Print 44 comment(s) - last by LatinMessiah.. on Mar 4 at 1:55 PM

The newly created "Cyber Command" Now controls the Air Force Network Operations Center and bans blog content.  (Source: Air Force)
China, Turkey, Pakistan ... the U.S. Air Force? The Air Force adopts strict new anti-blog computer policy

The U.S. Air Force has adopted an alarming new censorship policy that effectively bans blogs and blogging by troops using Air Force computers and networks.   The U.S. Army has required that bloggers register with their chain of command, but has encouraged them to write appropriate postings.  The Air Force, which did not adopt such a policy, now has turned to a much more restrictive policy that bans any site using the word "blog" in its URL.

The Army reviews its soldiers blogs to be redacted for sensitive information before soldiers can publish them.  This is meant to protect U.S. secrets from accidentally being exposed.  However, soldiers are welcome to speak freely in their blogs and visit blog sites. 

The Air Force feels differently, and states that blogs and various other news entities are "not legitimate new sources."

The new policy is partly due to new leadership.  Before the Air Force's internet issues were handled individually by each major command.  These separate units had the right to control their users' access as they saw fit, according The Air Force Times.  Now the internet policy has been placed under Cyber Command, which now regulates the Air Force Network Operations Center (AFNOC) in its entirety.

The new ban by the AFNOC's new leadership eliminates access to all sites hosted by popular provider Blogspot.  Other blogs and news sites, not containing "blog" in their URL are additionally blocked based on "content reviews performed on the base, command, and AFNOC level" according to The Air Force Times.  AFNOC utilizes the Blue Coat Software to categorize sites by content and speed the blocking process.  Says Tech. Sgt. Christopher DeWitt, a Cyber Command spokesman, "Often, we block first, and then review exceptions."

Maj. Henry Schott, A5 for Air Force Network Operations, tried to clarify the stance, stating, "The idea isn't to keep airmen in the dark -- they can still access news sources that are primary, official-use sources.  Basically ... if it's a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it's fairly cut and dry that that's a good source, an authorized source."

Many, though feel that such decisions are highly subjective and that some blogs can provide as good or better news coverage, in some cases, than that of major news outlets.  These people will likely point to the recent court rulings that have granted bloggers journalistic protection, legitimizing their profession, at least from a legal standpoint.  Others take offense with the new policy as it blocks materials that could be valuable for training and preparedness. 

One Air Force officer, who wished to remain unnamed, tells Wired the following story: "A couple of years back, I fought this issue concerning the Counterterrorism Blog. An [Air Force] professional education course website recommended it as a great source for daily worldwide [counterterrorism] news.  However it had been banned, because it called itself a blog. And as we all know, all blogs are bad!"

Content filtering is relatively widespread in the military, though not on this scale.  Previously YouTube and MySpace were banned by the armed forces for taking up too much bandwidth.  The Army has also been concerned with the large amount of leaked pictures, video, and information appearing online.  Still many including Gen. David Petraeus, who commands U.S. forces in Iraq, have commended military bloggers and state that they're performing a vital function.

Many in the Air Force are furious at the new policy.  Writes one senior officer, "When I hear stuff this utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream ... Piles of torn out hair are accumulating around my desk as we speak. I'm certain that by blocking blogs for official use, our airmen will never, ever be able to read them on their own home computers, so we have indeed saved them from a contaminating influence. Sorry, didn't mean to drip sarcasm on your rug."

While the Air Force spends $81M USD to publicize its new advances, an Air Force officer states that the regulation of blogs has undermined "some of their most credible advocates."  He points to such sites as In From the Cold, a right-leaning military, intelligence and political affairs blog written by "Nathan Hale," the pseudonym for a former journalist and Air Force intelligence officer, who served for over two decades in the armed forces. 

He states, "The Air Force isn't getting the planes that they want because they are incapable of communicating their usefulness and applicability in this new war. Because Air Force officers talk more like corporate bureaucrats than cocky war fighters, no one is inspired or convinced of their pressing (and quite legitimate) need to modernize the force.  Air Force bloggers spoke the lingo of someone heavily invested in the fight, because they operate outside the survival-minded careerist world of public affairs, with many of them penning blog posts from theater."

