Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Media, Politics

Is The Administration Blocking Access To The Guardian?

260px-The_Guardian_front_page228px-Picture_of_Edward_SnowdenWe have been following the effort by countries like Iran and China to block access to particular sites viewed as anti-Islamic or anti-social. However, I have heard from a couple U.S. government employees that, since the Snowden disclosures, their agencies have blocked access to the Guardian website. When they try to get on to the site at the Energy Department for example it is simply blocked. I am trying to get answers from the Administration but wanted to ask some of our regulars for help on these reports.

This is a pretty large blog with a lot of government workers who check in on a daily basis. We would love to know (confidentially) if you are also blocked in gaining access to The Guardian. I have heard from readers at the Library of Congress and DHS who say it is not blocked. One reader said that he thought it might be a filter on sites that have live feeds or other security issues.

We have been discussing how U.S. mainstream media has yielded to pressure from the Administration to call Snowden a “leaker” rather than a “whistleblower” as well as CNN and MSNBC media figures who have been mocking Snowden or vilifying him. Moreover, Americans have been complaining that they are getting more information on Snowden from the foreign media, particularly in his status as a whistleblower. Foreign media outlets, particularly the Guardian, have filled the void with additional stories on massive warrantless programs.

Blocking the Guardian, if true, would be a particularly ham-handed effort like changing his Wikipedia page. However, with the public still largely viewing Snowden in a positive light and fearing their own government more than terrorists, the government (including Congress) appears increasingly desperate.

For any of our government regulars, let us know if you are blocked from viewing the Guardian. You can email directly at the law school.

30 thoughts on “Is The Administration Blocking Access To The Guardian?”

  1. Ironically, this is the anniversary of a time when the military would not allow pictures to be shown to Americans concerning what the military had done.

    Happy demolition Hiroshima day:

    August 6 marks 68 years since the United States committed what is arguably the single gravest act of terrorism that the world has ever known. Terrorism means the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, and targeted they were, with the cutely named “Little Boy” atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at a location and time of day when, as the Strategic Bombing Survey commissioned by President Harry Truman conceded, “nearly all the school children … were at work in the open,” a perfect opportunity for mass incineration.

    “That fateful summer, 8:15,” the mayor of Hiroshima recalled at a memorial service in 2007, “the roar of a B-29 breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a flash, an enormous blast — silence — hell on earth. The eyes of young girls watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails. … Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their bodies. Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the dead. Within the year, 140,000 had died.”

    (Robert Scheer, Huffpo). Yep, that was a “good war”, as the warlords say.

  2. Off Topic:

    Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans
    By John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke
    WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 5, 2013
    Reuters
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

    Excerpt:
    A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

    Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin – not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

    The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don’t know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence – information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

  3. It’s classified information. I see nothing wrong with it. As anonymous said you can read it at home. If it was being censored for all that would be different but I think at this point anything the administration does, esp related to security, raises a red flag for Prof Turley. It is a concern but once the truth as opposed to “I heard” is known then one needs to look at it in context.

  6. from the link: “On Friday, the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website.

    But in for troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East and south Asia, the restriction applies to the entire website.

    “This is a theater-wide block,” reads a page that loads when troops in Afghanistan using the Defense Department’s non-classified internet protocol (NIPR) network attempt to access the Guardian online.

    “There are many reasons why this site might be blocked. It may be blocked for your protection, the protection of DoD assets or blocked based on Usfor-A [US forces command-Afghanistan] information systems security policy enclosure 18, Centcom regulation 25-206, joint ethics regulation (JER) 5500.7 or DAA directives,” the routed site reads”

  7. Of you work for one of the agencies that has blocked it, they’ll tell you why – they don’t want classified documents on unclassified government computers. Suppose someone found the machine when it was being excessed… Would those documents “confirm” Snowden’s allegations?

    My agency has told us we are free to look at home, but not at work. Not really censorship at that point… Paranoia, perhaps, and maybe even ineffective. But not censorship.

  10. *sigh* Forgot to to close and reload the page ……

    At least people getting blocked from all or sections_of the Guardian (and other places) get a message explaining that the material is blocked.
    This blog routinely swallows comments without any indication of why – on a routine basis in my experience.

    Variations after clicking Post Comment:
    1. Nothing – The page gets redisplayed from the top.
    2. Blank page with “Sorry. This comment could not be posted”
    3. Comment shows in place but with a highlighted message “Your comment is awaiting moderation” at the bottom.

    (3) is fair enough – although there might have been zero hyperlinks in there, and none of the known naughty words was present.

    Posting the exact same (copy/paste) comment can get past (1) and (2).
    I have to remember to copy any comment and paste it into a separate text editor before clicking Post Comment.
    I also find that I have to close the tab and reload the page before a comment goes through.
    .

    Anyhoo…….. Guardian blocking by the Administration ….

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/01/us-military-blocks-guardian-troops

    Extracts:

    The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance.

    On Friday, the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website.

    But in for troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East and south Asia, the restriction applies to the entire website.

    “This is a theater-wide block,” reads a page that loads when troops in Afghanistan using the Defense Department’s non-classified internet protocol (NIPR) network attempt to access the Guardian online.

    “There are many reasons why this site might be blocked. It may be blocked for your protection, the protection of DoD assets or blocked based on Usfor-A [US forces command-Afghanistan] information systems security policy enclosure 18, Centcom regulation 25-206, joint ethics regulation (JER) 5500.7 or DAA directives,” the routed site reads.

    Usfor-A is the US component to the Nato command in Afghanistan known as Isaf. It is unclear if the block on the Guardian’s website applies to non-American personnel in Afghanistan, but if they use the DoD’s networks to get online, non-American servicemembers would not be able to access the Guardian website either.

