Navy SEALs disciplined for Medal Of Honor: Warfighter involvement

Seven SEALs under investigation for revealing secrets during Warfighter's development have been disciplined.

Back in September while under investigation for his novel No Easy Day, former U.S. Navy SEAL and  author Matt Bissonnette also fell under further government scrutiny for his involvement with Electronic Arts and developer Danger Close’s military shooter Medal of Honor: Warfighter. Although Bissonnette had since left the service, his contributions as an adviser to that game and the details of his book both came under investigation by the Department of Defense for potentially releasing classified information regarding how the SEALs operate. Along with Bissonnette, seven other active duty Navy SEALs also served as consultants for the game. 

A new report now suggests that those seven SEALs have been disciplined, and all those involved are under further investigation regarding their role in the game’s development.

According to CBS News, the Navy SEALs in question (at least one of which served on the successful mission which resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden) served as paid consultants for Warfighter, and may have revealed military secrets while assisting EA with the game. There has been no word on what specific secrets were revealed, and in all likelihood that information will never be released. The report indicates that all seven SEALs have received letters of reprimand — a major impediment to future promotion– and have had half their salaries docked for two months.

News of The Department of Defense taking an interest in the SEALs’ involvement with Warfighter first hit the wire in September, but focused primarily on Bissonnette. His book No Easy Day, which he wrote  under the pseudonym Mark Owen, gave a firsthand account of the raid that targeted bin Laden. Although the market is no stranger to first hand accounts of military missions told by those that participated in them, all such projects are supposed to first be submitted to the Pentagon for approval to ensure that no classified information is released. In the case of both Bissonnette’s book and with the SEALs that worked on Warfighter, no approval was ever sought, although Bissonnette’s lawyer claims that the book was properly vetted by a special operations attorney prior to release. At the time, EA indicated that it wasn’t aware the SEALs’ required any government oversight for their role with the game. 

Leading up to and after its October 23 release, Warfighter‘s marketing has promoted the game’s ties to real-world military experts and well-known military scenarios – including an upcoming map pack for the game called “Zero Dark Thirty” that recreates the SEAL Team Six raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Loose lips sink ships: Why has Tim Cook’s Apple sprung a leak?

The success of this year's iPhone 5 rumor mill proves one thing: Tim Cook no longer has control of Apple's secrets. Why is that?

Welp, the iPhone 5 is here. And, as feared, not a thing about the device was a surprise. Not the screen size. Not the processor. Not the design. Not the name. Not the release date. Not even the freakin’ headphones. We saw all of these details before, in the months leading up to today’s big announcement. In other words, everything about the iPhone 5 leaked, snatching away Apple’s long-held ability to control the message about its own products — a skillful secrecy that has defined the company for the past decade and helped make it such an astounding success.

None of this is to say that the iPhone 5 is a disappointment, nor lacking in any way. If you like the Apple ecosystem, then the iPhone 5 is great, probably the best phone on the market. Nor do I mean that Apple needs to blow our minds with every product — that’s just not how technological innovation works. Yes, the iPhone was groundbreaking in 2007. And the iPad set fire to the tablet form factor, which wallowed in obscurity and uselessness for a decade before receiving an incendiary dose of the Apple magic.

No — what I’m talking about here is the value of secrecy, and what it means to no longer have the ability or will to keep a secret.

At the D10 Conference in May, Apple CEO Tim Cook famously stated that Apple would “double down on secrecy on products.” But if this year’s iPhone rumor season is anything more than a fluke, it would appear that Cook has either decided to scrap that plan altogether, or fundamentally failed the mission.

It is entirely possible that, with the late Steve Jobs no longer in control, Cook decided to lift the iron curtain that has long surrounded Apple for strategic purposes. Some have suggested that, because the new iPhone now has an entirely different dock connector, Apple decided to leak the information in the press as a thinly veiled heads up to third-party accessory makers whose business would be monumentally impacted by the change. But why not simply share this information directly, and demand the same level of secrecy as Apple has historically required? Hasn’t Tim Cook ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement?

The more viable conclusion is that Apple has lost its ability to keep a secret. Why is that?

One theory is that Tim Cook is simply not as feared by Apple’s suppliers as Jobs was. Jobs is infamous for his brutal inflexibility, with employees and business partners alike. Cook, by contrast, is reportedly not nearly as frightening a leader. His wrath not as wrathful. His iron fist a bit rubbery.

Of course, it may simply be that Apple has grown too large for secrecy to remain a viable option. As of 2011, Apple listed (pdf) more than 150 companies in its supply chain. Perhaps this year it reached a breaking point: the list simply grew too long to stay in one solid piece. And out of the cracks flowed the company’s secrets.

Maybe. But I find it difficult to dismiss Cook’s role in it. For whatever reason, Apple’s relationship with its suppliers has drastically changed during his tenure. Leaks of iPhone 5 components were constant and nearly systematic. Nearly every week, for months on end, new tidbits about the device made their way onto the Web. Not just blurry shots of nearly unrecognizable prototypes as we occasionally saw during Jobs’ reign, but full videos of people showing off what we now know to be authentic iPhone 5 components.

Have Foxconn leaders sensed Apple’s new, less-dangerous demeanor, and allowed the many iPhone components to make their to leak into the public for their own purposes? Or perhaps it was LG Display, or Japan Display, where the iPhone 5 screens are made, which saw the weakness and let down its guard?

It’s impossible for me to say where exactly the leaks came from, or whether there was a single source or many. What I can say, however, is that if this is Tim Cook doubling down on Apple’s secrecy, then he just lost that hand.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com