Military Web Policy 2.0

By Jim Dao

Early indications are that the Pentagon will allow troops to use military computers to use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter under a policy that will be finalized in the next few weeks, Pentagon officials say.

In the draft version of a memo obtained by Nextgov earlier this week, the deputy defense secretary, William Lynn III, says that interactive social media sites can help disseminate the Pentagon’s message at home and abroad. The memo acknowledges security risks in allowing such access but suggests that those risks can be balanced “in ways that provide an information advantage for our people and mission partners.”

Mr. Lynn’s review of social networking sites arose from concerns among some senior military officials that the rapidly growing use of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogs and other interactive social networking sites posed a variety of dangers. Those included the leaking of sensitive information by troops in combat theaters, virus attacks on the military network and excess use of military bandwidth.

The announcement of the review prompted widespread worries among troops that they would no longer be able to use their military computers to communicate with friends and families back home via social networking sites. In some military outposts, such bans already exist.

(Such restrictions apply only to computers on the military’s nonsecure network. The military also has a secure network for classified material that does not link to the public Internet. There are no restrictions on troops who use their own computers on private Internet providers.)

Paradoxically, the new concerns about cybersecurity emerged just as the military was expanding its use of social media for official purposes. Many military units now sport Facebook, Twitter or YouTube sites for public affairs purposes, and a number of commanding officers, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, have their own blogs or Twitter pages.

And according to a recent survey by Federal Computer Week, the Marine Corps and Army placed second and third among federal agencies in the number of “fans” their Facebook pages have attracted, after only the White House.

Pentagon officials cautioned that the social networking policy was being finalized and could still change. It is now not expected to be released until mid- or late October, weeks later than originally planned.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

BenK October 3, 2009 · 6:47 am

The issue here, for those readers who don’t live in IT-land or the military, is four-fold.

1. What is the purpose of a computer network? Half the time, it seems, information assurance people seem to think the purpose of a network is to have a network. The purpose of a network is, however, communication. There is no balance between usability and security. It is all usability – but the end result of insecurity is unusability. The military network administrators need to be judged on accomplishing the mission of usability, with security as one facet, not the only facet.

2. Who can talk to the outside world about the military? Is it only admirals and generals? Only public affairs? Embedded journalists? Or is the soldier the best face for the military?

3. How can soldiers best maintain mental balance? This is a more complex issue than previously recognized. It turns out that unlimited contact with home is not the best way – people who fly drones have significant stressors as they shift from combat to home life each day. But long isolating deployments are not ideal either. Also, what about contact with friends, with buddies in other units, with the rear echelons? What format and what degree of contact allows soldiers in training, in the field, deployed, in garrison, the best social and mental health?

4. Where is the enemy getting valuable intelligence; what systems are most critical and vulnerable? Crazy as it seems, if the military folk are all using something like Facebook to keep in contact and message minute by minute… and they lose critical connections when it goes down… that becomes mission critical to the military. We all don’t want that. But what options are there? What communications are mission critical? This does get back, in part, to the issue of contact with family and friends – there needs to be readiness for soldiers to suddenly (albeit briefly) lose complete contact without panic or fear – so their families need to be ready to deal, and they need to know the family is ready…

So, for those of us who think that the social networking issues are trivial, easy, ACLU issues; or trivial, easy security issues – they are neither. They are complex and challenging.

Mark Klein, MD October 3, 2009 · 7:18 am

One day we’ll lose a carrier or even nuclear weapons to terrorists who could carefully analyze what on the surface seemed like innocent posted information.

The military’s enchantment with social networking has more to do feathering it’s budgetary nest with good pr than really protecting national security.

Neil Gussman October 3, 2009 · 1:26 pm

Great! A relief for us bloggers. I am going to sign up for twitter as soon as they issue the new policy–right now it is prohibited for us.

