OK, howdy everybody. Merry Christmas, Xmas or Solstice, whatever holiday you prefer. A strange thing this eve. I am currently at work, (can't turn down 300+ for 8 hours of work) and have been trying to access the Special Forces webpage. Unfortunately I don't have a URL, so I either enter a search through www.army.mil or through a regular search on the web, be it excite, netscape ect. Oddly enough, on the regular web search, I get "connection timed out" No biggy. The work pc is a little slow...(only pentium celron) But then I started to got to my army homepage and did a search. I got Connection Refused A first. So I tried it again with the "monster pc", 400 gig pentium 2 on a v1 cable connection, (business use only normally...screw 'em!! Its Christmas and I'm working!LOL) Connection Refused again!!!

Now normally I'm the first guy to flame the hell outta people on this kind of announcement, but it is rather odd. I also attempted to do a search on the site of key phrases like "Special Operations", "Special Operations Command", "JSOC" (joint special ops command), and attempted to go to the sites listed normally under facilities (ie posts that SF 'live' on.) Nothing. Nada. Zip. A dry hole, as it were. Any one else have the same issue? If you could check and respond I'd really appreciate it. FWIW I haven't been able to get ahold of any of my SF bros who are still on active duty. Not to make a big deal tho, I figure it's because of the holiday....but still? Makes me real curious if all the Special Ops websites are shut down...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 25, 1999

Answers

link off/

-- OOps (Fix this@right.now), December 25, 1999.

Sorry!

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 25, 1999.

For whatever reason, www.army.mil is down right now.

-- elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), December 25, 1999.

Billy Boy,

I get a blank page at www.army.mil. Underneath I can see the source html script - odd.

-- Darby (DarbyII@AOL.com), December 25, 1999.

oookay...Just tried looking for another bro at 5th at the CQ desk...he's "out." When I asked where hes said (the NCOIC) he "didn't know". I asked if this was a "Didn't Know" or "Couldn't Say"? He said "I'm unable to answer that." ...this only happens in an OpSec mode. I'll make some more calls and try to post later...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 25, 1999.

I can get to the site by clicking the link. But, when I clicked on the "No Gun Ri Website" link, an alert popped up, with this message:

"ATTENTION: THIS IS A DOD COMPUTER SYSTEM. BEFORE PROCESSING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, CHECK THE SECURITY ACCREDITATION LEVEL OF THIS SYSTEM. DO NOT PROCESS, STORE, OR TRANSMIT INFORMATION CLASSIFIED ABOVE THE ACCREDITATION LEVEL OF THIS SYSTEM. THIS COMPUTER SYSTEM, INCLUDING ALL RELATED EQUIPMENT, NETWORKS, AND NETWORK DEVICES (INCLUDES INTERNET ACCESS) ARE PROVIDED ONLY FOR AUTHORIZED U.S. GOVERNMENT USE. DOD COMPUTER SYSTEMS MAY BE MONITORED FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES, INCLUDING TO ENSURE THEIR USE IS AUTHORIZED, FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM, TO FACILITATE PROTECTION AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, AND TO VERIFY SECURITY PROCEDURES, SURVIVABILITY, AND OPERATIONAL SECURITY. MONITORING INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIVE ATTACKS BY AUTHORIZED DOD ENTITIES TO TEST OR VERIFY THE SECURITY OF THIS SYSTEM. DURING MONITORING, INFORMATION MAY BE EXAMINED, RECORDED, COPIED, AND USED FOR AUTHORIZED PURPOSES. ALL INFORMATION, INCLUDING PERSONAL INFORMATION, PLACED ON OR SENT OVER THIS SYSTEM MAY BE MONITORED. USE OF THIS DOD COMPUTER SYSTEM, AUTHORIZED OR UNAUTHORIZED, CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO MONITORING. UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THIS DOD COMPUTER SYSTEM MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. EVIDENCE OF UNAUTHORIZED USE COLLECTED DURING MONITORING MAY BE USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, CRIMINAL, OR OTHER ADVERSE ACTION. USE OF THIS SYSTEM CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO MONITORING FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES."

Did you read that?

According to that, I've agreed to allow "active attacks" on MY system by the military!

I don't think so.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 25, 1999.

"FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM, TO FACILITATE PROTECTION AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS, AND TO VERIFY SECURITY PROCEDURES, SURVIVABILITY, AND OPERATIONAL SECURITY. MONITORING INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIVE ATTACKS BY AUTHORIZED DOD ENTITIES TO TEST OR VERIFY THE SECURITY OF THIS SYSTEM. DURING MONITORING, INFORMATION MAY BE EXAMINED, RECORDED, COPIED, AND USED FOR AUTHORIZED PURPOSES."

Ron, dude...thats new. I mean really new. No Bullshit man. I just tried the No-Gun-Ri sight and read it myself. I've seen the 'regular' DOD warning all the damn time, hell I used to help put it on my Battalion's old webpage. But that bit of ",i>ACTIVE ATTACKS BY AUTHORIZED DOD ENTITIES " is brand new. WTF is going on? And for that matter I couldn't get to the army.mil sight for 15minutes earlier...Got me a hunch somethin' is up...Or as my fave detective would say "Looks as though The Game is afoot, Watson!"

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), December 25, 1999.

Yeah, I didn't like the sound of it. Never seen anything like that before either. Pretty much any gov, mil, or nasa site seems to have a standard "don't mess with us" type warning, which I have no problem with, but *this* nonsense is like having someone call me, and then tell me that by having picked up the phone to take the call, I've agreed to let the caller send his boys over to abscond with my livestock and children.

Hell, even a shrinkwrap software license lets you decide whether or not you want to agree to the terms *before* you open the package!

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 25, 1999.

Wasn't there a schedule/calender posted a week or two ago that listed things .gov was supposed to do computerwise to get ready for the CDC? I think last friday was the day listed as 'disconnect from web if possible'. Anyone remember the link/thread?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 25, 1999.

An 'interesting' site that may interest some of you!

SPECIALFORCES.NET

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 25, 1999.

Informal link still clear (see below). I'm afraid to try the DOD links. Don't need the drama. So does this mean I get screwed if I post stuff I've already downloaded off their sites, or will like that be consenting to abandon my rights?

http://www.nightstalkers.com/home.html

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 25, 1999.

The country is on a terrorism alert right now. Security systems are probably beefed up. I see nothing out of the ordinary considering the circumstances. Geez...relax before you have a coronary

-- yea right (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

"The country is on a terrorism alert right now. Security systems are probably beefed up. I see nothing out of the ordinary considering the circumstances. Geez...relax before you have a coronary"

Tell me what kind of "alert" justifies the military telling me that I agreed to allow them to engage in "active attacks" on MY computer simply because I clicked on a link on a public website. And, I might add, the notice only appears *after* you click on the link!

Not "out of the ordinary"? Maybe not in Zimbabwe, but last I checked, this was still the USA.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 26, 1999.

The notice in question is full of legalistic ramblings. Here is the same sentence with the dependent clauses removed:

DOD COMPUTER SYSTEMS MAY BE MONITORED. MONITORING INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIVE ATTACKS BY AUTHORIZED DOD ENTITIES TO TEST OR VERIFY THE SECURITY OF THIS SYSTEM.

IMHO, you can read this warning to imply the site itself may be 'attacked' to test it for security problems.

I believe the entire warning simply says that the site should not be used to store info with security dependencies beyond those cleared for the site itself. This warning is necessary because the site can be 'attacked' by friendly sources with clearance to site info but not necessarily clearance above. Also, since the site is being monitored, you should not store personal info or other sensitive info of a non-classified nature on the site during the test. Stored info might be viewed by other than the intended recipient.

Well, on second review, even my summary sounds a bit rambling. Perhaps there is no really simple way to write the above sentiment.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

Fine, except for this sentence later in the paragraph:

"USE OF THIS DOD COMPUTER SYSTEM, AUTHORIZED OR UNAUTHORIZED, CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO MONITORING."

Looks pretty unambiguous.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 26, 1999.

Ron,

I could be wrong, but I think your comment implies that you fear that all of your electronic activities could be monitored after visiting the site. I do not think this is the intent of the warning. I think their comment is kind of like the one you receive on some help-lines that say 'This call may be monitored'. I do not think the help-line plans to somehow bug your phone and monitor all your calls henceforth. Nor do I think the DOD site plans to track you across the internet after you access their site. Rather, I think they just want to warn you that your activity and words may be monitored by those who are testing site security.