The U.S. has been highly critical of other nations, such as China's internet censorship efforts, particularly attempts to silence bloggers.  The new policies by the United States Air Force are certain to strike many as a bit hypocritical in this regard.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This accomplishes what?
By weskurtz0081 on 2/28/2008 5:34:09 PM , Rating: 3
So, we won't be able to use work computers to check out blogs, BUT, we can use personal computers at home. If anything, it seems all this really does is stop people who are deployed from writing blogs detailing what daily activities might be, or what has been going on. So, they can just email a blog to someone outside of the censored network, and have them post it. All this does is make it harder for people to post/read blogs from base..... pointless move.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2008 5:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's real world affect is zero. But the liberals and free speech thumpers out there will make this look to be the next step to a completely authoritarian state.

If you're in the military, you play by their rules. Thats how it is and always will be. If they say jump, you say how high. If you don't like that then don't join the military.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By dever on 2/29/2008 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
As long as they are not restricting them from writing about non-military subjects on their own computers and their own time, I don't see what the problem is. It's fairly common to sign non-disclosure statements in the private sector that would get you canned for doing something similar.

I'm more of a free speech advocate than anyone I know, but this is simply complying with a voluntarily entered contract.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By dflynchimp on 2/28/2008 5:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure out-going email is being screened by the military too if they're intent on censoring the material. It's not too hard when all the net traffic there has to run through the same servers.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By mmatis on 2/28/2008 6:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
You need to realize that many airmen live on base, and they have no access to computers "at home" other than what USAF provides them. They may be able to go off base to the local library, but when you're an E1 that ain't gonna happen all that often. Not sure how ISP access works in base housing for married types, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if they stuck it to the folks there as well...

RE: This accomplishes what?
By Spazmodian on 2/28/2008 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 3
Any Airman that doesn't have access to unrestricted internet is an Airman that hasn't tried looking for it. I've yet to see any AFB(CONUS/OCONUS/Deployed) that did not have unrestricted internet access available through multiple means.

All this is saying is that the AF is enforcing their AFI that states that government computers are to be used for official business only.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By Master Kenobi on 2/28/2008 10:38:48 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, this is no different from most civilian companies. I can't visit many blogs, social networking sites, download sites, "tasteless/offensive" sites, joke sites, etc.... All that stuff is blocked. This is no different than corporate america managing its assets and what they can do.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By marvdmartian on 3/3/2008 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Airmen (or should it be the more politically correct "airPERSON"??) in the dorms can easily hook up with multiple sources of internet accessibility, be it cable, dsl or even wireless services, if available. It is, of course, at their own expense, but seeing as basic internet hookups can be had for $20, this isn't a huge burden on them.
Also, the base library will have computer access available, with internet hookup, for low or no cost, AND many bases have airmen's centers with computers available and/or wireless internet at no cost set up for them. So the thought of our airmen being totally restricted from the internet is just plain WRONG .

Like Spazmodian said, this simply restricts them from accessing any blogs on the official computers.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By Moishe on 2/29/2008 7:58:12 AM , Rating: 4
The U.S. has been highly critical of other nations, such as China's internet censorship efforts, particularly attempts to silence bloggers. The new policies by the United States Air Force are certain to strike many as a bit hypocritical in this regard.

Comparing apples to oranges. It's one thing to censor a government network so as to increase security, it's quite another thing to censor an entire nation like a mother covering the eyes of her son. The USAF is not attempting to "silence" anyone.

This is equivalent to the filtering done at my workplace so that employees don't waste company time on YouTube and other sites. The Air Force is not the public. Moreover, they have a duty to protect the sensitive data that makes out country more safe. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

RE: This accomplishes what?
By Wagnbat on 3/1/2008 4:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree for the most part. Comparing one branch of our armed forces to a psuedo-communist country is indeed like comparing oranges to star-fruit.

And many companies and the military as a whole have blocked websites like Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, etc... Because they eat up employee's time as well as consume an enormous amount of bandwidth.

However, on the "The USAF is not attempting to "silence" anyone.", I don't know if I agree with that. The Army allows blogging, but monitors it. As with your parental reference, this is much like screening what your kids are doing. The air force's policy is a blanket policy that affects everyone equally. Since we're on parental analogies, it would be like one of your kids getting in trouble when he went to the beach, so now none of your kids are allowed to go to the beach...