    But the block does not come from Isaf. It comes from US central command, the command responsible for US military operations in the Middle East and south Asia.

    “US central command is among other DOD organizations that routinely take preventative measures to safeguard the chance of spillage of classified information on to unclassified computer networks, even if the source of the information is itself unclassified,” said US army Lt Col Steve Wollman, a spokesman for central command. “One of the purposes for preventing this spillage is to protect Centcom personnel from inadvertently amplifying disclosed but classified information.

    “Additionally, classified information is not automatically declassified simply because of unauthorized disclosure,” Wollman continued.

    ….

    The US military’s online filters for classified information are not new. In 2010, the air force’s protectors of “network hygiene” blocked access to the websites of news organizations that published classified material acquired by radical transparency group WikiLeaks, including the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde and Der Spiegel.

  11. At least people getting blocked from all or sections_of the Guardian (and other places) get a message explaining that the material is blocked.
    This blog routinely swallows comments without any indication of why – on a routine basis in my experience.

    Variations after clicking Post Comment:
    1. Nothing – The page gets redisplayed from the top.
    2. Blank page with “Sorry. This comment could not be posted”
    3. Comment shows in place but with a highlighted message “Your comment is awaiting moderation” at the bottom.

    (3) is fair enough – although there might have been zero hyperlinks in there, and none of the known naughty words was present.

    Posting the exact same (copy/paste) comment can get past (1) and (2).
    I have to remember to copy any comment and paste it into a separate text editor before clicking Post Comment.
    I also find that I have to close the tab and reload the page before a comment goes through.
    .

    Anyhoo…….. Guardian blocking by the Administration ….

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/01/us-military-blocks-guardian-troops

    Extracts:

    The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance.

    On Friday, the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website.

    But in for troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East and south Asia, the restriction applies to the entire website.

    “This is a theater-wide block,” reads a page that loads when troops in Afghanistan using the Defense Department’s non-classified internet protocol (NIPR) network attempt to access the Guardian online.

    “There are many reasons why this site might be blocked. It may be blocked for your protection, the protection of DoD assets or blocked based on Usfor-A [US forces command-Afghanistan] information systems security policy enclosure 18, Centcom regulation 25-206, joint ethics regulation (JER) 5500.7 or DAA directives,” the routed site reads.

    Usfor-A is the US component to the Nato command in Afghanistan known as Isaf. It is unclear if the block on the Guardian’s website applies to non-American personnel in Afghanistan, but if they use the DoD’s networks to get online, non-American servicemembers would not be able to access the Guardian website either.

    But the block does not come from Isaf. It comes from US central command, the command responsible for US military operations in the Middle East and south Asia.

    “US central command is among other DOD organizations that routinely take preventative measures to safeguard the chance of spillage of classified information on to unclassified computer networks, even if the source of the information is itself unclassified,” said US army Lt Col Steve Wollman, a spokesman for central command. “One of the purposes for preventing this spillage is to protect Centcom personnel from inadvertently amplifying disclosed but classified information.

    “Additionally, classified information is not automatically declassified simply because of unauthorized disclosure,” Wollman continued.

    ….

    The US military’s online filters for classified information are not new. In 2010, the air force’s protectors of “network hygiene” blocked access to the websites of news organizations that published classified material acquired by radical transparency group WikiLeaks, including the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde and Der Spiegel.

  12. Not only is the blocking of the Guardian site unwarranted, it is also likely to backfire on the administration.

  13. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/01/us-military-blocks-guardian-troops

    Extracts:
    …
    The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance.

    On Friday, the Pentagon and the US army told the Guardian that automated content filters installed on Department of Defense (DoD) networks to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of classified information had blocked access to selected aspects of the Guardian’s website.

    But in for troops in Afghanistan, the Middle East and south Asia, the restriction applies to the entire website.

    “This is a theater-wide block,” reads a page that loads when troops in Afghanistan using the Defense Department’s non-classified internet protocol (NIPR) network attempt to access the Guardian online.

    “There are many reasons why this site might be blocked. It may be blocked for your protection, the protection of DoD assets or blocked based on Usfor-A [US forces command-Afghanistan] information systems security policy enclosure 18, Centcom regulation 25-206, joint ethics regulation (JER) 5500.7 or DAA directives,” the routed site reads.

    Usfor-A is the US component to the Nato command in Afghanistan known as Isaf. It is unclear if the block on the Guardian’s website applies to non-American personnel in Afghanistan, but if they use the DoD’s networks to get online, non-American servicemembers would not be able to access the Guardian website either.
    …

    The US military’s online filters for classified information are not new. In 2010, the air force’s protectors of “network hygiene” blocked access to the websites of news organizations that published classified material acquired by radical transparency group WikiLeaks, including the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde and Der Spiegel.
    ……………

  16. I’ve been reading reports of this for two weeks via alternative media. It wouldn’t be shocking, typically Infowars, Daily Paul, Drudge are on these things long before MSM. Even if you’re not a libertarian, they regularly have news before and cover things in better detail than MSM.

  19. Of course the Guardian is being blocked.
    The reason is transparently obvious.

    The Guardian (and other entities) are publishing Classsified information.

    Government employees are not permitted unauthorized access to Classified information.
    – even if the entire planet can view it via a simple web search or hyperlink.

    A member of Congress can not even circulate such information to other members of Congress. It’s Classified.

    Have you watched the Collateral Murder video?
    Are you authorised to view Classified material? No? Oooooooooooh you are gonna be is such big trouble.

  20. Nah…. Der Fatherland would never do such things to its people’s….. We are running this government in a very transparent manner….. It’s you that’s being targeted to be transparent…. Kinda like the Milliken story…. It’s all transparent….

Comments are closed.