In late January, the Air Force banned TogetherWeServed.com, a military-themed social networking site, for being a security "nightmare." Now, Air Force officials are admitting "to unfairly singling out" the site, which "does not pose any extra risk than most chat rooms or other online communities," *Stars & Stripes' *Leo Shane reports. "Site owners said the retraction may have come too late to help their online business."

As the military continues to struggle with social media, a familiar pattern has emerged: Sites are initially labeled as sieves for secrets; then, after further inspection, those early assessments are often turned on their heads. In 2006, for example, the Army assembled a unit to monitor official sites and soldiers' blogs for OPSEC, or operational security, transgressions. After a year, they discovered that the official pages were 65 times more likely to violate security rules.

TogetherWeServed.com... launched its Air Force site last December. President Brian Foster said at that time the California company had been operating its popular Marines and Navy sites for years without complaints. But after signing up more than 50,000 [Air Force] members in the first few weeks, participation in the site suddenly slowed as a PowerPoint presentation from Air Force Maj. Mark D. Hedden began circulating online, Foster said. The briefing, for the 1st Special Operations Wing, incorrectly identified the company as based in Germany and questioned the security of allowing active-duty troops to post some personal information there. It also recommended blocking the site from official Air Force computers.

What lead Maj. Hedden to proclaim that the site was an "OPSEC Nightmare"? The network supposed sins appeared to consist of the "6 pictures" posted online – and because a few members described how they received medals, with "dates/actions." Not exactly state secrets, in other words.

But even these seemingly-innocuous items could be considered violations of Air Force regulations, as written. As Maj. Hedden's presentation notes, Air Force Instruction 35-101 says that "each Air Force member or employee is responsible for obtaining the necessary review and clearance, starting with Public

Affairs, before releasing any proposed statement, text or imagery to the public. This includes any digital products being loaded on an unrestricted Web site."

As Maj. Hedden's presentation spread, others inthe Air Force began to use it as an example of the hazzards of social media. *** *"Posting information on these sites that are viewed by millions every day can have dangerous, even deadly, consequences," one news release from Robbins Air Force Base warned.

*The well-known social networking sites aren't the only ones that servicemembers should be wary of. One

"military-only" site devoted to Air Force personnel has been blocked at

Randolph and other bases because of the information it conveys about

Airmen, Ms. Kidd said. * It's called "Air Force Together We Served," or AFTWS, and it offers a large amount of information about Airmen, including service photos, service details, personal details, assignments and combat and operations histories... "It's highly recommended that personnel not post information on that

Web site," she said. "Someone could piece the information together like a puzzle. It is like an OPSEC nightmare because of the information that's just out there." Blogs can also yield information that threatens national or operational security. Ms. Kidd said one servicemember actually produced a deployment blog. "If you have a diary you're giving people information about daily activities on a base," she said. "People don't realize they're being watched. Everybody is a target."

"The site is located, owned and maintained by someone in Germany," one Air Force Office of Special Investigations officer added,"If you don't believe m[e] - Google them."

**The site's operators, based in California, strongly disagreed. They asked the Air Force Inspector General for help. And this week, the Air Force announced that “after subsequent research, some of the information in the briefing, created by an Air Force officer, was found to be inaccurate,” according to a statement by Lt.

Col. Melinda Morgan, with the Air

Force Office of Public Affairs.

“The author of the brief sent out a subsequent e-mail to retract the inaccurate information,” Morgan added. “Additionally, the Air Force has since requested the briefing cease to be propagated and will continue to take action to remove the briefing if instances of its use are discovered.”

Wes Prater, co-founder of the site, tells Military Times that the damage done to his business may not be reversible.

“Air

Force Commands have already sent briefs containing erroneous information warning their personnel to avoid

AirForce.TogetherWeServed.com at all costs since the first week of

February,” he said. “The Air Force has blocked, without reservation, all access to [the site] from all bases, and to the best of our knowledge no command has sent any briefs to their personnel retracting the original brief, nor have any discriminatory blocks against [the site] been lifted.” While most of the 50,000 Air

Force members who joined the site before the erroneous information began circulating have remained members, most have not returned, he said. “The result is clear — the site’s reputation throughout the

Air Force has been destroyed,” Prater said. “We’re going to try our best to keep the site going. It’s part of our military community, and the other sites are doing well. We appreciate what the Air Force is doing now, but unfortunately, they let this go on for too long.”

(High five: Milblogging.com)

ALSO:

* Navy Hearts Blogs

* Military Report: Secretly 'Recruit or Hire Bloggers'

* Coast Guard Fires Blogger

* Coast Guard Hates the Internet, Maybe

* If You're Gonna Get Blocked by the Air Force...

* Who Gets Through the Air Force's Blog Block?

* Facebook Threatens Soldiers, Canada Says

* Army: Wikis Too Risky

* U.S. Starting to Wake Up to Media War?

* Top General: Let Soldiers Blog

* U.S. Enlists Arab Bloggers for Info War

* Bloggers vs. Terrorists?

* Army Gearing Up for Info War (Finally)

* Terrorists Keep Blogs, Too

* Army Bullies Blogger, Invades YouTube

* British Military Gags Blogs

* Army Audit: Official Sites, Not Blogs, are Security Threat

* Military Security Threat: Bogus Bomb-Zapper's Bogus Countermeasure

* Military Hypes, Bans YouTube

* Petraeus Hearts Milblogs

* No More YouTube, MySpace for U.S. Troops

* Milblogs Boost War Effort

* Pentagon Whispers; Milbloggers Zip Their Lips

* Clarifying the Blog Rule Clarification

* Army to Bloggers: We Won't Bust You. Promise.

* Army's Blog Rebuttal

* Stop Those Leaks!

* Strategic Minds Debate Milblog Crackdown

* Milblog Bust: AP Gets Snowed

* Army: Milblogging is "Therapy," Media is "Threat"

* Urban Legend Led to Army Blog-Bust?

* New Army Rules Could Kill G.I. Blogs (Maybe E-mail, Too)

* Reporters = Foreign Spies?

* Army's Info-Cop Speaks