NDA for FOUO CAP Radio Freqs to be released

[CommGeek]

This is to continue a thread on NDA's to release CAP Freq's that was started in an unrelated thread.

I know for a FACT that in order for CAP NHQ to release CAP freq to either a CAP member or a third party , CAP NHQ requires a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to be signed by the receiving party.

In my real job with Emergency Management and the Acting State wide Public Safety Interoperable Communications Coordinator, we asked to have a list of  the new CAP freq's for several of our State Mobile Command Posts as well as the FEMA MURS Comm trucks. We were required to sign a NDA before they would release the freqs. Same applied to conduct an internod study at a new CAP repeater site with the new freqs. The bottom line  is they do not want the recipient to disclose the freqs to third party.  the WILL NOT release the freqs without it...even to a CAP member.

[Eclipse]

CAP 100-1
5-1. Requirements for Operating a CAP Radio Station. CAP radio stations are authorized by the Federal Government through the NTIA for emergency, training, and operational activities. Members are authorized to operate CAP radio stations upon certification by wing or higher authority. No CAP member may attend CAP radio operator training without first completing on-line CAP Operational Security (OPSEC) Training and having agreed to the on-line non-disclosure agreement.

[desertengineer1]

This is to continue a thread on NDA's to release CAP Freq's that was started in an unrelated thread.

I know for a FACT that in order for CAP NHQ to release CAP freq to either a CAP member or a third party , CAP NHQ requires a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to be signed by the receiving party.

In my real job with Emergency Management and the Acting State wide Public Safety Interoperable Communications Coordinator, we asked to have a list of  the new CAP freq's for several of our State Mobile Command Posts as well as the FEMA MURS Comm trucks. We were required to sign a NDA before they would release the freqs. Same applied to conduct an internod study at a new CAP repeater site with the new freqs. The bottom line  is they do not want the recipient to disclose the freqs to third party.  the WILL NOT release the freqs without it...even to a CAP member.

There's a big difference between the NDA that you click on in the training (which really isn't legally binding BTW - it just helps them 2B you), and an ink signature you make someone else sign.

I could be wrong and someone may have changed the process recently, but I posed this question directly on the CAP-DC list about a year ago.  We're planning to install new repeaters on a few state and private towers.  Two owners have requested the frequencies for intermodulation studies, to ensure we don't interfere with another user, and that we don't bring a "magic" frequency that intermodulates with another one to cause intereference with, say, an aviation channel - for example.

One private owner balked immediately at making any agreement as a function of legality.  He gave a gentleman's agreement that they don't publish frequencies (because no one really cares), but signing an NDA would constitute legal liability, real or implied, by his company.

I found that there was a large discontinuity between the signed CAP-DC policy and what many members were perceiving.  Lots of comments my way regarding NDA's from members like yourself, but I had yet to see one.  Because we were dealing with private owners of repeater sites, I posed a very clear question to CAP-DC.  I made my position clear that we, as CAP, do not have legal authority to make a third, private party sign an NDA for a DoD owned frequency, based on a DoD OPSEC CI.  There are a whole bunch of legal landmines in trying to do that.  You cannot legally represent CAP in that settng.   You absolutely cannot represent the AF in such an agreement.  Worse, if you attempt or imply you are representing the Air Force, YOU or the Corporation could be legally liable.  Yes, I said YOU, because it could be determined that you are acting outside the reasonable bounds of your authority in CAP.

The policy signed by Gen Courtier makes no mention of any procedural signature by third parties when CAP frequency information is approved for release.  The policy is for CAP's management of release by YOU, the member for the legal reasons above. 

The response from those "in the know" at CAP-DC level (at that time) was that no NDA's were planned.  We must get permission, and we should ask them not to release such info, but that's as far as our legal boundry goes.

In addition, I have yet to see any of these NDA's people are talking about - which means it's more of an urban legend than fact.

However, if we have individuals or wings authoring their own NDA's, this is bad.  It could be perceived as a legally binding agreement between corporations.  THOSE must be approved by CAP.  I can understand why it wasn't in the CAP policy. The lawyers would have stopped such talk early.

Again, CAP frequencies are NOT classified.  Let me make this very clear to all you boneheads out there who just don't seem to get it.  CAP FREQUENCIES ARE NOT CLASSIFIED.  THEY CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED.  YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SAY THEY ARE CLASSIFIED.  YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A TRUE IDIOT WHEN YOU ELUDE THAT THEY ARE.  THEY ARE FOUO - WHICH IS NOT A DOD 5200R CLASSIFICATION. 

FOUO just means the information is exempt from release under FOIA.  But I digress.  That's a whole seperate debate.  I think I made a good post on it here a while back.

Obviously, if I have to make the statements above to those who can't understand that concept, I won't even try to explain the DOD 5200 definitions regarding definitions of classified info.  There are many, none of which apply here.

Bottom line - members need to stop the classified, spook, NDA talk, and NEVER EVER require someone outside of CAP to sign something without consulting with NHQ or wing legal staff.

[desertengineer1]

This is to continue a thread on NDA's to release CAP Freq's that was started in an unrelated thread.

I know for a FACT that in order for CAP NHQ to release CAP freq to either a CAP member or a third party , CAP NHQ requires a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to be signed by the receiving party.

In my real job with Emergency Management and the Acting State wide Public Safety Interoperable Communications Coordinator, we asked to have a list of  the new CAP freq's for several of our State Mobile Command Posts as well as the FEMA MURS Comm trucks. We were required to sign a NDA before they would release the freqs. Same applied to conduct an internod study at a new CAP repeater site with the new freqs. The bottom line  is they do not want the recipient to disclose the freqs to third party.  the WILL NOT release the freqs without it...even to a CAP member.

Who is "they"?  Please PM me....

[heliodoc]

Yep

The CAP spook stuff has really got to quit.

Let the TRUE operators talk the spook stuff

Until CAP has got some REAL horsepower behind assigning comm freq, let the comm assignment to the folks who do this every day

OPSEC, NDA screamin FOUO only make CAP look like........a bunch of little ninnies

GET a real clearance S TS etc..  I know I held on in Army Aviation  but I am throwing around all that OPSEC FOUO stuff around here just 'cuz I held aa clearance

Some of CAP has to get over its FOUO self

[Major Lord]

Yep

The CAP spook stuff has really got to quit.

Let the TRUE operators talk the spook stuff

Until CAP has got some REAL horsepower behind assigning comm freq, let the comm assignment to the folks who do this every day

OPSEC, NDA screamin FOUO only make CAP look like........a bunch of little ninnies

GET a real clearance S TS etc..  I know I held on in Army Aviation  but I am throwing around all that OPSEC FOUO stuff around here just 'cuz I held aa clearance

Some of CAP has to get over its FOUO self

Did you know that the CIA killed Albert Einstein? He knew too much.....

