Photo ID & NIMS

[Nick]

I like cheese.


Seriously, you guys need a diversion here.   Take a moment to look outside and enjoy the lovely sunlight/moonlight and then return to engage the conversation.

There's a few routes that participating agencies can go.  As a preface, I personally don't believe FEMA or DHS is going to issue identification for every Tom, Dick and Harry that might step foot on an incident scene.  At the very most, perhaps the individual state EMAs will do something for their state or direct local jurisdictions to do the same.  Rather, I expect it to be a burden of the individual organizations.

So, what can CAP do? Well, one of four options: 1) Redesign the CAPF 101 to be formatted compliant to FIPS-201 standards and issue to members once they become ES qualified; 2) Redesign the CAP membership/identification card to FIPS-201 standards and and issue to all members in place of the existing card; 3) Partner with an agency (DOD, GSA, OPM, any/all of the above) to become an issuing point for CAP members of a CAP-distinct identification card (we are talking about a plain white PVC card here, it's not that hard to stock ); 4) Something I'm not thinking of

Having said that -- I think y'all are worrying way too much about this whole issue. CAP will ensure its members are compliant. If they don't, they'll find out real fast and have directives attached to fix the problem posthaste.

It's not like this whole thing just popped up overnight.

[Dragoon]

Truthfully, it's still in the "popping up phase."

If you lean too far forward in the saddle, you just fall off the horse.

[RiverAux]

I think if you did some checking that you'd find out that many CAP types already have the 100 700 and 200.   And its NOT like they are hard, even if one does resort to taking them online.  If a memo went out from national telling us to get them ASAP, the 'ACTIVE' membership would have it within a months time.

Basically CG Aux members had to do 100 and 700 with some having to do 200 and 800 and even though they had over a year to do it, a significant percentage were very late to get it done.  I haven't seen a "final" number, but the last estimate I saw was that about 10-20% of those who should have taken it hadn't by the deadline.  I've got some data somewhere, but don't have time to look it up, but that should be pretty close. 

[DNall]

I like cheese.


Seriously, you guys need a diversion here.   Take a moment to look outside and enjoy the lovely sunlight/moonlight and then return to engage the conversation.

There's a few routes that participating agencies can go.  As a preface, I personally don't believe FEMA or DHS is going to issue identification for every Tom, Dick and Harry that might step foot on an incident scene.  At the very most, perhaps the individual state EMAs will do something for their state or direct local jurisdictions to do the same.  Rather, I expect it to be a burden of the individual organizations.

So, what can CAP do? Well, one of four options: 1) Redesign the CAPF 101 to be formatted compliant to FIPS-201 standards and issue to members once they become ES qualified; 2) Redesign the CAP membership/identification card to FIPS-201 standards and and issue to all members in place of the existing card; 3) Partner with an agency (DOD, GSA, OPM, any/all of the above) to become an issuing point for CAP members of a CAP-distinct identification card (we are talking about a plain white PVC card here, it's not that hard to stock ); 4) Something I'm not thinking of

Having said that -- I think y'all are worrying way too much about this whole issue. CAP will ensure its members are compliant. If they don't, they'll find out real fast and have directives attached to fix the problem posthaste.

It's not like this whole thing just popped up overnight.

That's all true... I think ultimately it'll be one FIPS-201 compliant card. Now in addtion to all the qual/currency data DHS wants on the chip, we can add membership currency data, & any 101 data that would exceed FEMA needs. I think it's going to have to be issued in partnership w/ a federal agency for logistics reasons if nothing else, but also to assuage AF concerns... etc. We'll get there eventually, I have no doubts or concerns at all about that. What I'm concerned about it the transition & CAP moving quickly to get caught up & on the challenging transofrmation pace NIMS is keeping. The fact of these ID cards merely forces CAP to comply with an outside schedule rather than do it at their own pace.

[gallagheria]

What is so important about the cards anyway? I know in the Army, DOD contractors are issued them, as well as DA civilians. It can't be a security issue can it because CAP personnel undergo a background check don't they?

