Yesterday, WIRED's Noah Shachtman reported that US Strategic Command--which oversees the armed forces' computer networks--is about to ban the entire military's access to social networking Web sites.

As someone who has spent the last few years telling the national security community to acquaint themselves with such tools, this is really frustrating.

But I totally get it. They are justifiably worried that a malicious Twitter or Facebook account would infect their entire unclassified network with malware. I do not know how potent the threat is, nor do I know how much they have done to stop it. The fact that Stratcom's mission is to defend the military's networks against much more potent threats than Facebook spam makes this retreat very ironic. But it's just ironic; it's not what bothers me about it. For all I know, they have tried very hard and have decided to give up a well-fought fight.

What bothers me about it is that it seems Stratcom is only accounting for the risks of these sites without considering any of the benefits: the risks are malware and wasted time. What are the benefits? Personnel morale. I believe this decision is based on a mindset that social networking sites are a strictly breaktime activity: agencies will let their people "surf the Web", just like they let them check personal email or step out for a smoke break, because it benefits morale. But do such Web sites serve a work function? No way.

The physical environment promotes this mindset. The military usually works on networks that are not accessible by you and I; likewise, they can't get to the regular Internet from their normal computers. There are special systems dedicated for Web use, and they usually sit "over in that other room." Years ago, if someone was on the unclassified computer, it was because they were dilly-dallying. But today, they could be doing serious work on that computer. Compared to the rest of the Web, social networking sites provide some of the greatest value added on top of what's available via the restricted networks. I hope they have at least weighed this value against the security risks. As long as they've come to realize that Twitter is not playtime, I'll be okay with this decision.

I don't get that feeling, though. I found out two days ago the Stratcom is also blocking my personal Web site, where I write about cyber warfare, improving the military's computer networks, and the value of public information to intelligence analysis. Stratcom's filters have deemed me a "Political/Advocacy group." And a few months ago, John Robb (author of a popular blog and book on the future of terrorism) learned that the Defense Intelligence Agency was blocking his site because it is "focused on social networking." Disappointing.