Major Lord

[heliodoc]

Here's a suggestion for you CAP types throwing around FOUO on a regular basis:

PROVE it ALL in writing or documentation from your favorite agency and how it relates to CAP

Yes . I have read the FOUO stuff on the NHQ website....

But when people start throwing it around CAP like a badminton game gone awry....... I ask to them to prove it....that usually settles that conversation down to a dull roar.

My $.02?  I would respect CAP alot more if the folks here stop looking like they are trying to be military and all

If you already have served in the RM and KNOW how to operate in the SECRET, TOP SECRET. FOUO, Classified and NON Classified world that is great

If you are a civilian and in CAP and batting some new found FOUO knowledge.....  go settle yourself down.

I have seen CAPers here try do debate desertengineer here and alot odf other folks that MAY have a clue in this arena...Again if you just learned about FOUO and "Classified CAP stuff."  Stop throwing it around like you are an operator.

Unless there is hammering directive from CAP NHQ and a real traveling fun show that meets every Wing (spell that Contact Team) that explains in CLEEEAAAAR detail and the legal types are there going over with every CAP troop like they do with JAG types before some or most deployments..... then the CAP FOUO and classified vs non classified stuff is alot of verbiage and some hot air with no real meat behind it

AND some of CAP regulations ....well they are in need of overhaul.  I have seen tighter regs in the RM

I will continue to " salute and execute" another term batted around here on CAPTalk, and read my CAPM 100-1

But I will leave the spook stuff to the REAL operators in life.  Right now after getting on CAPTalk at times and seeing the abuses of the FOUO stuff I have less belief in CAP on it teachews and instructs folks.

Most often I come CAPTalk for the humor.....especially these threads....

[desertengineer1]

Thanks, Doc.

I don't really intend to be mean, but I get frustrated when the line between paranoia talk and actual process blurs enough to cause real problems.

If there is a WG DC or CC somewhere making agencies sign NDA's, and it wasn't approved by CAP, it needs to be reported and addressed.  We have a responsibility as members to correct or clarify that because there is risk to everyone.

On the other hand, if CAP NHQ, CAP-DC or CAP-USAF has mandated these NDA's, it has obviously not been communicated to wing DC's or CC's.  It's just as important to clarify and get reported up the chain.

So, the issue on the table is to get the real story.  Is this fact or just someone talking trash?  Fact means I make a couple of phone calls to the people who DO know the right process.  Fiction means that we need to do a better job of communicating the real facts and spank members for wasting everyone's time with the paranoia talk.  If a member can't handle the definition difference between FOUO and "classified", they shouldn't be in positions for ES or CUL.  I'm tired of correcting them.

Again, I don't mean to be mean.  But I get to a certain tolerance level and have to call folks on it. 

It's the price I pay for being a unit security manager and OPSEC officer in the other life.  This isn't the kind of thing to take lightly because there are some significant legal and ethical risks to our organization.

Just my $0.02 thoughts....

[heliodoc]

No problem, desert

After being in a number of HLS classes in the last weeks  the tempering of 9/11 is apparently are leveling to a level that the EM world still has to be vigilant and calmer than BITD.  The "new stuff is just a new version of the old  stuff.  Read Civil Defense...only with new comms and whatnot

The "fever pitch" in CAP can be pretty funny to follow

CAP just ought to live with AF freq assignments, work with interopability and if the CAP "secret freqs" make to the internet......well

Maybe CAP can be big brother and start putting monitoring stations out to do their part in HLS missions and monitoring all CAP offenders and start typing out 2B's for the betterment of CAP.  But wait a minute, there WILL be an online test to get those credentials before a CAP member can become an airwave intelligence analyst

[Eclipse]

While you guys are up there congratulating each other, you might want to read AFI 33-118 as well as Title 18, section 793 of the USC.

These are the federal laws and Air Force regulations which mandate that CAP protect this information.

The only people on this board making any comment about freq info being "classified", are the people who keep making the assertion that they "aren't", to somehow make an argument that CAP's requirement of an NDA isn't required by criminal law.

Of course its not. 

An NDA is a civil document between parties who agree not to disclose information in relation to their business dealings.  It is only enforcible in a civil court via a lawsuit if the "infringed" party is so inclined.

The fortitude in requiring an NDA is directly related to how much the corporation in question wants to do business with the respective vendor or supplier.  Apple has something tech websites need, namely pre-release information, so they can mandate an NDA before showing off their latest overpriced product, and enforce that NDA via a lawsuit, including damages, if that Tech site reveals information outside the NDA's rules.

However if Apple needs something from a single-source supplier, and that supplier knows they own the market, the supplier is free to tell Apple to go jump about an NDA, and Apple has to decide if they need those "whatever" bad enough to risk early release of information.

CAP does not need random radio technicians who can't abide by our rules, and is mandated by US law and the USAF to protect related information. Therefore, someone who wants to either do business with CAP, or "help" a member, has to sign an NDA.  Period.  Disobeying CAP's rules risks disciplinary action for the member, and could, potentially, get the attention of the USAF and the Feds.

In the case of a repeater site, freq info, at least those applicable to the repeater for isolation and deconfliction issues, is obviously something the host landlord "needs to know", and an NDA should be signed by that landlord.  However, if the host decides he's not interested in signing the NDA, then CAP needs to decide if the repeater site is important enough to allow the info to be released without an NDA.

Not something a local squadron can decide.  This would need to be a Wing CC as a minimum, and probably should go to NHQ for consideration before any information is released.

Whether this information is already in the wild, or is easily obtained by someone with the inclination is not relevant to the federal law cited, or the USAF regulations that CAP is bound by.   CAP is mandated to protect this information, and they do so through their established internal procedures.

Whether the USAF or Federal Government cares enough to pursue some HAM who posts the information is a separate issue, and not CAP's problem, as long as CAP is following its rules.

[heliodoc]

Thank you, Eclipse for your enlightening review

Still there are alot of CAPers still spouting off.

Maybe USAF ought to take over CAP and CAP loses its Inc status.. they might think their business status is A OK.  But there are still issues that maybe PAPA 1 AF may want to wrestle CAP and hopefully at a time when they have less balls to juggle in the free and not so free world, they will and hopefully AF leadership comes down on that "CAP leadership."  Maybe that and reduction in funds mandated by Congress could convince CAP of its so called invincibility.  I for one could live with it 'cuz of the operations that I got to do with the Army.

Then CAP ought to control itself, which apparently many circles it can not.

Again maybe CAP needs more online tests regarding NDA and OPSEC.....'cuz the current status of things in CAP and interpretations are wildly different...

CAP ....once again a UNIFORMITY issue(s) are still lacking

Congratulating each other?  Maybe.  Let see what CAP can REALLY do legally, Huh?  Let us see CAP set precedent on all these things.. UNTIL then CAP really is a meooooooowing tiger!!