I am new to this so it doesn't make sense to me. Here in Georgia, I am in the SDF and we are issued Georgia Department of Defense ID's. They look nearly identical to the old active duty military ID's.

Just doesn't make sense what the issue is. I have seen people on here complaining about checking equipment out and so on, but that doesn't happen! Many civilians work on base! The ID's themselves are only for convenience; they still will have rank and branch on them. It could easily say CAP or rank and then CAP for branch, or even civilian.

[SAR-EMT1]

I think if you did some checking that you'd find out that many CAP types already have the 100 700 and 200.   And its NOT like they are hard, even if one does resort to taking them online.  If a memo went out from national telling us to get them ASAP, the 'ACTIVE' membership would have it within a months time.

Basically CG Aux members had to do 100 and 700 with some having to do 200 and 800 and even though they had over a year to do it, a significant percentage were very late to get it done.  I haven't seen a "final" number, but the last estimate I saw was that about 10-20% of those who should have taken it hadn't by the deadline.  I've got some data somewhere, but don't have time to look it up, but that should be pretty close. 

When I joined the CG Aux I was told to bring proof of completion (100,200,700,800) with the completed membership application. I also had to take the CGAux safe boating class within 6 months of having joined. - OR SO I WAS TOLD 

[DNall]

What is so important about the cards anyway? I know in the Army, DOD contractors are issued them, as well as DA civilians. It can't be a security issue can it because CAP personnel undergo a background check don't they?

I am new to this so it doesn't make sense to me. Here in Georgia, I am in the SDF and we are issued Georgia Department of Defense ID's. They look nearly identical to the old active duty military ID's.

Just doesn't make sense what the issue is. I have seen people on here complaining about checking equipment out and so on, but that doesn't happen! Many civilians work on base! The ID's themselves are only for convenience; they still will have rank and branch on them. It could easily say CAP or rank and then CAP for branch, or even civilian.

Well, these aren't CAC cards like the military uses. I think the AF could choose to give us CAC cards that serve this purpose if they wanted to, but that's not necessary.

CAC cards grant fairly broad unrestricted access to most DoD facilities. If you could join CAP & get past our weak membership check & then just drive on w/ who knows what in the trunk, then that's a security risk.

The check we do is just a criminal history & agency check. You can get past it w/an outstanding traffic warrant, a list of criminal convictions, while under investigation by state police for a serious crime, etc. It's not very good, but that's what you get for $15 & frankly it's the fingerprint process itself & lack of understanding as to what happens afterwords that we hope scares off undesirables. What we do is a good start, but it isn't recognized by the military. What CGAux does is good, and that's probably the direction we're going to want to move to down the road. I'm not saying everyone int he military or civilian/contractor is a good moral person, but they've been chacked out first & are in the system.

[Dragoon]

The real reasons that contractors get CACs are not because the've been screened (because many haven't).  It's two things:

1.  They need CACs in order to get to where they work every day without a lot of wasted time.

2.  The DoD needs them to be able to get to work every day witout a lot of wasted time.


When CAP finds themselves in the same situation, we'll get CACs too.


Incidentally, not all contractors get CACs.  Only those who need regular access to military facilities.  Many contractors work offsite, and don't get CACs.

[DNall]

Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk. Also retired or dependents get cards so they can get on base to the BX & such, which we also need to do. Those kids working the coffee stand do get a basic screening like CAP's, but it's done by DoD so it's recognized when ours isn't. Anyway, I don't think their security complain legitimately held a lot of water, but that's their call. This other card is not a CAC card, but it is a federal ID, and it will require AF approval. At that point I think they may look at it as DHS stepping on theri toes & decide to issue CAC or to be the controlling agency to issue the FIPS-201 cardds. I hope it's the 201 cards rather than CAC so we can put a lot of extra CAP data on it too, but whatever. They need to get a heads up this is coming, but otherwise this is about official credentialing requires adherence to the FEMA qual standards certified by and/or to an outside agency approved by DHS. It's just something to be aware of.