I don't know how effective this will be though, because it also says they are only blocking the word 'blog'. Those using blogsites may have a rough time, but anyone else with their own hosting will very well be able to just rename the blog portion of the URL on their domain. And the former can just move to blogsites without 'blog' in the name.

By MPE on 2/28/2008 5:29:30 PM , Rating: 5
The U.S. has been highly critical of other nations, such as China's internet censorship efforts, particularly attempts to silence bloggers. The new policies by the United States Air Force are certain to strike many as a bit hypocritical in this regard.

I'm not defending for either US or China.
But to compare military censorship to civilian is just insane and shows little understanding of the issue at hand.
It would be not wise to take that angle.

When you sign up for the military you basically give up certain rights - and this is true no matter what nation.

And can you stop attributing your agenda to this ominous "others". It is quite low when journalist say 'others will see this as ______" when they actually mean "I see this as". Unless you are going to quote a person that is a legitimate representative of something/someone - don't say 'others.' That is just inflammatory remark that serves no or little purpose.

RE: Huh?
By Veedee on 2/28/2008 7:31:19 PM , Rating: 1
>>>When you sign up for the military you basically give up certain rights - and this is true no matter what nation.<<<

Hmm and you don't see anything wrong with that. We put our lives on the line for freedom and democracy, only to lose some of the same in the process. The military censorship you are talking about is geared to preventing military secrets from becoming public knowledge. I agree with that and would hope that there is somebody who spends considerable time preventing that from happening so we can continue to pound the bad guys. However, this one is entirely different. As one tech said, they block first, website at all. Then they look for exceptions. All blogging sites are banned period, including anything that smells like blog, looks like blog or sounds like blog. And that affects anybody on base or deployed where the only avenue is through networks controlled by "cyber command". If that doesn't sound a bit over the top to you, we obviously differ on the concept of rights violations and censorship in general. The zoomies have overstepped the boundaries of censorship. This is not just about censoring outgoing communications, it encompasses the censorship of whole websites. Something the Chinese ARE doing and the Eurpean community is now attacking by trying to include it in trade agreements. What other rights are you willing to give up so the rest of the country can talk behind your back?

RE: Huh?
By mpeny on 2/28/2008 8:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am not disagreeing with you. Censorship in the military has a definitive purpose. My point was the reporter was trying to equate military censorship with civilian censorship. Which is quite silly for the most part.

RE: Huh?
By masher2 on 2/28/2008 11:55:29 PM , Rating: 5
This isn't censorship. This is control of military-owned equipment. Is the policy neccesary, or even wise? I won't hazard a guess...but it's not a violation of personal liberty.

Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to speak. Not for the government to give you a computer, printing press, or private TV network to broadcast it with.

RE: Huh?
By Spazmodian on 2/29/2008 1:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
Air Force Instruction 33-129

2.2. Inappropriate Use. Using the Internet for other than official or authorized purposes may result in
adverse administrative or disciplinary action. The activities listed in paragraphs 2.2.1. through 2.2.14.
involving the use of government-provided computer hardware or software are specifically prohibited.
2.2.1. Use of Federal government communications systems for unauthorized personal use.

Allow me to break it down for you. AFIs are directive publications that state at the top of each one BY THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE in nice big bold letters. It is unlawful for an Air Force member to violate this order.

The Air Force blocking blogs or youtube or anything they want on their systems is in no way shape or form a violation of civil liberties. The Constitution does not grant any one freedom to do anything with government owned systems.

This move is an enforcement of AFI33-129.

RE: Huh?
By 1078feba on 2/29/2008 10:43:59 AM , Rating: 3
With reasoning like that, I would hope that you are still somewhat young. If you're anywhere near my age, well, life isn't going to be kind to you.

You used the word "We" in your second sentence, leading one to believe that you are currently wearing the uniform of my beloved Corps or one of it's sister services. Perhaps you're a retiree. Either way, if you are a service member, you're boot camp or OCS experience, it's plain to see, did absolutely nothing for you.

