<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;military&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:54:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Constitutional Scholar Who Taught Obama Comes Out Against Bradley Manning Trial</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/01364623290/constitutional-scholar-who-taught-obama-comes-out-against-bradley-manning-trial.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/01364623290/constitutional-scholar-who-taught-obama-comes-out-against-bradley-manning-trial.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As the Bradley Manning trial officially kicks off today, it's interesting to see famed Constitutional scholar and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/03/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-aiding-enemy" target="_blank">speak out against the case</a>.  As The Guardian notes, Tribe taught Constitutional Law to President Obama when he was in law school.
<blockquote><i>
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law in the US and who taught the subject to President Barack Obama, told the Guardian that the charge could set a worrying precedent. He said: "Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."
<br /><br />
Tribe, who advised the department of justice in Obama's first term, added that the trial could have "far-reaching consequences for chilling freedom of speech and rendering the internet a hazardous environment, well beyond any demonstrable national security interest."
</i></blockquote>
I know that some people have pre-convicted Manning, but the charges here are simply crazy.  He's already pled guilty to certain charges, but this trial focuses on whether or not he was "aiding the enemy," which would require to show that he did this knowing that it would help Al-Qaida and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130531/02593523270/bradley-manning-accused-aiding-classified-enemy.shtml">[classified enemy]</a>.  The supposed "proof" of this is going to be the fact that Osama bin Laden apparently had Wikileaks documents in his compound in Pakistan.  But that's ridiculous.  Under that theory, anyone reporting information that terrorists found useful would be guilty of violating the Espionage Act and could face the death penalty.   As others in the article note, this would create a tremendous chill on investigative reporting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/01364623290/constitutional-scholar-who-taught-obama-comes-out-against-bradley-manning-trial.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/01364623290/constitutional-scholar-who-taught-obama-comes-out-against-bradley-manning-trial.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130603/01364623290/constitutional-scholar-who-taught-obama-comes-out-against-bradley-manning-trial.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>as-he-should</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130603/01364623290</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Report Suggests Obama May Take Drones Away From The CIA</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/11240222398/report-suggests-obama-may-take-drones-away-cia.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/11240222398/report-suggests-obama-may-take-drones-away-cia.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
While much of the recent conversation here surrounding the United States' use of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=drones">drones</a> has centered on the fear of how they might be used domestically, there can be little doubt that their use is highly controversial around the world as well. In that arena, the questions that arise are more about transparency in their use, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes">collateral damage</a>, and whether or not there is even a legal argument for their application at all. As the pressure continues to mount, President Obama finally began to at least respond, suggesting in his most recent State of the Union address that he is seeking moves that will "ensure that not only our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remain consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world." Many of us who have paid attention to Obama's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/20012013492/all-promises-transparency-obama-administration-responding-to-fewer-foia-requests.shtml">actions</a> versus his promises when it comes to transparency may have rolled our eyes, but there may shortly be a move coming in which, in the case of drones at least, progress will actually be made.
<br /><br />
Reports are circulating via senior U.S. officials as sources that the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/19/exclusive-no-more-drones-for-cia.html">President is going to take the CIA drone program</a>, one of two in the United States, and unify it with the Defense Department's drone program. If it does indeed happen, this move should not go under-appreciated by those of us who wish for more accountability and transparency when our government decides to kill people abroad. As The Daily Beast notes:
<blockquote>
<i>The move could potentially toughen the criteria for drone strikes, strengthen the program's accountability, and increase transparency. Currently, the government maintains parallel drone programs, one housed in the CIA and the other run by the Department of Defense. The proposed plan would unify the command and control structure of targeted killings and create a uniform set of rules and procedures. The CIA would maintain a role, but the military would have operational control over targeting. Lethal missions would take place under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs military operations, rather than Title 50, which sets out the legal authorities for intelligence activities and covert operations. &ldquo;This is a big deal,&rdquo; says one senior administration official who has been briefed on the plan. &ldquo;It would be a pretty strong statement.&rdquo;</i>
</blockquote>
While any move that occurs will be phased in gradually, the report suggests it will be completed within the President's second term. The likely pusher for this shift, oddly enough, is coming from John Brennan, newly appointed CIA Director, who also has headed up the administration's drone program since the start of his first term. Reportedly, Brennan wants to get back to gathering intelligence, the CIA's longstanding role prior to the September 11 attacks over a decade ago. For the President, the one who dramatically upped the ante with America's drone strikes from the previous administration, this would be a serious move. Why?