[Flying Pig]

http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?aid=1092

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Civil_Air_Patrol

Is this some of the classified stuff we are talking about?

[Eclipse]

No.

That looks like the same old-plan page everyone gets when they do a web search.

[N Harmon]

There's a big difference between the NDA that you click on in the training (which really isn't legally binding BTW - it just helps them 2B you), and an ink signature you make someone else sign.

[...]

I made my position clear that we, as CAP, do not have legal authority to make a third, private party sign an NDA for a DoD owned frequency, based on a DoD OPSEC CI.

[...]

However, if we have individuals or wings authoring their own NDA's, this is bad.  It could be perceived as a legally binding agreement between corporations.  THOSE must be approved by CAP.  I can understand why it wasn't in the CAP policy. The lawyers would have stopped such talk early.

I'm just curious by what basis you make these statements. In regard to your first statement, the courts have consistently found so-called click-wrap agreements to be binding, so I would be extra careful about telling people they are not legally bound by their CAP OPSEC agreements.

Further, I don't think the fact that CAP does not own its frequencies would invalidate a contractual agreement where a landlord agrees not to release those frequencies. Obviously non-CAP legal officers should not be drafting their own NDAs and using them, but that is aside from the point.

Lastly, NDAs are contracts so why would they not be perceived as such?

FOUO just means the information is exempt from release under FOIA.

But, CAP isn't subject to FOIA.    So, why would we need to label things as "exempt from release under FOIA", when in fact,... It's ALL exempt. 

Bottom line - members need to stop the classified, spook, NDA talk, and NEVER EVER require someone outside of CAP to sign something without consulting with NHQ or wing legal staff.

Mostly, I agree with that.

[desertengineer1]

While you guys are up there congratulating each other, you might want to read AFI 33-118 as well as Title 18, section 793 of the USC.

I am very familiar with 33-118.  It has nothing to do with the NDA discussion.

Let's take a gander...

3.6.1.5. Civil Air Patrol (CAP). The CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force under Title 10, U.S.C.,
Armed Forces, Chapter 909, Civil Air Patrol. AFI 10-2701, Organization and Function of the
Civil Air Patrol, outlines Air Force support to the CAP. CAP units submit frequency actions that
support Air Force operations and training, whether in whole or in part, to CAP National Headquarters
(CAP-DOKF), 105 South Hansell Street, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332. CAP National
Headquarters sends the frequency actions to Headquarters Air Education and Training Command
(HQ AETC CSS/SCYC), 61 Main Circle, Suite 3, Randolph AFB TX 78150- 4546, who in turn,
sends them to AFFMA.
3.6.1.5.1. AFFMA may assign CAP frequencies for Air Force units to communicate with the
CAP during operational missions.
3.6.1.5.2. Air Force units may allow CAP to use their assigned frequencies to communicate
with other Air Force units during operational missions.
3.6.1.5.3. CAP units give the ISM a list of frequencies used on the installation. A number of
these should appear in the installation data pull.

Nothing here applies to the question at hand regarding a CAP to XXXX NDA for frequency release.  This only defines CAP's use of frequencies, and states the high level process for CAP's role in USAF spectrum management.

A more relevant chapter is this:

A2.3.1. Although most individual frequency assignment records in the Air Force Radio Frequency
Authorization (RFA) are individually unclassified, classify the total RFA according to the highest
classification level of the assignments it contains. Lists (two or more frequencies) of unclassified frequency
assignment records in a given range of frequencies, or in a given area, can be categorized as
sensitive, but unclassified because they may provide information leading to the disclosure of military
or national security-related operations and scientific and technological matters relating to national
security. These lists can indicate the overall strategic telecommunications capabilities of the US, and
their disclosure could cause damage to national security. The continued protection of this information
is essential to national security because it pertains to communications security and reveals vulnerabilities
and capabilities. Its unauthorized disclosure can reasonably be expected to result in nullifying
the effectiveness of telecommunications networks and the capability of the US.


Note there is a very subtle tone here, common to AFI's.  You cannot put something in an AFI that trumps an absolute rule in a higher directive (such as DoD).  However, you can give clarified "guidance".  This is why the word "sensitive" is used in A2.1.3.  It relegates such frequency information to directives of the using authority.  CAP is an authorized user, not the managing authority.  I believe the ADCON for us is AFNORTH A6. 

Further down....  Note the use of the word "Guidance".  That's very important.

A2.3.2. The USMCEB-M-019-98 gives guidance on classifying compilations of frequency assignment
records. Based on this guidance:

A2.3.2.3. A RFA or frequency list containing only UNCLASSIFIED assignments of one unit or
location is considered UNCLASSIFIED. For example, to select all records where SFAF data item
200 (Agency) = USAF would result in a CONFIDENTIAL aggregate list; whereas, select all
records where SFAF item 301 (Transmitter Location) or 401 (Receiver Location) = Hill would
result in an UNCLASSIFIED aggregate list. Users that plan to operate in an UNCLASSIFIED
environment should select from the FRRS only UNCLASSIFIED records applicable to their operational
requirements.


You cannot deem something classified just because you want it to, i.e. without reason.  That would violate DoD's core directives regarding lowest level possible or through derived or originating authority.  We have neither as CAP.  For example, frequencies in use by a classified operation can be classified on a derived basis.  CAP's mission is not classified, so you can't go there.  (Yes, we might have one or two missions, but those are WAY out of our normal realm)  We are also NOT authorized access to, or given clearances based on our membership as volunteers - as a whole.  Therefore, this is relegated down to the "unit" level - i.e. CAP-USAF and AFNORTH A6.  THEY have deemed frequency information FOUO, presumably per AFI 10-701's OPSEC process.  Frequencies in CAP are most likely on the CI list.  I don't know that for sure, but that's where they normally go in AF units.

Finally...

A2.4.5.3. This document contains records/data that are exempt from public release under the provisions
of the Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552(b)(1). The release of any records to any non-DOD organization
requires approval of the authority (agency) that made the assignment.


THIS is where FOUO comes from. 

Nothing in any of your citations defines the authority or requirement for organization to organization NDA's under DoD or USAF directives.  YOU DO NOT have the authority to write any kind of agreement not specified in CAPR without express approval or direction from CAP NHQ - period.  To do such an agreement means that you are legally speaking for us as a corporation.  A whole host of problems can arise out of that, the least of which could be an implied contractual agreement between CAP and the site owner.  CAPR's are very clear you are not to do these without express permission.

I don't understand why this is an argument.  If someone is making up NDA's and having organizations sign them on their own, without express approval or direction from Maxwell, it needs to stop.

Am I the only one confused here?

[raivo]

Who *is* writing up these NDAs, anyway? Is it National or someone else?