This isn't about your rights, it's about your responsibilities. When I signed, I knew that a good portion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would cease to exist for me except in that I have sworn my life to defend them. The reason one gives up those rights is because when Chesty Puller puts a boot in one's ass and tells you to "Take that hill!", one has no "right" to refuse. The expectation of absolute discipline based on legal and moral orders is the very foundation of any effective fighting organization. Give some week-kneed, limp-writed morally-deficient person those "rights" while in uniform, and the potential is there for him/her to get a lot of people dead.

I live on a base and I use Cox for intenet at home. I'm almost certain that this denial of access to blogs does not extend to the baracks rooms, as those computers would have civilian MAC address'. Obviously, if this only applies to Air Force owned computers at the physical place of work, then the Air force is not only entirely legally within their scope of control, they are ethically as well. How you can't see this is, well, disturbing.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am posting this from an NMCI machine, at work. NMCI, for the uninitiated, stands for Navy Marine Corps Internet, or, as we affectionately call it, Non-Mission Capable Internet.

Snicker snicker
By VoodooChicken on 2/28/2008 5:25:04 PM , Rating: 4
... if it's a place like The New York Times, an established, reputable media outlet, then it's fairly cut and dry that that's a good source, an authorized source.

Um, yeah. New York Times, out of all "reputable media outlets" in the world, NYT is the one cited as example.

RE: Snicker snicker
By mpeny on 2/28/2008 8:10:12 PM , Rating: 3
No matter what you think of NYTimes, it is by far the leading newspaper in America. Not only that, many foreign countries see it as the most important American daily.

RE: Snicker snicker
By Ringold on 2/29/2008 1:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
Thats rather sad. They hit an all new low with their unsubstantiated slander against McCain recently; a forewarning that the liberal media will use every last round of ammunition in its arsenal to ensure Obama is the next President, and will have absolutely no shame in doing so.

Apparently, there was at least great internal debate as to if they should run the story. I can't help but wonder if it was a debate on what release date would do the most damage or if it were ethical to run a false story with unnamed sources.

If foreign countries want US news, there are better sources. Unfortunately, other countries = Europe, and liberals enjoy reading liberal news, so the NYT's popularity doesn't surprise me.

RE: Snicker snicker
By Moishe on 2/29/2008 8:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
You're right... Question is... does being the "leading" newspaper make them more accurate or less biased? No.

Do I trust them because they're "leading"?


Well lets see
By eye smite on 2/28/2008 5:16:38 PM , Rating: 4
I'll just quote the drill instructor from FMJ.

"You can give your soul to Jesus, but your A$$ belongs to the corp."

RE: Well lets see
By Brandon Hill on 2/28/2008 5:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
You've opened the floodgates now

**Waits for a dozen quotes from FMJ**

RE: Well lets see
By napalmjack on 2/28/2008 10:20:44 PM , Rating: 2

"Did your parents have any children that lived?"
"Sir, yes, sir."
"I'll bet they regret that. You're so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece."

This is NOT censorship!
By androticus on 2/28/2008 8:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
The word "censorship" has lost all its legitimate meaning. An organization (including a government branch like the air force) that places restrictions upon use of its resources by its employees etc. is NOT engaging in "censorship" -- censorship is NOT any act by any party that frustrates the aspirations of another. Censorship is government force applied to private parties trying to express their views exercising their rights to property, association, and trade. If an ISP offers to publish my blog, that is fine. If they do not agree to publish my blog that is fine. (Both are private parties exercising their free rights.) If the government threatens me or the ISP with force for publishing (or not publishing) the blog, THAT is censorship.

I can see any number of reasons why the armed services would not want their resources used for blogging etc. The purpose of the army is to defend our country, not satisfy the journalistic aspirations of servicemen. If armed forces personnel want to blog, they should do it on their own time and not using the government resources.

Sheesh. Sensational journalism at its worst.

RE: This is NOT censorship!
By Veedee on 2/28/2008 8:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Here is one definition of censorship. Does it fit the bill? Block websites anybody?

The control or regulation of speech and other forms of human expression, usually imposed by the government or some other powerful group of people. The purported purpose of censorship is to protect people from being exposed to thoughts or ideas that would be hurtful, disturbing or damaging for them to experience.

