Army tells soldiers they can blog after all
Pay no attention to Reg stating otherwise
What you need to know about cloud backup
The Army is downplaying its own regulations requiring soldiers to get their commander's approval before blogging or sending email after the restrictions raised concerns about free speech on the net.
While the regulation hasn't been rescinded, a fact sheet released yesterday effectively says 'never mind.' "In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor," the fact sheet states. It was released a day after Wired News reported the clamp down on online dispatches.
The clarification is reassuring, but it still contradicts an official regulation the Army adopted in April that requires all Army personnel to "Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum."
Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) goes on to state:
"This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation."
"The regulation was clumsily drafted, and it was not well thought out," Steven Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists director of the Project on Government Secrecy, told FCW.com. "The fact sheet is a much more moderate approach, and I think that is right way to go."
No word if Army wonks will change the official directive. ®
COMMENTS
sarcasm
Can I sugest the use of : - ) to show sarcasm. I find it works well, as long as you dont fill your work with emoticons, or use the flipin GIF ones.
Also I thought the sarcasm was quight obvious.
Am I the only one
that sees that Jesse was perhaps being a touch sarcastic... and aren't we, the English, supposed to be the self-appointed kings of sarcasm?
Anyone remember when the Reg ran a story about how we don't necessarily see how people mean a statement? It was a bit of a joke in itself, but it made a decent point because if someone is joking or having a laugh, or being satirical for that matter as I believe Jesse was, unless you include some kind of indicator in the text it's all but impossible to notice.
They then went on to say they would use different colours to represent different emotions (mercifully they did not suggest the use of 'emoticons'), and to our US readership include the word *JOKE* in flashing red letters to indicate irony (or something like that).
Seems they're not the only ones that need the flashing red letters.
niiiiice
Queue multiple people from multipal nations going "My (or their) army can beat up your army" argument. Lame.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