[heliodoc]

Kinda spell it out for me

Not an AF commo type or an outhouse CAP lawyer

BUT maybe CAP NHQ better get it s better outhouse lawyer to get on up to NHQ, SecAF, PAPA 1AF and quite possibly US Southern Command,eh

But I am awaiting all the "Professional CAP" comment that is about to ensue.

Thanks, desertengineer, really, for the research....more for the CAPers to put into their pipe and smoke   just make sure its legal and taxable...we need more funding for CAP!!!

[desertengineer1]

I'm just curious by what basis you make these statements. In regard to your first statement, the courts have consistently found so-called click-wrap agreements to be binding, so I would be extra careful about telling people they are not legally bound by their CAP OPSEC agreements.

Further, I don't think the fact that CAP does not own its frequencies would invalidate a contractual agreement where a landlord agrees not to release those frequencies. Obviously non-CAP legal officers should not be drafting their own NDAs and using them, but that is aside from the point.

Lastly, NDAs are contracts so why would they not be perceived as such?

FOUO just means the information is exempt from release under FOIA.

But, CAP isn't subject to FOIA.    So, why would we need to label things as "exempt from release under FOIA", when in fact,... It's ALL exempt. 

Bottom line - members need to stop the classified, spook, NDA talk, and NEVER EVER require someone outside of CAP to sign something without consulting with NHQ or wing legal staff.

Mostly, I agree with that.

I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been in all that.  All I'm trying to say is that the average member can get CAP into trouble by doing their own NDA's willy nilly with site owners and other agencies.  You DO NOT have authority to speak for CAP as a corporation unless specifically authorized by CAPR's and NHQ.  By making someone sign an NDA outside of that authority, YOU can lose legal protection and cost NHQ millions.  You can also be sued in civil court for going outside your authority.  CAP can say "He/she wasn't authorized to make such a contract for our organization per XXXX and YYYY", and most likely get out with a payoff to lawyers.

While your lawyer is trying to prevent you from getting sued (worse case), there is a bright side.  CAP will most likely send you a nice 2B suitable for framing.

If, on the other hand, CAP-DC is requiring wing DC's to have a document or agreement signed, the rest of us need to know about it.  A policy needs to be clearly communicated to all.  Otherwise, the spook paraniods come out and we're back to CAPTALK wasting time again.

[desertengineer1]

http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?aid=1092

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Civil_Air_Patrol

Is this some of the classified stuff we are talking about?

Doesn't matter.  YOU as a CAP member agreed not to release the information.  You're not going to jail over it.  You'll get a lifetime 2B.

[raivo]

I guess what I really don't understand is why CAP would have someone sign an NDA in the first place (unless it's just as a "deterrent"), since I'm not really sure I could see CAP suing someone for breaking an NDA and disclosing our frequencies.

In large part because frequency information, though it IS sensitive, isn't really *that* important in the grand scheme of things.

[Flying Pig]

http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?aid=1092

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Civil_Air_Patrol

Is this some of the classified stuff we are talking about?

Doesn't matter.  YOU as a CAP member agreed not to release the information.  You're not going to jail over it.  You'll get a lifetime 2B.

I didnt release anything.  I Googled it.  Took about .12 seconds.

[wuzafuzz]

Guilty.  I was the first to mention NDA's in that other thread.  I swear I read somewhere an NDA is required, but can't find it now.  It's clear CAP wants to keep the frequencies discreet and has directed us not to blab away.  (Seems a little silly in light of the ease with which scannists will find and publish.  Whatever.)

Some of the previous rants in the thread made for entertaining reading.  Wow.  However, people trying to follow the rules as they understand then does not make them wanna-be ninjas, secret agents, or operators.  Sure we all know of some folks like that, but I'm not convinced that's the same crowd as people trying to do what they believe to be the right thing.

[desertengineer1]

I guess what I really don't understand is why CAP would have someone sign an NDA in the first place (unless it's just as a "deterrent"), since I'm not really sure I could see CAP suing someone for breaking an NDA and disclosing our frequencies.

In large part because frequency information, though it IS sensitive, isn't really *that* important in the grand scheme of things.

From my perspective as a CAP comm and AF guy, the legal boundry between protecting FOUO information and release to a third party for technical, mission related needs is blurred.  AFI 10-701 makes it clear that OPSEC information should not make the mission suffer.  I argue that as guests installing repeaters on civilian owned sites, we shouldn't be making those owners sign NDA's, especially if there is any threat of federal law - or even an eludation made.

The USAF cannot come after you for spilling CAP frequency information.  They can hold CAP in the AUX ON mode accountable through CAP-USAF (i.e. yell at them), but there should be no spookiness or irrational fear of lawful authority involved.   It's essentially a courtosy.  USAF asks CAP to protect the info because it's in the OPSEC CI list.  CAP tells members "DO NOT RELEASE".

If a CAP member disobeys, the USAF can't come after the member.  That's just stupid.  But CAP can, and it has been promised to me that they will not hesitate to issue a 2B if someone violates the policy.

Now, my personal opinion as an RF guy, it's a pretty stupid rule.  You are radiating waves into free space.  I could figure out the frequencies on my scanner in a couple of days, and happily listen to all the traffic (until we get encryption).  I can hear some pretty scary stuff still on analog from the local air base.  Because contractors are using their own radios, I know which airplanes are broken and why - many times by tail number.  I know who's ordering pizza through the command post, and can even hear phone patches on HF.

But the black cloaked ninja's aren't going to come get me in the middle of the night.  If the AF wanted to be serious about radio OPSEC, they would have funded LMR encryption to everyone - which they obviously haven't... yet.

[desertengineer1]

Guilty.  I was the first to mention NDA's in that other thread.  I swear I read somewhere an NDA is required, but can't find it now.  It's clear CAP wants to keep the frequencies discreet and has directed us not to blab away.  (Seems a little silly in light of the ease with which scannists will find and publish.  Whatever.)

Some of the previous rants in the thread made for entertaining reading.  Wow.  However, people trying to follow the rules as they understand then does not make them wanna-be ninjas, secret agents, or operators.  Sure we all know of some folks like that, but I'm not convinced that's the same crowd as people trying to do what they believe to be the right thing.

LOL.  Sokay... The really good side to this is that 99.999% of our members want to do the right thing.  Do I desire more clear direction from CAP-DC?  Absolutely.  But remember this is a human organization run by other humans.  Sometimes all we can do is keep poking up the chain until something pokes back.

[wuzafuzz]

I guess what I really don't understand is why CAP would have someone sign an NDA in the first place (unless it's just as a "deterrent"), since I'm not really sure I could see CAP suing someone for breaking an NDA and disclosing our frequencies.

In large part because frequency information, though it IS sensitive, isn't really *that* important in the grand scheme of things.

