Enhanced Cadet Protection Policy for '14

[NIN]

I started to write this in my other reply, and realized it was sort of a more general, separate reply and not based on the quoted portion of that reply, so I will perform a "Break" and add a more generalized reply, too:

Is the draft CPP perfect?  No.  I think its got a lot of better features than the current CPP, and a few that are a little overboard.

Examples:

Email.
I, too, am a little unhappy about the whole email  thing because I think its cumbersome and unwieldy, but then again, its in response to putting some controls on a "signal path," if you will, that prior abusers have exploited to gain access to cadets. 

The worst thing is, I don't exactly know of a better solution that is available that would "continue to allow legitimate, official communication based on our need to execute our official duties and communicate with our membership while at the same time keep potential abusers from using that for unofficial and illegitimate means."

(see the dichotomy there? Urgh. Time to go back to unit newsletters, and phone messages...<GRIN> You know, the early 1990s!) 

Social Media
Similar to the email thing, I get the need to limit the "signal path" on social media. Unfortunately, this smacks of some rules I've seen elsewhere written by people who don't understand how social media can work and should work. 

Flatly: I am not going to setup a second social media account.  To quote a popular meme : "Ain't nobody got time for that!"

I have cadets who are on my friends list on Facebook (honestly, most of them are not even current cadets anymore).  When I get a "friend request" from a cadet, they go into my "Limited Profile" group and can see essentially only my "public" Facebook profile like anybody else.  By default, ALL of my FB updates (with the exception of some of the app updates like Foursquare, which defaults to "public" and I haven't figured out if you can change that) are hidden from my Limited Profile group.   So while I can see cadet's status updates and such, they can't see mine (unless I make an update public, which I do, occasionally, and it is always VERY benign and in keeping with my "public persona" if you will).

This speaks to "appropriate behavior and decorum" among officers.  Didn't we recently have a very public example of really poor online (Facebook) behavior by a (now former) CAP officer who did not understand the concept of "appropriate behavior and decorum"?  This member's chain of command declined to do anything about said online behavior when it was pointed out. 

Behavior is behavior, folks, whether its on Facebook or in-person. If someone is showing their fourth point of contact on CAP-Talk (hey, look, "social media." Any post made in a cadet-accessible forum should probably be forwarded to their parents, dontchathink?), they're still showing their fourth point of contact.   Correct the behavior.

I use Facebook a lot.  Kind of like I use my house a lot.   My house sits on a public street.  My address is on the squadron roster.  By sheer dint of their membership, cadets have access to that roster, even.  But does that mean I invite them into my house? No.  I invite my adult friends over, we watch TV, drink beer and curse (hush, I didn't really just admit that!).  Do I invite cadets over to my house to watch TV, drink beer & curse?  Well, of course not!

Same thing on FB. I don't invite cadets into the "inner sanctum" because that would be incorrect behavior and not keeping with the decorum I maintain as a CAP officer and as an adult.  Duh!!  Sure they can connect with me via social media, but the get the "public NIN" not the "personal NIN".

I predict that the social media aspect of this is going to cause a lot of angst & confusion initially. And really, whats to inhibit Captain Kidtoucher who creates his "CAP-only Captain Kidtoucher Facebook Account" from using that FB account to communicate via PM to cadets for the purposes of ilicit activity?  Nothing.  Sure, Capt Kidtoucher's CAP-only FB account should be devoid of sexual references, pictures of him out getting hammered with his buddies, etc.  That does not inhibit his ability to use that avenue for ilicit purposes.

If the social media rules as written wind up in effect,  I will just "unfriend" any current cadet (if there are 6 or 8 out of the 600+ people on my FB friends list, I'll be surprised) and drive on. I don't have the time or the energy to setup and maintain a second account.  It will never get used or updated. I have a second account for CadetStuff (to manage our social media stuff) that I never check. Same thing. People friend me up all the time and I don't have the time to deal with that. I don't use it as a "second persona".

I behave online in front of the cadets with essentially the same decorum that I behave in person with the cadets. I'm on a first name basis with all of them: I call them "Cadet" and they call me "Colonel."  I like that first name basis.

[NIN]

Speaking of email

I get idle with a copy of Visio and you never know what might happen.

[arajca]

I have cadets who are on my friends list on Facebook (honestly, most of them are not even current cadets anymore).  When I get a "friend request" from a cadet, they go into my "Limited Profile" group and can see essentially only my "public" Facebook profile like anybody else.  By default, ALL of my FB updates (with the exception of some of the app updates like Foursquare, which defaults to "public" and I haven't figured out if you can change that) are hidden from my Limited Profile group.   So while I can see cadet's status updates and such, they can't see mine (unless I make an update public, which I do, occasionally, and it is always VERY benign and in keeping with my "public persona" if you will).