RE: This is NOT censorship!
By kyp275 on 2/28/2008 10:20:08 PM , Rating: 4
except you know, they're only blocking it on THEIR computers and THEIR network, which is supposed to be used for work anyway. And like what others have said, I've yet to see a base where you can't get internet access yourself for personal use, especially in CONUS.

This is essentially like complaining about not being able to watch and download porn on your computer at work.

Constitutional violations
By Veedee on 2/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Constitutional violations
By cputeq on 2/29/2008 6:44:24 AM , Rating: 4
This has nothing to do with "erosions" of rights and freedoms, and everything to do with computer and operational security.

I'm also in the Air Force (E-6), and I totally agree with this policy. We have been briefed multiple times to be extremely careful as to what you place on blogs, because people were getting extremely careless and posting sensitive information.

The Air Force has gotten tired of that and finally implemented a "STFU" rule by just filtering out blogs from government computers -- You know, the things you're on while you're at work.

There are certainly other means to blog if airmen really want to do so; as a matter of fact, I believe the base library computers aren't even on the same restrictions as working computers. I *think* they're using different, much less restrictive filters than work computers.

The point is this -- too many airmen were using goverment-owned, workplace computers to visit sites that were totally unauthorized in the first freakin' place and posting sensitive data, so the Air Force has squashed that activity.
Kudos to them.

RE: Constitutional violations
By kyp275 on 2/29/2008 10:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding. Frankly I find it rather amusing how people who aren't in the military, who have no idea what it's actually like, yet talk out of their behind like they actually know what's going on :rolleyes:

Sorry but....
By TheHarvester on 2/28/2008 7:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
I know this has nothing to do with the article, but I was unable to find ANYWHERE, not even DT's Q&A forum, how to rate comments. I can change the threshold, and I can post, but where do I go to rate comments? Do you have to have been a member for a certain amount of time? Or have already posted a certain number of comments? What am I missing? Thanks.

RE: Sorry but....
By JonnyDough on 2/28/2008 7:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
You can rate comments only if you don't post. I used to think it was prior to posting, but apparently if you post it takes away your rating for that article. Most of us are still wondering where the heck the "edit" button is.

This isn't new...
By 3v1lkr0w on 2/29/2008 5:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
I am a member of the Air Force; i have been for the last 5 years now. Also I am a network admin. While the story is mostly right, each MAJCOM has the right to block/unblock different websites, all MAJCOMS use the same proxy type ( for uniformity imo) and get the same pushes from the company, and most blogs have been blocked for a few years now cause they usually fall under the proxy category "personal". So this isn't really anything new...

RE: This isn't new...
By scorpion05 on 2/29/2008 10:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I am also a USAF network admin and have been for the last 9 years. I am a contractor admin at a training base. AETC is always the first to suffer from budget cuts and has been since I was active duty in 1972 (I was in TAC).
Since this last war in Iraq, the AF has stripped AETC of needed funds and has started on other commands. This new Cybercommand stood up by starting out blocking every URL that wasn't *.mil. It was only after the stuff hit the fan that Det2 and Cyber allowed access to *.gov and *.edu sites.
I had to file a request to Det2 to try and get access to the template site for Microsoft Office (the AF's own approved software) and the request took two weeks and was denied.
Currently, Det2 and Cyber have blocked PMO (Program Management Office) sites for managed applications necessary for things like Defense Enterprise Printing (DEPCON) and automated maintenance documentation interfaces such as IMIS. Contractor training and resource sites are blocked, which prevents contractors from being able to fulfill mandated training requirements for maintenance personnel.
All functions that were being managed at the local level, such as new account creations, mailbox management, user validations, etc., have all been moved to the CHD (Consolidated Help Desk) a mid-level agency between the local NCC and Det2.
What used to take five minutes for the group CSAs (validating new users, account creations, registration, joining systems to to the domain, etc.) now takes as much as two weeks.
Groups on base have been told they will have to pay for their own electricity bills (it was always paid by Wing). When ports are exceeded in a building, contractors are being told they will have to use their own funds for purchasing new network equipment and "donate" it to the base comm sq. NCC accounts.
The new Cybercommand's commanding officer is aptly named Lord, and he is the epitome of a growing trend in the USAF to break things now and try to fix them later. When support units like Comm and Cyber do this, real world units like Maintenance take the hit and the aircraft and crews will eventually feel the effects.
The rah rah fan club is nice, but the real story is that what they did was totally unnecessary and is very very dangerous. Cyber has caused more harm to the real world Air Force than any terrorists have to date.