Given that the frequency data is already out there, and will only improve over time, I wonder if CAP could successfully claim damages for breaching an NDA.  (Recognizing they may not be required.)  What would be the point, if the "damage" is already done?

Obviously, I am not a lawyer.  Just wondering. 

[desertengineer1]

http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?aid=1092

http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Civil_Air_Patrol

Is this some of the classified stuff we are talking about?

Doesn't matter.  YOU as a CAP member agreed not to release the information.  You're not going to jail over it.  You'll get a lifetime 2B.

I didnt release anything.  I Googled it.  Took about .12 seconds.

But they aren't after googlers.  They are after violators.

[raivo]

Given that the frequency data is already out there, and will only improve over time, I wonder if CAP could successfully claim damages for breaching an NDA.  (Recognizing they may not be required.)  What would be the point, if the "damage" is already done?

Obviously, I am not a lawyer.  Just wondering.

I wonder if CAP could even claim "damage." Certainly there's no financial damage to be done.

Where's a legal officer when you need one?

[Eclipse]

I wonder if CAP could even claim "damage." Certainly there's no financial damage to be done.

Here's an example.

Frequencies are compromised forcing a change of tones, or maybe forcing repeaters to be reprogrammed.

That costs money, which equals damages.

[Eclipse]

From my perspective as a CAP comm and AF guy, the legal boundry between protecting FOUO information and release to a third party for technical, mission related needs is blurred.  AFI 10-701 makes it clear that OPSEC information should not make the mission suffer.  I argue that as guests installing repeaters on civilian owned sites, we shouldn't be making those owners sign NDA's, especially if there is any threat of federal law - or even an eludation made.

The USAF cannot come after you for spilling CAP frequency information.  They can hold CAP in the AUX ON mode accountable through CAP-USAF (i.e. yell at them), but there should be no spookiness or irrational fear of lawful authority involved.   It's essentially a courtosy.  USAF asks CAP to protect the info because it's in the OPSEC CI list.  CAP tells members "DO NOT RELEASE".

The line is bright and clear.  You're just making things up to try an win an argument about the philosphical point of whether an NDA should be required.

Right now it is.  Ignore that at your own peril.  If being "right" is more important than being a "member", enjoy.

[desertengineer1]

From my perspective as a CAP comm and AF guy, the legal boundry between protecting FOUO information and release to a third party for technical, mission related needs is blurred.  AFI 10-701 makes it clear that OPSEC information should not make the mission suffer.  I argue that as guests installing repeaters on civilian owned sites, we shouldn't be making those owners sign NDA's, especially if there is any threat of federal law - or even an eludation made.

The USAF cannot come after you for spilling CAP frequency information.  They can hold CAP in the AUX ON mode accountable through CAP-USAF (i.e. yell at them), but there should be no spookiness or irrational fear of lawful authority involved.   It's essentially a courtosy.  USAF asks CAP to protect the info because it's in the OPSEC CI list.  CAP tells members "DO NOT RELEASE".

The line is bright and clear.  You're just making things up to try an win an argument about the philosphical point of whether an NDA should be required.

Right now it is.  Ignore that at your own peril.  If being "right" is more important than being a "member", enjoy.

How about backing that claim up with something other than a 2 letter word for "because I said so"?

Pony up an example of an NDA with the authorization from CAP-DC commpermissions then, so I can run point to get the policy clarified.

I can back the claim up with official traffic.  Can you?

[wuzafuzz]

I wonder if CAP could even claim "damage." Certainly there's no financial damage to be done.

Here's an example.

Frequencies are compromised forcing a change of tones, or maybe forcing repeaters to be reprogrammed.

That costs money, which equals damages.

Playing devils advocate: Short of catching your local source of mailcious interference, you'll never know where they got their info.  Acme Radio Repair or Google?  A scanner that reads CTCSS/DCS tones and NAC's?  A CAP member (or former member)?

I'd be more interested in baking the person doing the interfering than the source of the data.

[Spaceman3750]

I'd be more interested in baking the person doing the interfering than the source of the data.

This is just a hunch, but I think the concern is folks eavesdropping on potentially sensitive conversations (say, coordinates of an object of interest on some type of mission) than interference. The FAA can already bake people for interfering with our frequencies, provided someone can find them, regardless of all this secret squirrel FOUO top secret Q-clearance yankee white stuff.

[desertengineer1]

We've had a pretty good record with interference issues - very few reported.  I think that's a good testimant to how we've managed equipment and personnel.  I can't recall having any problems in our wing.

Most of this will be essentially moot if we ever get encryption up and running - or at least of minimal risk.

Of course, the normal comm procedures apply anyway.

If someon's being a dork, we'll work around them...

[JoeTomasone]

I'd be more interested in baking the person doing the interfering than the source of the data.

This is just a hunch, but I think the concern is folks eavesdropping on potentially sensitive conversations (say, coordinates of an object of interest on some type of mission) than interference. The FAA can already bake people for interfering with our frequencies, provided someone can find them, regardless of all this secret squirrel FOUO top secret Q-clearance yankee white stuff.

It'd be the FCC, but saying the FAA is an acceptable mistake for an organization like ours.   

Quite frankly, I'd be most concerned about interception of CD traffic - but then, not being involved in CD, I would hope that they do not report "finds" over the air.


The long and short of it is this: No attempt to keep the frequencies unknown will ever work.   Even if every member and non-member who is granted access to the frequencies took them to their grave, the technical means and the opportunities to discover them are too widespread to make it anything but an exercise in futility.   Of course, we follow directives and don't go posting them, blabbing them, etc.   It's just like any other reg that doesn't make sense (yes, 39-1, I'm looking at one or two of your provisions) that we follow because we as members have an obligation to obey the regulations.

In (computer) network security, you presume that the communications medium is compromised and work to secure it with that premise.  The same is/should be true for our radio communications.

[kd8gua]

This is exactly right.

The long and short of it is this: No attempt to keep the frequencies unknown will ever work.   Even if every member and non-member who is granted access to the frequencies took them to their grave, the technical means and the opportunities to discover them are too widespread to make it anything but an exercise in futility.   

Completely true. If someone really wanted the frequencies, all one needs is a digital/analog scanner and a current FCC / NTIA band plan. There are tons of generic band plans out there that show the min and max frequencies allotted for specific purposes. If someone was really radio savvy, a frequency counter is the simplest and most sure-shot way. However, the only people with enough close contact with the equipment itself to use the frequency counter would be CAP members, and they can simply ask for permission to receive a copy of the frequencies, completely making the aforementioned process a total waste of time for that member.

Eventually all things come to light. The US DHS put out the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide back in March of 2008. A lot of the frequencies and information in there hardly seems kosher to just give to anyone, but yet a Google search will pull up a link to the pdf format of this guide.

