Pentagon information warriors have convinced themselves -- and the defense leadership -- that adversaries such as Iraq can use the Internet and other information to do harm to the United States. But anti-information is a dangerous course. PNS commentator William M. Arkin explores the growing debate over the dangers to national security stemming from the Web. Arkin (warkin@igc.org) is author of "The U.S. Military Online: A Directory for Internet Access to the Department of Defense" (Brassey's, 1998).

A pilot is shot down over Iraq and hauled before interrogators. He gives his captors name, rank, and serial number as required by the Geneva Conventions, but nothing more.

The next day, called back to the interview room, he is told, "We know from the Internet that you live at 1536 Barry Court in Virginia Beach, Virginia with your wife Susan and two children, Erica and Greg. Here's a map of your neighborhood and a picture of your kids' elementary school to. Tell us everything or terrorists will kill your family."

This fiction is just one of many Internet horror stories circulating around the Pentagon these days. The underlying message is that the net constitutes a direct and tangible danger to the military.

These concerns came to a head on September 25 when Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre ordered a review of the military's 2,000-plus websites to cleanse them of any information that might "compromise national security."

Hamre is acting in response to alarms sounded by Pentagon information warriors who believe the Internet is a danger to the U.S. military. Late last year, the Information Assurance Division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff began peddling an anti-Internet presentation called "Information and Vulnerabilities" to high-ranking officers and civilians, including General Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Hamre.

With a few points and clicks, the briefers showed how a terrorist or enemy government could quickly call up vital information that could be used to harm the United States. The presentation included a high-quality aerial photograph of the military satellite communications hub at Landstuhl, Germany downloaded from a Defense Information Systems Agency website, followed by sensitive operational details plucked from the net about Air Force software used to plan, execute, and monitor combat missions.

But the highlight was the focus on personal privacy. General Shelton was treated, quite to his surprise, to a virtual tour of the interior of his home, taken from a public website. Then the briefers showed how they could use the General's official biography to gather information about his family -- such as the location of a son's apartment in Florida.

Other examples of promiscuous online data were demonstrated, including the unlisted home telephone number for the head of the Joint Staff. The presentation ended ominously with details about John Hamre himself, including his date of birth and particulars about his parents.

"DOD has gone too far" in providing "too much information in the spirit of openness," the brief says. "Providing too much information provides our adversaries with a target rich environment," it concludes.

The only specific recommendation made is that the Department of Defense should "remove sensitive info" from its web sites. But this solution is likely to have zero impact. Data such as birth dates, social security numbers and family names might be ammunition for an invasion of privacy, but it is also available elsewhere.

In fact, the suggestion that the Defense Department is giving away the store is not really supported by the Joint Staff's own briefing. The juiciest morsels in the presentation were found at commercial, not government web sites. The Air Force software was found on a defense contractor site. The virtual tour of Shelton's home was on a private home page. Shelton's son was found using a BellSouth Internet look-up and MapQuest, and the unlisted phone number was found at WhoWhere.

In the four years the U.S. military has been using the world wide web, it has seen significant cost savings in the disseminating reports and publications. And the net's effects on the conduct of internal and external Pentagon business, while providing a limitless medium to communicate directly with the public, reservists, and veterans is nothing short of revolutionary.

Granted, the military faces potentially unique threats and we are all struggling with the down sides of privacy in the Internet era. But it seems that some in the Pentagon are as intent upon defeating "openness," which many in uniform abhor, as they are committed to addressing true vulnerabilities and challenges of a wired society. The anti-Internet forces conveniently ignore existing defense policies on maintaining public Internet sites that warn that information should be thoroughly vetted before it is posted online.

Beyond the issues of personal safety and privacy, Pentagon information warriors have convinced themselves (and the defense leadership) that adversaries such as Iraq can use the Internet and other information to do harm to the United States. Enamored of movie scenarios like "The Net" and "Ransom," they seek simplistic solutions by erecting thicker cyber-defenses and controlling information.

But anti-information is a dangerous course. It not only creates a groundless sense of protection, it also fails to acknowledge the national security benefits the United States derives from openness and the free flow of information. Hamre vetoed the judgment of the Pentagon public affairs apparatus -- never particularly known for spilling the beans about anything -- and vested responsibility for the web review in a new Pentagon policy office whose brief includes everything from covert action to information warfare. In their war, the people's right to know is already collateral damage.