<blockquote>
<i>Perhaps most important is that the CIA&rsquo;s program is &ldquo;covert&rdquo;&mdash;which is to say it is not only highly classified, it&rsquo;s deniable under the law. That means the CIA, in theory, can lie about the existence of the program or about particular operations. The military&rsquo;s targeted killing program, however, is &ldquo;clandestine&rdquo;&mdash;which means it is secret but not deniable.</i>
</blockquote>
The cynical may not see much in such a move, but it's an important step. I'll leave it to other arenas for any debate over whether we should be using drones in the war on terror at all, but I would at least hope that we could all agree that when America, the nation, decides we're going to kill people overseas, America, the nation, should demand that choice be scrutable.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/11240222398/report-suggests-obama-may-take-drones-away-cia.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/11240222398/report-suggests-obama-may-take-drones-away-cia.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/11240222398/report-suggests-obama-may-take-drones-away-cia.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>more-transparency-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130320/11240222398</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:41:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>President Obama Signs 'Secret Directive' On Cybersecurity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/11312121046/president-obama-signs-secret-directive-cybersecurity.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/11312121046/president-obama-signs-secret-directive-cybersecurity.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we're hearing that the Senate is likely to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121112/10550821019/harry-reid-wants-to-try-one-more-time-to-force-cybersecurity-bill-through-congress.shtml">take up</a> (though not pass) the Cybersecurity Act yet again either today or tomorrow, and the White House is still <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120914/19280020390/leaked-heres-white-houses-draft-cybersecurity-executive-order.shtml">sitting on</a> a cybersecurity "executive order," in the meantime it's being reported that President Obama has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-signs-secret-cybersecurity-directive-allowing-more-aggressive-military-role/2012/11/14/7bf51512-2cde-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story.html" target="_blank">signed a "secret directive" to allow the military to "act more aggressively to thwart cyberattacks."</a>  This is limited to the military, but that means we're talking about the NSA (which is a part of the Defense Department).  Considering that it seems to view a stronger offensive effort (i.e., <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120317/00381118147/terrifying-look-into-nsas-ability-to-capture-analyze-pretty-much-every-communication.shtml">collecting all data</a>) a key part of a strong "defense," this is worrisome.
<br /><br />
The really troubling part in all of this is the really unnecessary level of secrecy.  We keep being told scary bogeyman stories about online attacks without any evidence or proof.  And now the President is signing a "secret" order allowing the military to do more in response?  Without any real scrutiny, it's not difficult to see how these things expand unceasingly and are wide open for abuse.  Given the NSA's track record here, it's inevitable that these efforts will be massively abused.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/11312121046/president-obama-signs-secret-directive-cybersecurity.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/11312121046/president-obama-signs-secret-directive-cybersecurity.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121114/11312121046/president-obama-signs-secret-directive-cybersecurity.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-so-secure-it's-secret</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121114/11312121046</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 06:17:28 PDT</pubDate>
<title>US Military Kicks Off Plan To Fill Social Networks With Fake Sock Puppet Accounts</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that one of the things that came out in the big HBGary Federal data dump was that the US government had put out a request (that HBGary was thinking of bidding on) for software that would let the government <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110218/02143213163/more-hbgary-federal-fallout-government-wants-to-buy-software-to-fake-online-grassroots-social-media-campaigns.shtml">manage a bunch of social networking profiles</a> at once, in order to create a series of different online personas on different social networks that could all be easily controlled by one person.  Well, HBGary Federal didn't get the account... but someone else did.  Apparently a company called Ntrepid <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_837153.html" target="_blank">has scored the contract</a> and the US military is getting ready to roll out these "sock puppet" online personas.  Of course, it insists that all of this is targeting foreign individuals, not anyone in the US.  And they promise it's not even going to be used on US-based social networks like Facebook or Twitter, but does anyone actually believe that's true?  As for HBGary Federal, losing out on this contract may be the least of its problems.  Congress is now <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/congress-and-hbgary/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29" target="_blank">investigating any contracts the government currently has with HBGary</a>, along with partners-in-planning, Palantir and Berico.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/02153313534/us-military-kicks-off-plan-to-fill-social-networks-with-fake-sock-puppet-accounts.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who-are-your-friends-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110318/02153313534</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:29:48 PST</pubDate>
<title>Military Threatens To Court Martial Anyone Using USB Drives Or Other Removable Media</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/17522012223/military-threatens-to-court-martial-anyone-using-usb-drives-other-removable-media.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/17522012223/military-threatens-to-court-martial-anyone-using-usb-drives-other-removable-media.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently, one strategy the military is taking in a weak attempt to prevent a future State Department cable leaks, like the one currently going on, is to <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/military-bans-disks-threatens-courts-martials-to-stop-new-leaks/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired%2Findex %28Wired%3A Index 3 %28Top Stories 2%29%29" target="_blank">ban all forms of removable media and to threaten to court martial</a> anyone caught using USB keys or CD-Rs on machines connected to SIPRNET.  Apparently this is kind of frustrating for many in the military:
<blockquote><i>
One military source, who works on these networks, says it will make the job harder; classified computers are often disconnected from the network, or are in low-bandwidth areas. A DVD or a thumb drive is often the easiest way to get information from one machine to the next. "They were asking us to build homes before," the source says. "Now they&rsquo;re taking away our hammers."
