m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6822|UK

Red Forman wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


As far as security it poses the same risk, if not greater on their personal comps.
Well from what I gathered it will be banned from their personal pc's if it's internet is through the gov't network, the artical never stated banned from gov't pc's but from their network.  If your on base i'm guessing your on their network not your own.
Nope.  Bases are on Time Warner, Comcast, etc.  Just like the rest of the world.  So, just on their networks.  You can't use your PC on the work network and visit facebook.  How is this greater risk?
there's always a way round.  Ask Jsnipy.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6865|US
The USMC was worried about viruses, etc.  They did not state OPSEC as their reason.
Myspace was banned on my network 2 years ago because of multiple malicious software issues.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6857|67.222.138.85

article wrote:

...exposes unnecessary information to adversaries and provides an easy conduit for information leakage that puts OPSEC [operational security], COMSEC [communications security], [and] personnel… at an elevated risk of compromise.”
?
jaymz9350
Member
+54|6727

Red Forman wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


As far as security it poses the same risk, if not greater on their personal comps.
Well from what I gathered it will be banned from their personal pc's if it's internet is through the gov't network, the artical never stated banned from gov't pc's but from their network.  If your on base i'm guessing your on their network not your own.
Nope.  Bases are on Time Warner, Comcast, etc.  Just like the rest of the world.  So, just on their networks.  You can't use your PC on the work network and visit facebook.  How is this greater risk?
I guess I meant deployed bases such as in Iraq or Afghanistan (if you can have a personal laptop there, don't know) which would pose more of a security risk.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6865|US

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

article wrote:

...exposes unnecessary information to adversaries and provides an easy conduit for information leakage that puts OPSEC [operational security], COMSEC [communications security], [and] personnel… at an elevated risk of compromise.”
?
Sorry, the most of the articles I've seen site malicious software threats as the primary reason. 
Internet and OPSEC is a very complex topic, with many orders already on the books.
Chorcai
Member
+49|6798|Ireland
Its kinda unfair to block everything, I think they should host their own "facebook" etc etc site, they could control it then and let the guys have some outlet I guess.
Roger Lesboules
Ah ben tabarnak!
+316|6727|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

Chorcai wrote:

Its kinda unfair to block everything, I think they should host their own "facebook" etc etc site, they could control it then and let the guys have some outlet I guess.
If it was govt controlled then it would not be facebook or Gheyspace anymore. The reason they uses facebook is to keep in toutch with their famillies and such, wich is good for the moral but eh...

[WWII propaganda] Careless talk cost lives.[/WWII propaganda]
Chorcai
Member
+49|6798|Ireland

Roger Lesboules wrote:

Chorcai wrote:

Its kinda unfair to block everything, I think they should host their own "facebook" etc etc site, they could control it then and let the guys have some outlet I guess.
If it was govt controlled then it would not be facebook or Gheyspace anymore. The reason they uses facebook is to keep in toutch with their famillies and such, wich is good for the moral but eh...

[WWII propaganda] Careless talk cost lives.[/WWII propaganda]
Thats my point they could stay in touch, while been watched.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard