If true, I find the stupidity of this move amazing. Now Chinese government officials can convincingly argue that the U.S. policies are really no different from Chinese ones and that all this talk about freedom is just state propaganda.
That's a bit silly. As much as I think this move is a bad idea, it's important to keep perspective. In China all citizens are under a broad umbrella of censorship. Here only members of the US Army, who have entered into a voluntary contract, are having some of their access while on base restricted. This is little different from restrictive corporate firewalls, which are commonplace.
This is not particularly surprising to me. When I was employed with the US government for a short time as a contractor during the Bradley Manning / Wikileaks mess, we were repeatedly reminded of the INFOSEC policy that restricted us from visiting those sites. That is, official policy states that any access of classified material on a NIPRnet(that is, public Internet)-connected computer would be treated as data leakage, with the same punishments and criminal hubbub as any other leak, regardless of the fact that it had been released publicly.
That policy was never rooted in sound logic, in my opinion, but it is still active. Outright blocking of the Guardian newspaper was probably not necessary - in our case, fear of persecution was enough to keep us from visiting Wikileaks, at least at work - but it is consistent with their policy and motives.
Is access of such publicly available information by a military/government employee on an Internet connection they're personally paying for, using a device they personally own (such as on a home PC), also not allowed?
The pinnacle of inefficiency.
Common sense would dictate that leaked information can no longer be considered "Secret," and as such needs to be dealt with in an expedient manner. (disinfo campaign, discredit leak source[s,] etc.)
To stick their heads under the sand like this is shameful.
[+] [-] jwr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RyanZAG|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelrunyon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] STRML|12 years ago|reply
That policy was never rooted in sound logic, in my opinion, but it is still active. Outright blocking of the Guardian newspaper was probably not necessary - in our case, fear of persecution was enough to keep us from visiting Wikileaks, at least at work - but it is consistent with their policy and motives.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] D9u|12 years ago|reply
To stick their heads under the sand like this is shameful.