{{**snip**snip}}.As such, for the foreseeable future I will no longer post anything about the Coast Guard on this blog. This might impact a few of my other Web 2.0 endeavors, too; not sure yet.
"The below website has a short snippet {snip}, which I know for a fact is close held info at present. I'm wondering what type of clearance review this type of thing must undergo?"
Also in the cease mode is Ryan Erickson from CGinformation.org who posted the following note yesterday:
I can no longer do this site by myself. Family, work, school, and this wonderful blog have come to full head with each other, and I am no longer in a position to continue the battle of what/who gets my time. Once I get a grasp on the full situation, or I finish school in 5+weeks, I’ll be back. ~RyanNo more prognosticating for the time being. Y'all will have to find another scuttle to stand around.
I recommend starting at Coast Guard News; albeit straight and sanitized, good stuff nonetheless.
Update 6 April 2007: Portions of the above redacted as indicated by the {{**snip**snip}}.
You can find the offending post here:
ReplyDeletehttp://tidewatermuse.blogspot.com/2007/03/cg-forcecom-to-alameda.html
Peter,
ReplyDeleteA blow to transparency indeed. With the academy and deepwater issues I think we are seeing an institutional response to control all channels of communication. This certainly does not match the example set by the Commandant. I can see the need for an occasional request, and even a directive, to remove SBU info/speculations, but it should be a direct request with accountability rather than the process that has been used in this case. This has been a real issue for DOD and I'd hate to see the USCG get a black eye over suppression of member blogs. - Daren