[Dragoon]

Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk.

Where the heck did you get this idea?  I've yet to see a corporate ID that looks like a CAP card.  If you can name a major defense contractor with a CAC look-alike card, I'll go take a look (lot's of 'em around these parts)

I was at the NB where the CAC was discussed.  It was clear from the debate that what most advocates wanted was access to USAF bases - and they were hoping that a CAC look alike would get them that priviledge.  It had nothing to do with an attempt to emulate contractors - it was an attempt to gain additional USAF priviledges.

Which is exactly what USAF didn't want us to have, and so they changed the design, and changed their regs to make sure future CAP cards didn't get confused.

[DNall]

Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk.

Where the heck did you get this idea?  I've yet to see a corporate ID that looks like a CAP card.  If you can name a major defense contractor with a CAC look-alike card, I'll go take a look (lot's of 'em around these parts)

Talk to Nick there, in addition to former cadet & CAP-USAF, he's a SF SrA & expert in this field, not to mention having worked a few gate shifts.

I was at the NB where the CAC was discussed.  It was clear from the debate that what most advocates wanted was access to USAF bases - and they were hoping that a CAC look alike would get them that priviledge.  It had nothing to do with an attempt to emulate contractors - it was an attempt to gain additional USAF priviledges.

I don't believe I mentioned emulating contractors. I believe it was more a matter of these mere contractors get something like this even when they work nowhere near a base & the reason specifically is that if they need to go on bases they want something in a similiar format that the gate guard understands at a flash; yet CAP, your very own little brother Auxiliary, gets the shaft & not only that but you're going to say "security risk" to add insult to injury. It was no doubt, exactly like contractors did, an attempt to make base access less troublesome. That should be the case. If nothing else we have limited exchange priveledges & I don't know about you but I got a problem driving a couple hours to get stuff for my whole unit & then find out they won't let me in the gate, not to mention middle of the night when one of their ELTs is going off.

What the need to do is order us to complete whatever security & personnel requirements they feel are necessary to elivate that security risk. Lord knows that would open up some missions too.

Which is exactly what USAF didn't want us to have, and so they changed the design, and changed their regs to make sure future CAP cards didn't get confused.

Right got that, now here comes FEMA mandating that we have federally controlled smart cards issued by an outside agency from their yet to be created but very short approved list, of which DoD will be one. I don't know what these are going to look like, but I'll bet ya it's a lot closer to CAC than what we have now. It's going to have to get worked out w/ AF, and that may require them to reconsider the previous ID decision.

[Dragoon]

Actually the issue CAP had on this was that most defense contractors have created corporate IDs that look very much like CAC cards, and CAP wanted to follow suit, but that was judged to be a security risk.

Where the heck did you get this idea?  I've yet to see a corporate ID that looks like a CAP card.  If you can name a major defense contractor with a CAC look-alike card, I'll go take a look (lot's of 'em around these parts)

Talk to Nick there, in addition to former cadet & CAP-USAF, he's a SF SrA & expert in this field, not to mention having worked a few gate shifts.

Your "expert" is just a senior airmen gate guard?  That's kind of the bottom of the totem pole, dude.  You need better sources.

I say again, you stated "most defense contractors" created CAP lookalikes.  Name ONE major contractor.  I work with a fair number, and have yet to see an ID that looked like a CAC.

I don't believe I mentioned emulating contractors. I believe it was more a matter of these mere contractors get something like this even when they work nowhere near a base & the reason specifically is that if they need to go on bases they want something in a similiar format that the gate guard understands at a flash; yet CAP, your very own little brother Auxiliary, gets the shaft & not only that but you're going to say "security risk" to add insult to injury.

Umm.  No.  CAP has no need for unrestricted base access, so they don't get unrestricted base access.  The contractor thing is not an issue - contractors get CACs when the government sponsors them to get CACs. It's on a case by case basis, and only given out to those who need base access.  Those contractors work for the government.  Literally.  As in "9 to 5" and get paid for it.  Of COURSE they get access and we don't.  We simply don't have that requirement.