[MikeD]

If you already have served in the RM and KNOW how to operate in the SECRET, TOP SECRET. FOUO, Classified and NON Classified world that is great

If you are a civilian and in CAP and batting some new found FOUO knowledge.....  go settle yourself down.

Hey, share some love with us civilians who still understand the difference between Secret, ITAR, and SBU.    

That said, aren't all things FOUO considered SBU, or is that up to agency rules?  Based on work rules I think any electronic copies of the channel plan would have to be encrypted with PKI if kept on any portable media, including laptop drives.  But I also don't see us all being given copies of Entrust anytime soon.

[JoeTomasone]

Completely true. If someone really wanted the frequencies, all one needs is a digital/analog scanner and a current FCC / NTIA band plan. There are tons of generic band plans out there that show the min and max frequencies allotted for specific purposes. If someone was really radio savvy, a frequency counter is the simplest and most sure-shot way. However, the only people with enough close contact with the equipment itself to use the frequency counter would be CAP members, and they can simply ask for permission to receive a copy of the frequencies, completely making the aforementioned process a total waste of time for that member.

Actually, it's easier than that.   Pick up a scanner with frequency counter-like abilities (many modern ones, including RS models, have this), connect it to a decent antenna on your car, and go somewhere that CAP is operating (air show, encampment - heck, most units post their schedules online) and it's pretty much over.

And for those who might be concerned that I'm enabling this by describing techniques - trust me, the scanner buffs have been doing this for a long time now.   Heck, I used a similar technique to determine the ISR frequencies when I wanted them in MY scanner.

You cannot use a radio frequency without revealing what that frequency is, no matter how much anyone might wish otherwise.

[N Harmon]

Based on work rules I think any electronic copies of the channel plan would have to be encrypted with PKI if kept on any portable media, including laptop drives.  But I also don't see us all being given copies of Entrust anytime soon.

I use Truecrypt to protect sensitive CAP files. It's free and works great.

[wuzafuzz]

Eventually all things come to light. The US DHS put out the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide back in March of 2008. A lot of the frequencies and information in there hardly seems kosher to just give to anyone, but yet a Google search will pull up a link to the pdf format of this guide.

Plenty of federal freqs are listed: plenty of military or LE public safety frequencies I would consider far more sensitive than CAP.  Our CGAUX cousins are there. (I would imagine their "security" needs closely match ours?  Auxies care to weigh in?)   Even with all that freely published intel, no mention of CAP (at least on first skimming of the doc). 

Appears to be yet another example of CAP's insular thinking, while simultaneously wondering why we are seldom asked to participate in joint missions or exercises.  We really need to learn to play well with other children.  How many of our successes in that area are the result of local, rather than national, efforts?  Along those lines, it's time for me to get ready for a morning meeting with my local sheriffs ES folks, to discuss interoperability.   

[JoeTomasone]

I use Truecrypt to protect sensitive CAP files. It's free and works great.

After reading the FAQ, I'm not sold on the overall security of the system, but it's "good enough" to avoid the normal type of prying eyes.

[N Harmon]

After reading the FAQ, I'm not sold on the overall security of the system, but it's "good enough" to avoid the normal type of prying eyes.

I'm curious which part gave you pause.

[JoeTomasone]

After reading the FAQ, I'm not sold on the overall security of the system, but it's "good enough" to avoid the normal type of prying eyes.

I'm curious which part gave you pause.

My bad, it was the manual, not the FAQ:

4. Decryption is considered successful if the first 4 bytes of the decrypted data contain the ASCII string "TRUE"

Providing known plaintext is a serious mistake in a cryptographic system as it significantly reduces the attackers burden.

I do recognize that this is mitigated by the inverse tree burden of multiple algorithms and hashes.

[Major Lord]

I have a little black box in my test gear that will show and store the frequency and CTCSS, DCS, and DTMF  of any transmissions in range. The bad guys ( and Scanner nerds) have these and other versions of these too. Our frequencies ranges  are a matter of public record. There is absolutely no strategic security to our comms, absent someone using a digital mode ( pretty good) and/or an encrypted mode ( Much better) I am sure that as Flyingpig pointed out, a trip to Google will give anybody all they need to know about our operations. ( Googling Robert? You Scofflaw! Next thing you know, you will move on to Moppery, then to Brigandry!) Unless you are in China, Googling Government info is not a crime. I suggest we start recruiting Navajo code talkers.....Or learn a secret language: "The Essnasay is inthey  itchday by the oadray"

Major Lord

[Nick]

After reading the FAQ, I'm not sold on the overall security of the system, but it's "good enough" to avoid the normal type of prying eyes.

https://www.ironkey.com/

I've had a great experience with mine.  After losing my old thumb drive with some personal data on it in the desert, I swore I would never carry another thumb drive without serious data protection (and not that U3 crap).  This was the best solution I've found so far.

[a2capt]

Heh. I don't remember what brand it was, but some time back after a mile run, one of our cadets brought back a 1GB drive they'd seen shimmering in the dark against the passage of the headlights of one of the chase vehicles. The thing was in the middle of the street, had been run over several times. I stuck it in the Wing provided laptop to see if it still mounted, to look for anything to identify the owner.

It came up with a splash screen that wanted passwords and bragged about encryption, etc. Fine. Oh well, nothing I can do except unplug it and stick it in the Macintosh instead.

The Macintosh sees two partitions. The first one, rather small, has this autorun on it that along with a script and there was a PNG file, it was the same graphic I saw on the Windows machine. LOL. d'oh!

Open the second partition .. files. Mostly pictures. The number one content of such devices. Turns out there's a ton of photos of a units deployment to Iraq and some of them are obviously of the group and an individual that died over there as later on there is the rifle and boots memorial. But none of them are decent enough to see any tapes clearly, other than seeing the same group of guys now around this instead of that.

I start looking at other files, for text files, word docs, whatever. I found several files that appeared to be text. But when loaded were not. After more looking one of them paid off. Though it was still garbage mostly to the eye, in the midst of it there was some plaintext stating that it was a cover letter to an emergency passport application. A bit more perusing through the HEX like mess and I located some phone numbers and started calling. After a bit of exchange of me asking about a missing flash drive, and them saying "no, I'm not missing anything" I probed a little more and then he said "let me go check something" .. "does it have a strap on it?" .. "no, it might have but it's been run over and that part is now broken. " .. does it look ...  " and he described it after a while. The way he was acting at first was like, "I didn't loose anything (because I'll be in trouble if I did)"

In the end, he woke up, seemed he was asleep, too. Though it was only about 2145, after our Tuesday night meeting. He met me in a spot near by and I dialed the phone again, his phone lit up and I handed him the flash drive, he was grateful.  I pointed to where it was found in the street. This is all on a Marine base.

