Truly... I wish the Marines well... and I wish us well. We *all* may need it.

*Sigh*

Diane

DECEMBER 14, 1999 . . . 15:34 EST

Marines issue Y2K gag order

BY DANIEL VERTON (dan_verton@fcw.com)

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/1213/web-usmc-12-14-99.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

Marine Corps headquarters recently dispatched a message to its major commands that significantly restricts the release of information regarding the failure of any mission-critical computer system because of Year 2000 problems and aims to "synchronize" how the Corps will respond to public requests for information about such failures.

The Corps plans to set up what it calls a Y2K Response Cell to coordinate all public requests for information regarding the impact of the Year 2000 date change on Marine Corps systems and operations.

However, the Nov. 29 message prohibits the release of information to the public on "the failure of any of the Marine Corps' 71 mission-critical or 56 mission-support systems."

The order also prohibits the release of information on any failure that has an impact on ongoing operations, exposes forces or installations to external threats, or that causes a "critical loss of...warfighting capability."

In their efforts to "synchronize" a servicewide response to major Year 2000 failures, Marine Corps headquarters has issued canned public statements that public affairs officials will be authorized to make during the Year 2000 transition period, which runs Dec. 28 through Jan. 4.

The approved public affairs statements outlined in the message from Marine Corps headquarters include: "The Marine Corps is ready and will be prepared to support, protect and defend the American people in need worldwide as it always has. Through the coordinated efforts of many professionals working long hours, the Marine Corps continues to make great progress in meeting all challenges associated with Y2K. The Marine Corps will continue to make Y2K one of its highest priorities to ensure a seamless transition with no degradation of our warfighting capability. The efforts of many determined professionals have contributed in making this coming new year as inconsequential militarily as any other."

The message also provides approved questions and answers for use by public affairs representatives.

Public affairs officials throughout the Marine Corps, however, are authorized to release nonsensitive information on Year 2000 failures that "are readily apparent through simple observation," according to the message.

When asked about the order, a spokesperson for the Marine Corps said the two public affairs officers who handle Year 2000 issues are on leave.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999

Answers

Nice find, Diane.

But I have to take their side on this one. While Iwould like to know of failures in our Marine Corps, I would not like everyone else in the world to know about them. How can we blame them for this policy?

Now, if major corporations adopt a similar stance, (which they probably already have) then you have a real live cover-up.

And that is exactly what I expect. No one will say sh*t even if they have a mouthful.

-- semper paratus (always@ready.now), December 14, 1999.

Dang, there is that December 28th date again. And used in the context of another powerful military organization that wants to say little about Y2K but is preparing to do much.

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 14, 1999.

The Marines "canned" resposes were posted on the forum about a week ago. I am at work on a very slow old laptop or I would post the link. It should be under the military catigory.

-- Helium (Heliumavid@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

Frankly semper paratus,

I don't blame 'em.

Just wish the dot govs and dot mils would quit pretending everything is "peachy keen" for all the rest of us... who pay their salaries.

C'est-ce la vie. Or not.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

Gots to agree with Semper P on this one. I think, In MNTBHO, they are doing exactly the right thing.

Chuck (must be the tinfoil is working....)

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 14, 1999.

This one Helium?

Marines issue "Spin Control" Orders (It's been fixed)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001xQ5

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

Diane, I never meant to imply that you were blaming them. I was just speaking generally. I expect the .mils to keep our vulnerabilities close to the vest, to protect those who pay their salary.

But yes, the peachy crap is getting old.

-- semper paratus (always@ready.now), December 14, 1999.

I've been seeing a pattern every time there is
a leak on a Y2K glitch, there seems to be a
tightening of information leaking out. I would
assume from this that the original Gartner
graph for Y2K failures is right, only that the
information is kept tight within the organization.
That is unless they "are readily apparent
through simple observation,"

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), December 14, 1999.

I just wish there were a general rule about classification that anything we think our enemies already know is then declassified and released to the public. Seems like taxpayers should be at least as well informed as foreign governments are about our preparedness.

And when it comes to the NSA, there are some articles which say that the Russians probably know more about the budget and capabilities than anyone in Congress outside the intelligence committees.

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), December 14, 1999.

LOL... You Know...

Think it's referred to as "target focus."

Diane

(P.S. I'd rather be Christmas shopping!)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

The right thing to do? Well I suppose it would be the right thing to do if you really felt significant disruptions were possible; if you suspected that at least some of your key and mission critical systems were at risk and you wanted to prevent your enimies from gaining access to knowledge that could be used to harm you. Yes, then I suppose it would be a very prudent thing to do.

But we all been assured that remediation is nearly complete. All mission critical defense systems are A-OK and the Marines are Y2k ready. So why in the world would anyone issue such a silly directive for a non-event?

Oh yeah, I forgot, they want to increase FUD, generate hype, realize marketing opportunities by ripping off the usual suspects, and generally spread the Y2K meme. Did I remember everthing? How silly of me to forget. Please forgive my temporary departure from reality. I'm back now.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), December 14, 1999.

Seems like taxpayers should be at least as well informed as foreign governments are about our preparedness.

I suspect we could be if we gave as much money to certain politicians as they do.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), December 14, 1999.

Yea, I got to agree with the Marines on this one. National security could be compromised.

Question: Why does the date Dec 28th keep popping up? What is so significant (sp) about this date?

-- Familyman (prepare@home.com), December 14, 1999.

While I agree with the Marines (AND, they got bigger guns than I do...), it does seem like they expect some failures...and that someone might be willing to take advantage of a perceived difficulty of our military.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), December 14, 1999.

"This is my rifle, this is my gun......."

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), December 14, 1999.

Humm.

(Date) Windowing. Sorta? 28th... key.

Previous FEMA Testimony to the Senate Describes Agency's Y2K Plans

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001wMR

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

Well, I can tell you why December 28 is important to me: it is my wedding anniversary!

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), December 14, 1999.

Looks like Dec. 28 has been selected as the date to have everything in place for whatever might show up. Probably several agencies took quite a while to agree on it. This way everybody involved gets a few days of shakedown before operational necessities (if any) intervene.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 14, 1999.

Forrest:

I believe that was "No Time For Sargeants" by Mac Hyman, no?

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), December 14, 1999.

There has been a similar gag order in other services for a while now. As it should be. Do you show your hand around in a high-stakes poker game before the call?

Anymouse

-- Anymouse (Grandpa@Prettybone.com), December 14, 1999.

Nice job Corps! Don't need any of your young'ens divulging critical info while we're under a terrorist threat!

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 15, 1999.

Thanks Diane (and KOS) that previous thread was what came to mind as soon as I read "transition period". Transition *from what*,*to what*? The Corps has to do this, I just wish I knew what they know.With FEMA and the Marines both having the same "transition period",it's one of those "things that make you go 'hmmmm".

on de rock

-- Walter (on de rock@northrock.bm), December 15, 1999.

Just found out from friend whose son is Marine stationed in DC. Under orders to be dressed and equipped in riot gear - Dec 31. hmmmmmmm interesting order for a non-event, eh?

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), December 16, 1999.