What the need to do is order us to complete whatever security & personnel requirements they feel are necessary to elivate that security risk. Lord knows that would open up some missions too.

The problem is the cost.  Someone has to pay for the cards and the issuing/management of them.  And they need a sure-fire way to get the card back if they want to revoke it.  With contractors it's simple - the company loses the contract if they don't get the card back.  With CAP...they just don't have that kind of control.  And we don't have that kind of need.  And if USAF wanted to revoke a member's base access, does that mean the person is removed from CAP? 

If CAP claims USAF can't fire CAP members, you are NEVER going to get a USAF ID card for all members.

The local base commander can always let CAP on if he wants to.  Thats how units that meet on base get in.  They have a need, so they get in.  No CAC needed.  Just a CAP ID and a picture ID.

Which is exactly what USAF didn't want us to have, and so they changed the design, and changed their regs to make sure future CAP cards didn't get confused.

Right got that, now here comes FEMA mandating that we have federally controlled smart cards issued by an outside agency from their yet to be created but very short approved list, of which DoD will be one. I don't know what these are going to look like, but I'll bet ya it's a lot closer to CAC than what we have now. It's going to have to get worked out w/ AF, and that may require them to reconsider the previous ID decision.

DoD will ensure that any FEMA card looks different enough from the CAC to keep non-DoD folks off of bases.

And Lord Monar is right - FEMA will have to issue the card, and it will only go to those CAP members who have quals.  The rest will do fine with the generic CAP ID card - no reason to change it.

[Nick]

Your "expert" is just a senior airmen gate guard?  That's kind of the bottom of the totem pole, dude.  You need better sources.

... 

1) I am not a gate guard.  In 4 years of Air Force service, I have worked about 3 weeks on a gate.
2) I am a senior airman (singular, not plural).  If you're going to insult me, at least use the right title... and I never claimed to be an expert, that was dubbed on me.  But, this is my career field and I can read AFIs and DoD guidance just as good as anyone.
3) In addition to 1 and 2 and being a security forces instructor (again, not a gate guard), I am also an AT (that's anti-terrorism) program manager and info/personnel/industrial security program manager.  I report directly to the unit commander on these matters.  I don't think I'm particularly low on the totem pole.

Now that I've defended my position as just another senior airman gate guard, I will speak:

I never said anything about contractors and their IDs, but since the subject came up : Any contractor on a military installation uses a CAC.  Not their corporate ID, but an actual CAC (the one with the nice green vertical stripe).  Many companies/organizations out in the private world have adopted portrait oriented identification badges and some of their elements may be arranged similar to a CAC, but I don't know of any that have straight out ripped the CAC design and used it for their own.  But, I'll say again ... contractors on military installations use CACs.

[lordmonar]

But let's get one thing straight.

The contractors who get CAC cards are the ones who work on base daily and have a need to access government computers.  Nick....does your average AAFES worker get a CAC card?  How about the folks working at the drycleaners/barbershop/Burger King/ect.

Bottom line.....CAP does not rate a CAC card.  We just don't need one.  It does not matter who else has one or why.

If your CAP duties requires frequent access to the base, all you got to do is contact your local USAF liason and see what wheels need to be greased. 

We recently had problem here at Nellis about base access on the CAP ID (non-picture).  So my CAP squadron commander talked to the SF guys and boom...no problem....everyone know and accepts the CAP ID as belonging to someone who have a valide need and authorisation to get on base.  Took about 20 minutes to get those wheels greesed and did not cost anyone anything.

[DNall]

Look... sorry first of all Nick for putting you in that spot. Owe ya another beer now. my bad.

Second, Nick knows I think probably 10 times more about the subject than me & probably most everyone here if I had to guess.

Third this conversation has zilch to do with CAC cards. I personally believe CAP should have the same base access as reserve dependents so that we can get to AAFES, reduce unneccessary conflict getting on & off base for activities & networking when gate guards (military or contrator) don't know the situation... however that's not what the AF reg says & I don't get to write AF regs, much less write out of them a power currently bestowed on facility commanders. Even if that level of access were granted, I still do not believe CAC cards would be necessary!!!