Whats it got to do with the current thread discussion? Someome thought that was "secure', and the guy was actually sort of curious about how I was able to even get on it, because he thought it was secure but in the end he said having it back after not even knowing it was missing was better than wondering how the heck I got into it if it was supposed to be "secure". I didn't even get to explain anything.

I bought the cadet that found it, and turned it in, a 1GB flash drive, too.

Security by obscurity will stop most, but not all. Stuff only needs to leak once for potential damage to be done. It's a gamble and a crapshoot.

[desertengineer1]

A little more background....

The FOUO came out of the agreement between us and the AF.  We just agreed to tell our members not to release frequency information unless specifically authorized by CAP-DC and CAP-CC.

Everyone knew the info would be out on some scanner site within 15 minutes of release.  That wasn't the reason for the FOUO mandate.  We just agreed that our members wouldn't be releasing it in violation of the AFI 10-701 CI process.

I have an ICOM PCR-1000.  I can set it for autoscan between two frequencies, and see a logged list of all active frequencies it saw after XX hours or days.  There are some programs that will even integrate a spectrum line over that scan range to do the same visually.  Many tools out there for medium hobbiests to find frequencies - cheaply.

But remember, CAP's policy here doesn't apply to all this talk.  So what if people are listening?  They always have.  people are listening to military traffic, even decoding ALE (the unencrypted stuff).

[Spaceman3750]

I'd be more interested in baking the person doing the interfering than the source of the data.

This is just a hunch, but I think the concern is folks eavesdropping on potentially sensitive conversations (say, coordinates of an object of interest on some type of mission) than interference. The FAA can already bake people for interfering with our frequencies, provided someone can find them, regardless of all this secret squirrel FOUO top secret Q-clearance yankee white stuff.

It'd be the FCC, but saying the FAA is an acceptable mistake for an organization like ours.

Yes, you are correct, I typed that at the end of an endless day . Plus I forgot to have alphabet soup for breakfast...

[desertengineer1]

Sooo..

Back to the original topic...

Can anyone cough up a real NDA issued by CAP-DC or commpermissions, or do we call this thread a definate troll fest?

[N Harmon]

I suggest we start recruiting Navajo code talkers.....Or learn a secret language: "The Essnasay is inthey  itchday by the oadray"

We still use code words, right?

"The joker is wild at four three niner seven by one niner six four"

("We're stopping for a slurpee at the 7/11 before RTB")

[CommGeek]

The NDA that CAP requires for ANY official  release of  our freqs to a CAP member or any other party, is not the same NDA you sign in e-services as a member. It basically says we (CAP) will not release our freq to you unless you sign, and prommis not to tell anyone.  and CAP WILL NOT release the freq, unless that document is signed.  I don't know were it is in writine , but i have been involved with several in the past months. 

[desertengineer1]

The NDA that CAP requires for ANY official  release of  our freqs to a CAP member or any other party, is not the same NDA you sign in e-services as a member. It basically says we (CAP) will not release our freq to you unless you sign, and prommis not to tell anyone.  and CAP WILL NOT release the freq, unless that document is signed.  I don't know were it is in writine , but i have been involved with several in the past months.

Please PM me the following, if you can:

Who in CAP is writing them?  (Your Wing, or someone at NHQ?)

Who in CAP is requiring you to do them?  (Need a specific - CAP-DC?  CAP-USAF?  WING CC?  WING DC?)

What is the basis for this requirement, according to the commpermission response?  Again, I was told there was no requirement to do this in 2009.

[Eclipse]

Again, I was told there was no requirement to do this in 2009.

Hmm...And yet we are.

I discussed this in detail yesterday with my Wing's DC.  The regulation states that specific permission must be granted for for any
non-CAP members to be provided with frequency and related information.

For permission to be granted, the requester must agree to use "due care" in protecting those frequencies and not releasing that information to other parties.

Sounds like an NDA to me.

[Major Lord]

From CAPR 100-1:

e. Release of FOUO frequencies outside of CAP. Proposals to provide CAP frequencies to repeater site owners/managers, local partner agencies, or other entities outside of CAP shall be approved on a case-by-case basis by CAP-USAF via CAP National Headquarters prior to disclosure.
(1) Following written coordination with the wing and region commanders, the director of communications shall e-mail the proposal and confirmation of the wing and region commanders' approval to: commpermissions@capnhq.gov.
(2) The proposal should include justification of a need to know on the part of the proposed recipient.
(3) Previously approved releases of wideband CAP frequencies to outside entities shall not apply to narrowband frequencies, so wings must reapply for approval to provide such information to outside entities.
(4) When providing such frequency sensitive information, the CAP user shall state in writing that the frequency information is Department of Defense For Official Use Only (FOUO) and must be afforded a reasonable level of control.

This is the only regulatory guidance I could find on the matter. This seems to create roadblock significantly grater than an NDA. I don't see anything anywhere about an NDA per se.

Major Lord

[desertengineer1]

From CAPR 100-1:

e. Release of FOUO frequencies outside of CAP. Proposals to provide CAP frequencies to repeater site owners/managers, local partner agencies, or other entities outside of CAP shall be approved on a case-by-case basis by CAP-USAF via CAP National Headquarters prior to disclosure.
(1) Following written coordination with the wing and region commanders, the director of communications shall e-mail the proposal and confirmation of the wing and region commanders' approval to: commpermissions@capnhq.gov.
(2) The proposal should include justification of a need to know on the part of the proposed recipient.
(3) Previously approved releases of wideband CAP frequencies to outside entities shall not apply to narrowband frequencies, so wings must reapply for approval to provide such information to outside entities.
(4) When providing such frequency sensitive information, the CAP user shall state in writing that the frequency information is Department of Defense For Official Use Only (FOUO) and must be afforded a reasonable level of control.

This is the only regulatory guidance I could find on the matter. This seems to create roadblock significantly grater than an NDA. I don't see anything anywhere about an NDA per se.

Major Lord

Thanks, Major!

The policy does not require you to obtain their signature on an agreement - mainly due to the legal landmines I mentioned earlier.

However, we are required to give them something to firmly communicate the need for FOUO protection.  That's why they specifically wrote "CAP user" in (4).

There is no requirement to have them sign an NDA.

When we start our installations, I'll obtain the necessary permissions from CAP-DC (commpermissions is basically an email listserve for the CAP DC repeater committee and DC staff), and then provide the owners with a memo asking as nice as I can that they don't publicly release the frequencies.  We are their guests and want to maintain good relations.

When the installation is complete, for extra measure on my end, I'll author a quick MFR to our wing DC stating the request was made IAW the Oct 08 policy letter and 100-1, and put it in the repeater file.  That covers me and our wing for e(4).

But there is no requirement for them to sign an agreement in-turn.  We just have to make good effort we record our notifications to them.

