[unknsldr]

I'll point out that any device connected to a military Information System is subject to monitor and interception for the expressed purpose of penetration testing, personnel misconduct, network operations and defense, COMSEC, etc.

Do you believe your laptop is a device connected to Google Information Systems when you access GMail?

Soldiers must use their AKO/DKO portal for college coursework, medical appointments, webmail, annual certification and training, and so on. Any system can access AKO/DKO, which includes a personal laptop. Soldiers staying in barracks often have high speed internet access they pay for themselves but they could go to an internet cafe and browse the web.

Is it a civilian channel if a soldier buys a Macbook and reads a Guardian article at Starbucks? If there is a random barracks inspection, which the soldier is subject to, and the Guardian material is found in browsing history and/or cache, the soldier has committed a security violation. S/he will be subject to the same UCMJ action as a soldier that knowingly copied classified information from a classified system and transferred it to their personal computer.

[chris_mahan]

And how then are the soldiers supposed to find out whether their orders are legal or not when the information needed to acquire such knowledge is kept from them by law?

[unknsldr]

This is my concern, as well. Their command tells them what is and isn't lawful. In this case, command is making explicit what will be considered unlawful. And the unlawful act isn't accessing DoD classified systems inappropriately; the unlawful act is accessing public, unclassified systems, which have been classified at large, in reaction to the leak.

I cannot overstate my concern that this is a classification of the Guardian as a whole to criminalize soldiers's accessing it. It classifies all of the Guardian at a TS level equivalent to the data leaked by Snowden.