Fourth, I do believe the CAP photo ID should follow the general premise of the CAC format, which many agencies & contractors use (smart card, vertical format, etc). I do not have any desire to confuse people into thinking it is a CAC card, merely to put the right information in the spots they are used to looking so they can quickly & comfortably figure out what the deal is & act on standing policy rather than thinking you're trying to pull something. Again though, that's not my call & not the point of this thread.

Finally, I believe the card that will be issued by FEMA follows the above pattern for federal IDs, which is much more similiar to CAC than our new photo ID, and I believe AF may take issue with that if they don't get time for it to sink in. FEMA has expressly stated that the IDs will be issued by more than just them but will go thru a short list of approved clearing houses, I'm guessing that means states or the federal agency you're attached to. That logic follows to suggest that AF may or may not be the issuing agency in our case. For their own personnel also involved in disasters they may or may not add that information a CAC chip. What they do with CAP would be up for debate. I believe ultimately we'll end up with one smart card photo ID that replaces our current photo ID, membership & 101 cards, and may also contain pilot data (medical, fm5/91, etc). I don't know how this will work out, but I tink there are some thing CAP can do to make that shift work out in our favor & ensure that there are no speed bumps along the way.

[RiverAux]

I think we're a ways away from having the 101 card data on the chip seeing as how that can change for an individual person many times during any given year.  It would have to be re-programable at the local level.  Come to think of it, that would be necessary for the FEMA cards too.  Might have to take us back to the days when all your specialties expired at once, otherwise would have to regularly get new cards. 

[DNall]

yeah well maybe, I don't know. There was a previous convesation talking about a chipped CAP photo ID that would cover the ID, membership, & enhanced 101 data. Lots of very inexpensive readers to the field that make mission in/out-processing easier. Smaller number of still inexpensive writers that allow the cards to be reprogrammed. PW protected online software to do the writing.

Then I saw the credenialing standards for GT & wondered how CAP would be forced into that. Then I saw this card thing that seems to do that.

Then there was the seperate older debate about AF issues w/ CAP having vertically formatted official looking IDs. That are easy to understand by mil personnel.

I didn't come in this thread with an agenda, just several ideas converging & seems like there's a logical path to bring them together & come out for the best. I don't claim to know exactly what that is, I kinda hoped the thread could work that out. I just thought it provided an interesting set of subjects for CAP to consider w/ AF & maybe we had some collective insight.

[Nick]

Just to clarify if anyone has a misconception ... I do not advocate one way or another for CAP members to get CACs.  In honesty, I think the logistics alone would just about make it impossible.  I do agree that CAP needs some sort of professional, (preferably) FIPS-201 compliant multi-function identification credential.  However that objective is reached doesn't matter to me.

Capt Harris -- no sir, the generic AAFES employee gets an AAFES employee ID (DD Form 2574).  AAFES is a military activity, and they are non-appropriated fund employees of that military activity (not civil service, not contractors) so that's a unique animal all in itself.  Also, your dry cleaners/barber shop/Burger King employees are all AAFES concessionaires.  Nobody in these categories is a contractor.  When I talk about contractors, I mean the Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Rockwell, Chenega, etc. employees that work in military offices on military bases doing civilianized military jobs.

We did the same thing with Lackland.  A little education of the troops, and CAP membership cards immediately became an acceptable form of ID for base entry.  I just think the CAP membership card could be a lot better than it is.  That's my only position on this whole issue.

[lordmonar]

Thanks Nick....and I agree that the generic CAP card could be better.  We could require a passport type photo to be sent in with your fingerprint card and NHQ could scan these photos and make all CAP ID card the new photo card.

[AlphaSigOU]

Thanks Nick....and I agree that the generic CAP card could be better.  We could require a passport type photo to be sent in with your fingerprint card and NHQ could scan these photos and make all CAP ID card the new photo card.

Now that's a good idea...!