Virginia National Guard eyes Web sites, blogs

By Maj. Pam Newborn
Virginia National Guard Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Oct. 12, 2006) - Big Brother is not watching you, but 10 members of a Virginia National Guard unit might be.

The Manassas-based Virginia Data Processing Unit activated a team in July for one year to scan official and unofficial Army Web sites for operational security violations. Editor's Note: What are "unofficial Army Web sites"?

The team, which works under the direction of the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell, Army Office of Information Assurance and Compliance, notifies webmasters and blog writers when they find documents, pictures and other items that may compromise security.

The team uses several scanning tools to monitor sites for OPSEC violations. The tools search for such key words as "for official use only" or "top secret," and records the number of times they are used on a site. Analysts review the results to determine which, if any, need further investigation.

For the 10 Virginia Guardsmen, the mission often becomes personal.

"I have friends over in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan," said Sgt. Yaphet Benton, a network technician in civilian life. "Once I started this mission, I saw a lot of things that can endanger a lot of Soldiers. I see a lot of bios, pictures, names and birthdates. I consider that critical. Terrorists (and persons trying to steal your identity) can use that information."

Based in Arlington, Va., AWRAC was created in 2002 to monitor official Web sites. Its mission was expanded in August 2005 by order of the Army Chief of Staff to include unofficial sites written by servicemembers.

Lt. Col. Stephen Warnock, team leader and battalion commander of the Manassas unit, said his team combines Guardsmen, Reservists and active-duty Soldiers. It's a combination, he notes, that is rarely seen below the division or joint level.

"It's a full Army force - it's a more unique force," he said. "We have quite a flavor to it."

In addition to the Manassas unit, AWRAC works with members of the Guard and Reserve from Washington State, Texas and Maryland, as well as active-duty Soldiers and contractors.

"I see this expanding considerably with the communications tools that are out there now," said Sgt. 1st Class Irwin Walters, who oversees personnel issues for the Manassas unit, and works in the IT procurement office for the IRS in his civilian life. "I have special concerns about Soldiers leaving their families vulnerable. They are giving up too much information that we know they (the terrorists) are capable of exploiting.

When a team member finds information that could be sensitive, he or she marks it for further investigation. Another team member reviews the item and determines if the webmaster or blog writer should be notified. Most notifications are made by e-mail, and the person responsible is given a few days to respond, depending on the severity of the issue.

When secret documents are found, the site owner is notified immediately by phone. Official sites are contacted through either the webmaster, or in some cases, the unit's chain of command.

The most common OPSEC violations found on official sites are For Official Use Only (FOUO) documents and limited distribution documents, as well as home addresses, birthdates and home phone numbers.

Unofficial blogs often show pictures with sensitive information in the background, including classified documents, entrances to camps or weapons. One Soldier showed his ammo belt, on which the tracer pattern was easily identifiable.

Although AWRAC contacts Soldiers who write unofficial blogs, the team does not review sites that lack public access. Team members identify themselves as AWRAC representatives, and work with a legal counsel to ensure their actions adhere to law and Army regulations.

Members of the DPU bring a variety of specialized skills to the job. Some, like Walters, have extensive technological backgrounds. Others, such as Spec. Shane Newell, are newer to the field, but no less dedicated.

"It's a good opportunity to get some real-world experience," said Newell, a former member of the Old Guard. "I think it's a good mission that needs to be done. It's an ongoing mission."

Benton agreed, saying he accepted the mission in an effort to gain greater technical experience. "It's also a way to contribute to the war on terrorism," he said.

For Sgt. 1st Class Lonny Paschal, the mission reminds him of his time in the Middle East.

"I was a contractor in Iraq, and I would see Soldiers coming back (with pictures of their compounds or weapons)," he said. "I would tell them - you can't publish that. You're compromising yourself and your fellow Soldiers. I do believe that we are saving lives in the long run here."

For more on AWRAC or to request a courtesy scan of a blog, go to the team's Web site on Army Knowledge Online at https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/254224.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...=viewone&id=65

I'd like to echo the questions raised by the editor at SFTT...

Editor's Note: Is this article from a field grade PAO an OPSEC violation, in and of itself? Certainly, claiming a photo "aids the enemy" that shows a Soldier's ammo belt with the distribution of ball ammo and tracer ammo leads one to question just how much tactical insight these National Guard data processors have (or does "credit" go to the PAO who wrote the piece?). Would not some former combat arms Soldiers with time in tactical operations be better as OPSEC monitors? Maybe some medically discharged Soldiers could be given Army civilian jobs as OPSEC monitors.

The team uses several scanning tools to monitor sites for OPSEC violations. The tools search for such key words as "for official use only" or "top secret," and records the number of times they are used on a site. Analysts review the results to determine which, if any, need further investigation.

Done..
"for official use only" 558,000 results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...e+only%22&meta=

"top secret" 3,240,000 results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...2top+secret%22

Good luck guys..

Originally Posted by bulldogg

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...=viewone&id=65

I'd like to echo the questions raised by the editor at SFTT...

Earlier in the Iraq war there was a guy in an ANG unit that I worked with. The guy was not the brightest bulb in the box and was hell bent on keeping the boss aware that he was still around. He was in Iraq for a little over a year and on a regular basis sent pictures via email to the boss that always distributed them to almost every customer we had across the US, Canada, China and Eastern Europe.

When I noted that the pictures were showing some very detailed locations in the region I asked the guy, via email, to be sure he checked his pictures through his command. You wouldn't believe the return I got from him, it was incomprehensible that he didn't see the harm in sending those pictures.

The pictures in question were the new barracks they were building for our guys in that particular part of Iraq. There were plenty of landmarks in the background that let you know exactly where the barracks were. Not only were the pictures pretty much a give away, he also described the location as to which sector they were in.

It was obvious that this guy's understanding of OPSEC was hampered. After the blazing return email I received I contacted his C.O. and forwarded one of the emails to him requesting that he review with his troops the requirements to clear pictures before they are sent out of country.

His return email was very nice and to the point. "Which one of my idiot troops sent that email out?" I had a great urge to inform him of the guy's name but replied that it might be more than a one person problem and that a general training evolution might need to be held to impress the need to not give away any information that might get someone killed. BTW, I knew the C.O. and consider him a friend as he does me. The training was held and I received an email from my former co-worker telling me that when he got home he was going to come to my house and beat the s**t out of me. I did forward that one to his C.O. The boy is no longer an E-6 but an E-4.

I may be an ass, but I am pretty sure I was not in the wrong by approaching the subject as I did. I actually protected the individual until he went ballistic regarding the "tattletail tactics" (his words) of my report to his C.O.

What would you guys have done?

Met him at the gate of the airport when his flight arrived for some wall to wall counselling.

I think you were more than generous in your approach.