[desertengineer1]

Again, I was told there was no requirement to do this in 2009.

Hmm...And yet we are.

I discussed this in detail yesterday with my Wing's DC.  The regulation states that specific permission must be granted for for any
non-CAP members to be provided with frequency and related information.

For permission to be granted, the requester must agree to use "due care" in protecting those frequencies and not releasing that information to other parties.

Sounds like an NDA to me.

Nope.  It just means you ask them nicely not to release.  If an NDA were required, the regulations would have specific entries and an attachment with a template of the letter.  This is because any contractual-like agreement actions need to be reviewed by a legal staff.  You just can't be making up NDA's on your own and having corporations sign them.  You should know that.

[desertengineer1]

The NDA that CAP requires for ANY official  release of  our freqs to a CAP member or any other party, is not the same NDA you sign in e-services as a member. It basically says we (CAP) will not release our freq to you unless you sign, and prommis not to tell anyone.  and CAP WILL NOT release the freq, unless that document is signed.  I don't know were it is in writine , but i have been involved with several in the past months.

Were these approved by Marek and crew at commpermissions?  I have high doubt they are requiring you to do this. 

If they are, we need to get clarification on the CAP-DC list ASAP.  We're about to turn on a bunch of repeater installs.

[CommGeek]

Holy Cow Batman....Get over it! ...whats the hang up?  The fact is CAP will not release freqs without a NDA.  Thats the way it is!  You should contact CAP-USAF Legal if you see a problem with it.....  But for now thats the way it is!  To date I have been involved with 5 of them, the receving party had no problems with the process!   

[Eclipse]

If they are, we need to get clarification on the CAP-DC list ASAP.  We're about to turn on a bunch of repeater installs.

"We", don't.

[raivo]

"We", don't.

The second sentence was a fairly good indicator that he meant "we, the people who are about to install these repeaters."

Geesh. Guy's trying to confirm that he's doing something IAW the regs (regs which were quoted in another post, no less) and all he's getting is a bunch of "Well *I* do it this way." Okay, great - if you do it that way, help everyone out and tell us what regs you're operating under so the confusion can be sorted out.

It may very well be that it's the policy of CAP-DC to require an NDA before sharing frequencies, but nobody has definitively confirmed that yet.

[heliodoc]

The only help you'll get here is "cite please"

When those individuals say that and can not produce some sort of reg or NDA themselves..  but maybe they don't have to but the will expound to everyone about the regulations out there

Does one really believe those individuals??

Where is that NDA that someone here is talking smack about?

Yep,  let's SEE that so called clarification form CAP-DC list

[Eclipse]

Geesh. Guy's trying to confirm that he's doing something IAW the regs (regs which were quoted in another post, no less) and all he's getting is a bunch of "Well *I* do it this way."

That's the point.

When you tell someone what the practical, hands on answer is and they disagree, then you quote applicable regs and they disagree, your'e pretty much done.

[raivo]

That's the point.

When you tell someone what the practical, hands on answer is and they disagree, then you quote applicable regs and they disagree, your'e pretty much done.

The applicable regs (or, at least, the ones I saw posted by Major Lord) don't say anything about NDAs. They say that permission has to be granted by CAP-DC. Now, it may be the policy of CAP-DC to require an NDA before that permission will be granted, but nobody has been able to authoritatively confirm that.

[Major Lord]

It may be that some people are confusing an MOU (Memo Of Understanding), with an NDA ( Non-Disclosure-Agreement) in regards to sharing our proprietary and closely held radio programming data. They are not the same thing.

Major Lord

[desertengineer1]

Holy Cow Batman....Get over it! ...whats the hang up?  The fact is CAP will not release freqs without a NDA.  Thats the way it is!  You should contact CAP-USAF Legal if you see a problem with it.....  But for now thats the way it is!  To date I have been involved with 5 of them, the receving party had no problems with the process!

No it's not. Yer just being a troll.  You don't have one shred of evidence, so you look more like a troll.  A stinky one at that.

Let's see...  I asked first for the proof.  Then as asked you to PM me the proof, or at least the names of those wing supreme court NDA authors.  Then I gave you the citations, AND the name of the folks who told me nothing of such was required.

Sorry, man, you're just being a dork at this point.  Post the commpermissions, Repeater Committee mandated NDA and we'll lift your respect seat up another millimeter.  Otherwise, your just posting like a retard.

All I see is a bunch of smack talk. 

[desertengineer1]

Geesh. Guy's trying to confirm that he's doing something IAW the regs (regs which were quoted in another post, no less) and all he's getting is a bunch of "Well *I* do it this way."

That's the point.

When you tell someone what the practical, hands on answer is and they disagree, then you quote applicable regs and they disagree, your'e pretty much done.

Huh?  You say "That thar is the way it's done"  I say, no, Marek and crew told me otherwise last year, and by the way THIS reg says nothing about your NDA.  What are you doing?

And you say...  "Cause it is, that's why.  You and your stupid regulations and laws.  Those are stupid."

Yeah, we know where this usually leads to.....

[CommGeek]

I'm currently on the field with work for the next week. When I get back in the office ill see if I can post one.

[desertengineer1]

I'm currently on the field with work for the next week. When I get back in the office ill see if I can post one.

OK, I've calmed down a bit.  It was late, and my buttons had been pushed past tolerance...

I'll try to repeat the issue one last time.

If someone is requiring organizations outside of CAP to sign an agreement of ANY kind in return for frequency info, unless told otherwise by an updated message from CAP-DC and crew or Gen Courtier, this is not the procedure, and is (in my humble opinion) against CAP policy unless otherwise authorized.

IF there has been a change to the policy, a request for clarification by those with the NB transition ADCON at my level needs to be made.

IF, however, someone is making up their own rules regarding the policy set in place in 2008 (also clarified to me last year - NO NDA), it also needs to be addressed and corrected.  This is a contractual agreement between our organization and a private or government agency.  You can't be making those up on your own because there are legal boundries that we can and cannot cross, hence the need for those trained in legal matters to authorize them.  That's why the rules are so strict.  We've got into some major trouble in the last 20 years from people doing this.  It needs to be authorized at the appropriate levels or stopped.

[Eclipse]

IF there has been a change to the policy, a request for clarification by those with the NB transition ADCON at my level needs to be made.

Your "level"?

And for clarification, any Wing CC could certainly draft and sign a contract with a repeater host or other agency.

[desertengineer1]

IF there has been a change to the policy, a request for clarification by those with the NB transition ADCON at my level needs to be made.

Your "level"?

And for clarification, any Wing CC could certainly draft and sign a contract with a repeater host or other agency.

I'm on the wing DC staff.  Been working actively with CAP-DC with repeater installations .

Your Wing CC could very well do it.  But they also need to be communicating that up the Region and National chain.