Sounds like a more workable solution. Have sent this idea up using the suggestion box on the draft page?

[NIN]

I have cadets who are on my friends list on Facebook (honestly, most of them are not even current cadets anymore).  When I get a "friend request" from a cadet, they go into my "Limited Profile" group and can see essentially only my "public" Facebook profile like anybody else.  By default, ALL of my FB updates (with the exception of some of the app updates like Foursquare, which defaults to "public" and I haven't figured out if you can change that) are hidden from my Limited Profile group.   So while I can see cadet's status updates and such, they can't see mine (unless I make an update public, which I do, occasionally, and it is always VERY benign and in keeping with my "public persona" if you will).

Sounds like a more workable solution. Have sent this idea up using the suggestion box on the draft page?

I supplied commentary to this end, yes. Might help if others who feel the same way did so as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Behavior online is no different (well, should be no different) than behavior in person.  Whether is Facebook or community/personal connections, you should keep your professional distance as an officer and adult. Period.

Can't tell you the number of times I've heard "But, but, thats on my Facebook. Thats _private_."  No, it ain't private, troop.  I'll give you the fact that you think its only available to your friends on Facebook, but you're a knucklehead if you think that ANYTHING you put on the Internet, even if you think it should be "private," really is private.

I had a cadet say this legitimately to me once, I showed him how the information was visible even to people not logged in to Facebook and who were not his friends.  Its not private if you don't even bother to use the privacy controls.

I said "You might as well have sent these pics to the local newspaper or had them blown up and made into a sign for your front yard, thats how 'private' they are."

The former CG of the USAC also wanted to enact a similar rule. He didn't understand the concept of privacy controls, either.

[NIN]

BTW, lest anybody think I'm hypocritical or something: my "private" Facebook items, the things that my friends NOT in the Limited Profile group can see, are very, very tame, too. 

I have pics of skydiving, work, whatever, in there.  Nothing racy, nothing salacious or inappropriate on my wall or in my pics, I don't think.  That is my "just in case the privacy controls don't work for some stupid reason" backup. Plus, that's just who I am. I don't post racy photos or link to scantily clad women or language filled rants or inappropriate political craptrap.

Again, the maxim applies:  if you don't want something that private to be seen by people it should not be seen by, don't put it on the Internet.


Occasionally, someone might post something inappropriate on my FB wall (which I have to approve/allow anyway because of my privacy controls) and I don't think it is something that my kids or my cadets would deem appropriate or I would feel comfortable with them seeing, it gets deleted. Immediately.

Why? Because I believe in decorum.

[A.Member]

This speaks to "appropriate behavior and decorum" among officers.  Didn't we recently have a very public example of really poor online (Facebook) behavior by a (now former) CAP officer who did not understand the concept of "appropriate behavior and decorum"?  This member's chain of command declined to do anything about said online behavior when it was pointed out. 

I don't know anything about the incident you're describing.  However, if that's the case, the officer and anyone in the chain of command that failed to act should be removed from the organization.  Plain and simple. 

If National gets serious about dealing with incidents and doesn't shy away from termination, that would go a long way in setting the tone for a cultural change.  Action (or inaction as it may be) speaks louder than any reg. 

I'm not fully convinced much change/clarification is needed/warranted.   We need to start enforcing what we have rather than trying to run down a path of identifying every possible scenario. 

[Eclipse]

I can't begin to imagine why any of that "social" narcissistic BS is worth the trouble.

If you don't "friend" people who aren't your friends or peers, you don't have to worry every time ZuckerDuff makes a another
revenue decision about your privacy.

There's is no point whatsoever to this nonsense.

No one cares what you're doing, where you are, or what you had for lunch, but they tolerate your nonsense because they
want you to tolerate theirs.

How millions of people can be this blind, at the expense of turning themselves into a product continues to escape me.

[NIN]

How millions of people can be this blind, at the expense of turning themselves into a product continues to escape me.

I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that similar things were said about cell phones, email, and webpages.



"What, you're so all fired important right now that you need a cellular phone thingy? What, you're a doctor or something?"

[NIN]

How millions of people can be this blind, at the expense of turning themselves into a product continues to escape me.

Not for nothing whatsoever, but usually the people who claim there is no need for people to do things like own private planes or expensive Italian cars are the ones who have never flown in a small plane, ridden in a sports car, etc.