</i></blockquote>
The thing is, just like TSA patdowns, this is targeting the last leak, rather than the next leak.  If someone wants to leak the content, they'll figure out a way to do so, even if they can't stick a USB key into a computer.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/17522012223/military-threatens-to-court-martial-anyone-using-usb-drives-other-removable-media.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/17522012223/military-threatens-to-court-martial-anyone-using-usb-drives-other-removable-media.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101209/17522012223/military-threatens-to-court-martial-anyone-using-usb-drives-other-removable-media.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>overreacting...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101209/17522012223</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 08:38:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Should We Be Concerned That The Military Will Use Counterfeit Routers Bought Off eBay?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0246581098.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0246581098.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There was a story last week that got a lot of press about how the FBI discovered that the military was using a ton of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/technology/09cisco.html?partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all">counterfeit technology equipment</a>, including thousands of fake Cisco routers.  Dan Wallach has an excellent writeup looking at <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1289" target="_new">the security implications of what happened</a>.  From the description, it certainly doesn't sound like any of the equipment was found to include any kind of questionable technology for spying, but the point is that it would have been easy enough if someone had wanted to do so.  Basically, the background is that while the government only buys equipment from approved vendors, those vendors can subcontract out the actual tech purchases to anyone.  That leads to situations where (no joke) one subcontractor purchased a bunch of fake routers off of eBay and then resold them to the government via an authorized vendor.  Or, try to follow the details of the case of the US Navy contracting with Lockheed Martin for equipment.  Lockheed outsourced the deal to an unauthorized Cisco reseller as a subcontractor.  That subcontractor turned to its own subcontractor who (yup, you guessed it) hired another subcontractor who shipped the equipment straight to the Navy.  If you lost count, that's five layers deep, with most of those layers having no real oversight on what they did.  You would think the government (and especially the military) would be a bit more careful in where it sourced its products from, but it certainly doesn't seem as though that's the case at all.  Given all that, it's almost difficult to believe that compromised equipment <i>hasn't</i> been sold to the government at some point.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0246581098.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0246581098.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/0246581098.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-not-pretty</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080513/0246581098</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:52:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If You're Part Of An Elite Military Unit, Perhaps You Shouldn't Be Uploading Photos Of Your Base To Facebook</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080423/183304931.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080423/183304931.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ People who have grown up with social networking type sites and applications have become used to the idea of really documenting their lives with them: providing detailed updates and regularly uploading photos of their activities.  That's great for most folks -- but if you're in an elite military unit in a war zone, that might present a problem.  An Israeli soldier has been <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7364091.stm" target="_new">sentenced to 19 days in jail</a> after the military noticed that he'd been posting photos of the base where he was stationed to Facebook where anyone could see them.  You would think that it would be common sense not to do such a thing... but common sense sometimes isn't so common.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080423/183304931.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080423/183304931.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080423/183304931.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-a-suggestion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080423/183304931</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>China: No, No, No, It's Other Countries Hacking OUR Military Computers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070912/130746.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070912/130746.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There were a bunch of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070904/021935.shtml">reports</a> recently claiming that various government agencies (including the US, Germany and New Zealand) had computer systems hacked by hackers tied to the Chinese government.  The details have been quite vague, and it has all the warning signs of a story that's been blown out of proportion (perhaps for political purposes).  However, China apparently feels that it's time to strike back.  While initially denying any responsibility, the Chinese gov't is now taking a different strategy, claiming that it's actually <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091200791.html?nav=rss_technology">China that's been a regular victim of foreign hackers</a> breaking into its classified military computer systems.  Of course, the truth is probably that spies on all sides are constantly trying to hack into computers of foreign gov't agencies.  That should hardly come as a surprise, so all of these recent press reports are nothing more than posturing about how "shocked" gov't officials are for actions that everyone knows occurs all the time.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070912/130746.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070912/130746.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070912/130746.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>on-the-offensive</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070912/130746</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>