee' but several others such as Liberty Zone, Reds, SailorCurt, and Booksbikesandboomsticks. Since this ban went into effect about a week ago, it has cut off access to all .blogspot websites. I still have access to Uncle's site, the Sebastians, Alphecca, and KDT. So they haven't cut access to ALL pro 2A websites. Just those that use blogger.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm asking, and has not been answered yet, is if the AF policy applies to R&R facilities. That is the crux of this post.
ReplyDeleteHazmat--could you try the TinyUrl I provided and let me know if that works?
Magus--When not writing for the magazine, which has its own editorial process, I adhere to basic canons of journalism, bearing in mind this is an opinion site. But all the rules apply: truth, accuracy, public welfare, providing a forum for opposing opinions, avoidance of impropriety, sourcing, confidentiality when appropriate, etc. That I have no organization or company man pressuring me actually enhances the canon on "independence." My scrutiny is my readership, and the fact that I put my brand name on my work. Lose credibility with that and you've lost it all.
Just so you know, nowhere in the canons of journalism is being part of an organization a requirement, so I don't know why I should be held to a higher standard than anyone else.
Magus--When not writing for the magazine, which has its own editorial process, I adhere to basic canons of journalism, bearing in mind this is an opinion site. But all the rules apply: truth, accuracy, public welfare, providing a forum for opposing opinions, avoidance of impropriety, sourcing, confidentiality when appropriate, etc. That I have no organization or company man pressuring me actually enhances the canon on "independence." My scrutiny is my readership, and the fact that I put my brand name on my work. Lose credibility with that and you've lost it all.
ReplyDeleteDavid. I know that.
Again, I challenge you "to go back and quote where I said that WarOnGuns didn't have standards."
All I've said is that this blog is not part of a professional organization.
I even separated your blog writing from any other material "David--as far as his blog is concerned--is not part of an organization..."
Think of it in other situations:
Examples:
If someone stole your car, would you call a LEO or Joe Q Public down the street?
If you had a toothache, would you go to a dentist or to Joe Q Public down the street.
If you know Joe Q and his qualifications then you might see him.
The Air Force doesn't know you, or any other blogger--regardless how good a reputation you may have or how much personal integrity you may have.
As for scrutiny, you have it after published, look back and see if I wasn't speaking of before publishing.
Again, you're reading into what I wrote.
Don't take it personally--step back and view it from a third party point of view.
This blog may be a ran in a professional manner, it's not part of a professional origination.
I view it from a third party point of view. The Chair Force has no business in the censorship business, regardless of the D&B of the publisher.
ReplyDeleteIf they disallow any, because it is their system, they should disallow all. No WAPO, no NYT, AJC, no WSJ, no ABC,FOX, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, no STARS AND STRIPES, etc.
Otherwise they are exercising censorship in violation of the first amendment and the oaths they took when they entered the military,not merely exercising the rights of proprietorship of the system.
It would appear to be a moot point anyway based on hazmat97's comment--if Snowflakes and Uncle et al are still accessible, having an organization as proprietor is not a requirement for acceptance--rather, just a Blogger edress--and possibly MySpace account...
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the TinyUrl I included in the post will work or not--I also reserved thewaronguns.com (some opportunistic advertising squatter is sitting on waronguns.com without the "the") in anticipation of leaving this domain some day, and have redirected it to the blogspot url--again, I don't know if that will be filtered or not.
And just to make things clear once again: I have no problem with any "work" system making it difficult for people to do recreational surfing on company time--ditto govt agencies on the taxpayers'. I'll even go so far as to endorse a more complete censorship under certain conditions as long as appropriate oversights exist--recall that in WWII, GI's letters home would need to be read and certain statements that could potentially be useful to the enemy if intercepted were snipped out, ditto on incoming mail. So again, this is more along the lines of what is happening in the USAF for those on R&R at a base or camp that allows for Internet news and entertainment--if only "authorized journalists" are "authorized," well, I don't need to belabor that point here, do I?
David-I tried the Tiny URL link and it's a no go. Anything with a .blogspot.com address will not go through their filter. I get a page that comes up in my browser that says "Forbidden! The website you are trying to access is forbidden as 'blogs/personal pages'. Your internet activity is being monitored." However, as I said above, I can still access several other pro-2A sites that do not use blogger.
ReplyDelete