Just sayin'.  There's more to Facebook than what you think. 

But since you don't use Facebook, you don't know that.

[Eclipse]

Not an apt comparison.

A cell phone is a tool.  It does not turn the user into a product to someone else's anonymous benefit and profit.

When you use it, the only people involved are you, the person you called, and the NSA.

There isn't anything else to Facebook except narcissism and marketing.  I am, sadly, all too familiar with this nonsense because of clients.  Just because I don't play doesn't mean I don't have plenty of stick time.  You'll never really see how deep the rabbit hole goes until you've had to fix someone else's profile and pages, especially the non-technical users that Facebook preys on.

[NIN]

You'll never really see how deep the rabbit hole goes until you've had to fix someone else's profile and pages, especially the non-technical users that Facebook preys on.

Well, sadly, thats true about a LOT of technologies, not just Facebook.

I see that every day.  Its like handing a 9 year old a Ferrari and wondering why its always wrapped around a telephone pole or stalled in the middle of an intersection.

[NC Hokie]

The more I read the back-and-forth about the social media aspect of the new regs, the more I wonder HOW we're supposed to make sure that there are no violations occurring.  Laying aside the fact that I don't do social media, if I did, I certainly don't have the time or inclination to friend all of the senior members in my squadron in order to monitor their online activities.

[Eclipse]

You'll never really see how deep the rabbit hole goes until you've had to fix someone else's profile and pages, especially the non-technical users that Facebook preys on.

Well, sadly, thats true about a LOT of technologies, not just Facebook.

I see that every day.  Its like handing a 9 year old a Ferrari and wondering why its always wrapped around a telephone pole or stalled in the middle of an intersection.

I don't disagree, but if you have the money to get your hands on a Ferrari and choose to run it into a wall, so be it.  I have seen nothing from social media but either benign nonsense (cat videos,
fax poop, cleaver sayings and urban legends), marketing bad behavior (i.e. "liking" a company or product, as if that company or product cares about you as a person, profiling,
pushing ads, etc.) and then "badness" - ruined marriages, inappropriate relationships, inappropriate access and familiarly, etc., etc.

If you haven't spoken to someone in 20 years, you don't need a "reunion", they didn't care enough to find you or stay in touch, they aren't your "friend". 

If you want to send Grandma pics of the kids, send them to >HER<, don't light up a public space that uses facial recognition and puts your kids (and mine) at risk.

By far the majority of people using FB started because they were guilted into it by someone else, and even more amusing are the people who "hate so-and-so's posts, but
I don't want to offend her by unfriending or blocking her". 

Artificial drama for people with uninteresting lives.

If I had soap to sell, I'd be dying for "likes", because then I can sell more soap, which, at the end of the day, is all this is - selling soap.

[Eclipse]

The more I read the back-and-forth about the social media aspect of the new regs, the more I wonder HOW we're supposed to make sure that there are no violations occurring.  Laying aside the fact that I don't do social media, if I did, I certainly don't have the time or inclination to friend all of the senior members in my squadron in order to monitor their online activities.

Like a lot of practically unenforceable regulations, these can be used as "value-adds" when it comes time to discipline or terminate someone.

If members are violating boundaries and having contact outside the regs, CAP might not have anyway to know it at the time, but as soon as it comes to light, you're cooked.

[NIN]

Keep in mind one of the basic tenets of CPP is a lot like uniform inspection: If it looks wrong, it probably is wrong.

If you're not supposed to email cadets without copying parents or the CO (if the parents have no email in the system) then one day at the unit you overhear C/A1C TalksALot mentioning to her friend about the massive email conversation she got into with LT PervyGuy, the squadron safety officer, you don't have to think "Hmm, thats perfectly normal."  You now say "Wait a minute" and investigate further.

"Cadet TalksALot, did you say you've been emailing with the safety officer?"

"Oh, yessir, he asked me how classes are going this semester."

Hear those sirens and klaxons? Yeah, thats a potential boundary violation.  CO ascertains if there is something untoward going on or not, and likely counsels the LT about his boundary violation.   Could have totally been an innocent thing, or maybe not.  Either way, the if the LT was emailing this cadet without a copy to the parents, then yes, its time for a verbal counseling.

If, however, Cadet Talksalot is just a massive exaggerator, the reply might be:

"Yessir, he reminded me that I wasn't safety current and I wanted to ask him how I need to get safety current, and he sent me back a list of options.."

Slightly different kettle of fish.  The CO might say "OK, LT, you need to be sure to copy cadets' parents on these emails about safety currency." and leave it at that, knowing that 22 other cadets in the squadron got similar emails, including parents. Maybe it was a simple case of Cadet Talksalot's parent's email got missed in the process.

However, we've now noted that there is either a legit goof, a potential minor or major flouting of the rules, or an attempt to do inappropriate things (note the continuum of possibilities here).

If two weeks later, the CO gets told by another officer "Cadet TalksALot emailed me about something to do with supply, and I noticed that it was in reply to an email she'd gotten from LT PervyGuy where her parents weren't copied..."  then maybe we've got a pattern of behavior that either falls into the flouting of the rules or an attempt to do inappropriate things.  Either way, its probably not a legit goof at this point.

ETA: My point is, these rules are intended to cause "behaviors that lead to inappropriate situations" to stick out like sore thumbs.

[A.Member]

The more I read the back-and-forth about the social media aspect of the new regs, the more I wonder HOW we're supposed to make sure that there are no violations occurring.  Laying aside the fact that I don't do social media, if I did, I certainly don't have the time or inclination to friend all of the senior members in my squadron in order to monitor their online activities.

Like a lot of practically unenforceable regulations, these can be used as "value-adds" when it comes time to discipline or terminate someone.

If members are violating boundaries and having contact outside the regs, CAP might not have anyway to know it at the time, but as soon as it comes to light, you're cooked.

Now you seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. 

I actually agree with your earlier comment, technology is just a tool.  Facebook is just one possible avenue.  Instagram is a possible avenue.  What's next?  Who knows?...and it doesn't matter.  Technology is not the issue, behavior is.  In my view the regs already address this...National just needs the kahonas to enforce them.  National's pseudo-approach of "solving issues" by adding more words to regulations does not come across as particularly genuine or effective.

[Майор Хаткевич]

All this does is update it to be more in line with the current standards. This is why they looked at OTHER organizations.

I'm not sure what the issue is, other than some inconvenience from the emailing standpoint.

[coudano]

99% of this is no big deal.  Some of it is a little silly, I think.  But this is CAP, after all.

The communications thing is pretty annoying, but whatevs...   Should parents be *requried to* eavesdrop on phone calls too?  No more txting a simple question or instruction.
I don't *have* 'adult' and 'youth-worker' social media accounts.  Then again I don't post anything in facebook that I wouldn't repeat in front of anyone in public, either.
Where is the line where it's now nonsense?
I've never had a problem including parents who wanted to be in the loop, but quite frankly, most of them won't care, and some of them will actually find getting copied on every routine communication annoying.



I have serious objections to the recording and tracking systems for boundary violations.

While I understand and to some degree sympathize with the need for a method to catch people who are progressing toward abuse, but haven't quite gotten there yet, there are some serious chances to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

The definition of what is boundary is pretty subjective...  A hyper-sensitive commander (maybe under pressure of a hyper sensitive parent) may report "not much" whereas somewhere else, a senior member may all but sexually assault a cadet with just a verbal warning (or maybe not even that)
There doesn't seem to be any sort of protest or appeal mechanism for a member receiving a boundary vio.
The possibility exists for retributive violations, or false reports, with no apparent recourse.
There doesn't appear to be any sort of "time limit" if you get hit with a vio, it's permanent?
The verbal notifications within 90 days thing is going to have to be tracked somehow, which creates a big brother kind of system,
but we're talking about local commanders here, so it's a REALLY INSECURE one
E-services, and email are *not* in any way shape or form "secure" (which means your suspected pervness may be exposed outside CAP)

Personally, this system presents a 'risk' to me, as an adult youth worker, that i'm not sure i'm willing to assume.
If it goes into effect, I will have to take a very serious look at whether its worth it to expose myself (so to speak) to the possibility of getting labelled as a boundary violating pervdog, which could have very serious consequences on the rest of my life.  Considering that depending on who you ask, my little 'expose myself' joke there is a boundary violation because it's here in view of cadets...  I don't think i'm being too paranoid.

I can introduce you to people who think that *ANY* adult who wants to work with kids is suspect, immediately, because "that's weird", all by  itself.

I (a 20+ year CAP and CP vet) may very well choose to disassociate myself from the cadet program entirely under such a rule regime.  How many other people are going to take a look at the risk and go "ehhhh, no thanks"?

[coudano]

additionally, there is no guarantee, whatsoever ,that "a parent" being used as a supplemental chaperone, isn't a boundary violating perv, themselves...

Just because you are the parent of a cadet doesn't mean you aren't a perv.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Probably not most.