Al Klaus October 3, 2009 · 3:29 pm

Our U.S. troops sent into combate deserve to hear what the American people think. For example, We do not have a qualified Commander n Chief of our U.S. armed forces.

Obama and his advisors have not provided sufficient direction or a mission statement clearly articulated to U.S. operations in Afghanistan and we do not have an U.S. foreign policy that the American people can understand and support.

All we have seen is political promises based on second guessing what the Obama’s Democrat constituents want to hear. The Obama promises fall apart when tested on facts and events that occur as we see the results.

Through no fault of our U.S. military forces, Afghanistan insurgents grow strong and central government becomes less effective. This situations is much worse than Iraq ever was.

God bless our soldiers.

pat martin October 3, 2009 · 9:16 pm

I think blaming our President Obama, THE Commander in Chief of all our military forces, will listen,analyze the problems in Afganistan,after confering with
HIS military advisors, Congress advisors and other experts.

President Obama,is a very well-qualified leader of all Americans,legally elected by the majority of American voters, who believe in his ideas and ability to protect America from all enemies,domestic or foreign
.
He is not one to shoot from the hip or to continue failing stragies or to waste our countrymen,money or other resources in a lost cause in a country that needs decades of help or protection from tribal beliefs,uneducated,fundamentalism in culture or religion.
THEY,the Afghans MUST FIND AND FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY,We have been fighting in too many areas of the world for too many years for either lost causes,mistakes in what we should be fighting for,ie, the break-up of colonial power in Southeast Asia,such as our WWII ally,the French,the Dutch,support of dictatorships in oil-rich countries,ie,Iraq, Iran,Saudi Arabia, conflicts with Russia,China, or Korea,because of the belief that Communism could and would spread like Dominos.While some of these wars were necessary,some could have been prevented with more,better realistic negotiations,prior to all out war with the loss of many lives,loss of resources,and treasuries .
Here ,we are again, a chance to improve the domestic lives of Americans,healthcare,new green economy,education opportunities for more students to fire up that economy,new or improved infrastructures in our cities or across the country,BUT ONCE AGAIN OUR BUDGET WILL TURN OVER TO MILITARY MIGHT AND NEEDS same old same old thinking
what a waste!! what has my beloved country done to herself??
changing, changing, listen to the voices of new changes here and worldwide and prepare educate our citizens to be a part of it ,but without air of arrogrance and disrespect of other nations and cultures. maybe, we will avoid another war and help each other.

Helena Edwards October 3, 2009 · 10:40 pm

Our political leaders need to address the wars we have roaring in our urban and suburban communities. The children that are having children are a constant supplier for gangs that prey on law abiding citizens. When is this problem going to be addressed?

K Kruse October 4, 2009 · 1:59 pm

I just finished a fascinating book – which began as a blog – written by one of our troops while he was deployed on the front lines in Afghanistan:

“Afghan Journal: A Soldier’s Year in Afghanistan” by Jeffrey Courter (www.afghanistan-journal.com).

I’m sure Jeff would’ve used Twitter, had it been available to him. Instead, his channel of choice was email – perhaps less immediate as a broadcast mechanism – but powerful, nonetheless.

The point is, many military folks use emerging social media channels to communicate with their “inner circle” – and to document for their own sanity the many issues that confront them while they serve in desolate and dangerous corners of the world.

These people are isolated – have no where to go and no one to interact with – even when they are given time “off” from their duties.

They understand rules. Following rules is central to military life. So, if the DOD wants to layout clear rules of engagement, bring it!

It’s lack of clarity that creates confusion and apparent exposure for our troops. I’m sure if you asked anyone in the military, they would confirm that they have no interest in revealing information that would endanger themselves or other US interests in Afghanistan, or any other location around the globe!

So I hope we won’t muzzle these folks to the point of damaging their psyches. Freedom of speech is one of the core principles they are defending, on our behalf.

icerlitle October 6, 2011 · 6:47 am

I do not agree …