If I have not understood your point, I am sorry.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmm.. (JFCP81A@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

You got my point, but you discounted it.

I believe the wording -- voluminous and convoluted as it is -- was chosen carefully and precisely.

My father was a DCASR QAR (Defense Contract Adminstration Quality Assurance Representative). I've seen the thick stacks of specifications that pertain to *everything* -- the incredible minutia -- every tiny bit of measurement and material specified to the nth degree, precise drawings, etc.

A literal reading of the warning says that I am agreeing to being monitored. To interpret it *otherwise* requires reading between the lines. Your logic seems to be based on something akin to, "Oh, come on, they may have *said* that, but it can't *really* be what they *meant* to say," to which I reply, they said what they said, I *know* that the words were not pulled out of a hat, and I accept it at face value.

Will they monitor every computer that surfs to their site? Probably not. Do they assert the *right* to monitor *any* computer that surfs to their site, should they, at their sole discretion, *decide* to monitor it? Clearly, the obvious answer is "yes".

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 26, 1999.

Two years ago I worked for the Dept. of the Navy. This is the standard notice that is required by DoD on all computer systems. It has not changed since I was placing it on new installations at the place where I worked... two years ago. It DOES NOT IMPLY the government has a right to ACTIVELY ATTACK YOUR SYSTEM. It is intended to say that ANY communication between their system and your system is subject to monitoring -- as indeed ANY communication between your system and ANY OTHER SYSTEM ANYWHERE is subject to someone's monitoring. It is intended to tell the operator of that system that it (THAT SYSTEM) can and probably will be actively attacked during security audits... etc. Don't get rattled here. This is the govenrment doing what it is supposed to do to protect what your tax dollars purchased.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

Ron,

We must each read more into the warning than is manifest. I think this is a problem with language in general, though.

I read 'You (your internet actions) may be monitored (while acessing this site)'. You read 'You (your internet actions) may be monitored (while you are accessing this site now and perhaps forever, whatever site you access in the future)'.

Since both of us are extrapolating, we both must (IMHO) admit we could be wrong. Although you could argue 'better safe than sorry - do not access the DOD site', I believe that the chances of being monitored (beyond site access) are small, that I really do nothing to warrant complicated and expensive electroinic eavesdropping, and that the info gleaned from the sites displaying this warning may be worthwile. So I will treat the warning on the DOD site just as I do the warning on the product support help lines - with a bit more caution as to what I am saying/typing, but no more so. Others may evaluate our positions and do as they wish.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

...@.......,

Thanks for clarifying that point.

Sincerely,

-- Uhhmm... (JFCP81A@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

Oh, Yeah... and www.army.mil IS down. Just a blank page comes up. Very odd. Don't know much about the site though.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

Ron

do you really think that the government will come after avery single person that goes to that site? Are you really so important to them? While I agree that we need to be vigilant, I think there is a line that you can cross to become jaded, pessimistic and cynical. And do you know who it hurts? Ourselves and our families because we are so uptight, we cannot enjoy the good things in life.

Yes...there are good things in life, and there will be after the roll- over. It really depends upon your perceptions of things.

The worrying and fretting may kill you before the angry mobs, the looters, or the nukes do.

I believe in preparation for emergencies, and for survival of our beloved families in them. Let's also enjoy life, because every moment with them is precious. Peace..... Cin =0)

-- Cin (Cinlooo@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

Ron, enough of these good citizens with their wishful thinking....what does your dad make of this? Seems like we give the D O D permission to use anything they pull off our computer,online activities as "evidence" to obtain warrants which then circumvent our rights. What does your dad say?

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 26, 1999.

I thought the .mil links and any computers on the web that don't have to be were going to be removed or shutdown to prevent Holiday viruses from causing any more confusion.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 26, 1999.

Perhaps but that site is up... it is just sending a blank page.

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

Cin: "do you really think that the government will come after avery single person that goes to that site?"

Did you really read what I wrote? I said, "Will they monitor every computer that surfs to their site? Probably not." Try to figure out what I meant. Hint: I meant "Probably not."

Hokie: "What does your dad say?"

My dad is 88 years old, lives in the Southwest, and says that the Bronx is "God's Country" and that he's going to move back.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), December 26, 1999.