An Alarming what?
By SilthDraeth on 2/29/2008 10:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
The U.S. Air Force has adopted an alarming new censorship policy that effectively bans

I find nothing alarming about this. I was in the Air Force, and in the communication squadron.

Sure people misuse computers all the time, and browse the internet for non work related stuff. People do it in all jobs. Heck I am posting this from work.

But the Air Force blocks outside email, such as yahoo, gmail, hotmail, they block social networking sites. Now they block blogging.

Pretty much anything that ends up becoming well known, but isn't official ends up getting blocked on Air Force computers, and networks. No surprise here.

Yes this primarily affects overseas military that do not have internet outside of the Air Force provided. But stateside in the dorms, the Air Force doesn't provide internet, the airmen buy it from a local provider.

RE: An Alarming what?
By DeathSniper on 2/29/2008 10:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well...anti-censorship is all the rave nowadays. It's not're expected to work when you go to work. Rather, you have a 'RIGHT' to roam around the net and the 'FREEDOM' to choose where you go; if there's someone opposing that - especially your boss, you're obviously supposed to file a lawsuit over how they violated your 'RIGHTS'. /sarcasm

Not that big of a deal
By bigjaicher on 2/28/2008 5:41:59 PM , Rating: 3
I note that the article says that it is Air Force computers can't post these things on blogs. It never necessarily states that personal computers brought with soldiers can't be used to blog/access blogs. To me it seems as if it is more of a "don't use our resources" kind of thing.

Probably won't last
By portugee on 2/28/2008 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
This has happened before with other sites and 'categories'. It seems the method they use to filter web traffic (at least in my unit) seems to change pretty much weekly. There was a time when we could get out to almost anything but it has gradually gotten more and more strict, even too strict at times but then backed up into a pretty decent medium.

At one point we couldn't access wikipedia as it was categorized as 'Education/Reference'. That didn't last long, I'm sure the AFNOC got enough emails on that one. Also, most if not all forums were blocked as well. As a software developer, forums are often the only place to find a solution to a problem, so we raised quite a shit storm about that one too. Again, the policy was changed back.

I'm sure after enough complaining someone with influence will figure out that some blogs can be a valuable resource and this policy will be overturned.

By mattclary on 2/29/2008 8:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised at the tone of this article. What the Air Force is doing is no worse than what most major corporations do, they are only controlling their own network.

They did not say the airmen couldn't read what they want on their own time on their own computers.

New Censorship?
By Oroz on 2/29/2008 11:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
Good? Care to explain why my Time warner phone and TW Internet connection are currently Severed? I have been Censored and not
able to Install a new ADT security system. I don't understand this new Censoring policy is this a Good thing?

Not Censorship
By jhb116 on 2/29/2008 1:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
This is absolutely not censorship. In fact all of the US citizens on this site should applaud this action. All the AF is doing is forcing people to blog on their time at home. The most likely reason this was instituted is too many gov't folks were wasting work time, which you the taxpayer are paying for, blogging when they should have be focused on getting work done.

For those few that who use blogs to support the AF mission - they can get a waiver to have sites unblocked.

To be clear - the AF is only blocking these sites on AF work center networks - not on personal/commercial networks.

By jynxedu on 2/29/2008 3:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
The Air Force should start the office of "Counter-PR", with all of the money spent on advertising

"...While the Air Force spends $81M USD to publicize its new advances,..."

they can only further the negatative images of the miltary by taking this course of action. This is the equivalent of having the Department of State shutdown "the National Enquirer" or "the Star" to protect the information being read by the people.

In other news today...
By JonnyDough on 2/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: In other news today...
By JonnyDough on 2/28/2008 9:03:30 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I thought it was funny. Too bad this site is teeming with guys in bomber jackets that have no sense of humor.

RE: In other news today...
By LatinMessiah on 3/4/2008 1:55:27 PM , Rating: 1
OMG...did anyone get hurt?

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki