? on U / FOUO

[Spike]

So FOUO training means nothing other than it is one of the silly check box membership requirements that HQ has developed to make us look like we are playing military again.  More fluff and window dressing over substance, again.

BTW this post is FUOUO (U being Un-) which is how I am going to start making my CAP correspondence with those who insist on using FOUO. 

^ Since CAP is a business (YES it really is a business), anything you disclose that had been stamped "For Official Use Only" and in some way hurts the business you can be held liable.

We all forget that we are no more than "employees" in a non profit BUSINESS.  Let me say that again, all of us are unpaid employees in a non profit business.

You may not agree with what I just said, but it is FACT.  Don't believe anything different.

You singed your volunteer contract (membership application), and it states: "I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws" AND: "I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol".

If you released "official use only" material in a for profit business and it hurt them monetarily you would be fired, and they may come after you in a civil trial.

SO by all means don't follow the rules of the corporation.  You are showing your arrogance and uselessness to both our Cadets and those in your chain of command.  I fully expect that if you can not follow something as simple as FOUO guidelines you can not follow other rules, and you need to resign as soon as possible.

[MIGCAP]

1.  CAP is a non profit corporation

So long as you don't forget the "sponsored and chartered by Congress, part"

2.  CAP is NOT in any way part of the government.

Not True, This is simply a fight you are going to lose in court, any judge and/or jury is going to consider folks in AF "style" uniforms, flying aircraft bought by the taxpayers, driving vans bought by the taxpayer, performing missions assigned by the DoD to be part of the government.

3.  To protect the members when on AFAMs (USAF authorized missions), CAP is considered an "instrumentality of the government".  This allows members who are killed or injured some federal benefits.

True, however you can't have it both ways either you are an instrumentality or your not.  When you are an instrumentality you are part of the government.  Members of the jury, I submit that this person, in an Air Force Uniform, flying an Air Force Aircraft (with permission), and being covered by Air Force Insurance, and having been dispatched by the USAF, should not really be considered as having anything to do with the Air Force.  (sure were going to win that one)

4.  Any corporate information that is considered "sensitive" by the corporation may be labeled "FOUO".  

Absolutely incorrect.  No "private" corporation can classify something FOUO unless it is derived from a government contract, or government provided information.  Private corporations use terms like "Company Private" or "proprietary" which are enforced within the company and respected by the customers.

5.  Some missions require "confidential" labels when directed by our customers.

Absolutely wrong.  CAP, as a corporation has no security officer, no corporate clearance, no CAGE Code, no ability to receive, process, store, or disseminate "confidential" information.

6.  CAP is not required to adhere to "FOIA" statutes.

See answer(s) above. we sure as hell are.

7.  Any other "explanations" to the contrary are pure fictions.  

I'm afraid the only fiction here is that CAP has done anything to establish a security program.  Their answer to a good government customer question about what would happen if we needed to share classified information with you? Has been to "make up" an incorrect training class concerning FOUO, require everyone to take it, and build yet more little kingdom within the organization to make folks feel important, and preserve the corporate overhead.

CAP does not have anything that is legally FOUO. If we want to be a corporation then we need to tell the government to kiss off. If we want to be the USAF Aux, then we need to get rid of the Corporation mentality, and become the USAF Aux full time.  If we want to have the tax exempt status for our folks then we need about a three person membership support office.  Our fundamental problem is that we have never decided what CAP whats to be when we grow up. Therefore, we simply will never amount to anything.  We have instead chosen to make up rules to appear to be important, feather the corporate nest, and stagnate.

[RedFox24]

Spike, are you the CS for the Wing here because that is the same arrogant non answer that he gives.

If you could read, you would see that the original question was my trying to find out what my OBLIGATIONS were when presented with what I believed to be a breach of FOUO.  Again learn to read before you shoot your fingers off on the key board.    

That is the problem with CrAP right now, no one wants to give a straight answer on anything.  Every answer is laced with opinion and innuendo.  There is no training or teaching or mentoring, just check boxes.  And scorn and ridicule from people like you when someone ask a question.  

A member takes the training on line agrees and then what?  Same with ORM, Equal Opportunity, and others.  If I disagree I can't participate, but if I agree and then come upon an instance where that training is violated then what?  Call the IG?  Call the Wing Commander?  Call the local Mall Cop?  Sure some of the guidelines are spelled out but not all.

So Spike what is the answer to the question, according to the CAP regs and training you took, assuming you took it?  After all you seem to be the FOUO lawyer all at once.  

[FW]

Red, I like your style  ,

CAP is limited in its ability to do anything to a member who "violates"  FOUO information.  Most severe penalty is loss of membership.  However, violation of information deemed FOUO by an outside govt. agency working with CAP; for instance the state ANG, is a different story.    Before you get such information, you agree to abide by the rules.  Breaking those rules is not good.  Prosecution by the attorney general is always an option.  However, CAP has nothing to do with this kind of enforcement.

"FOUO training" is just understanding some information should not be shared.  No one in a black van will come to get you if you forget.  (well.... maybe a white one  )

I hope I made things a bit clearer to you.

[Eclipse]

So by all means don't follow the rules of the corporation.  You are showing your arrogance and uselessness to both our Cadets and those in your chain of command.  I fully expect that if you can not follow something as simple as FOUO guidelines you can not follow other rules, and you need to resign as soon as possible.

It is somewhat of an interesting dynamic that the same people who have voluntarily joined an organization find no end to the ways in which even the most basic rules and requests can be thwarted in the vein of "you can't tell me what to do..." and "I'm only a volunteer...", etc.

No wonder we can't get along and agree on the big issues if we can't get members to understand and comply with the small, relatively trivial stuff.

If someone wants a document or information to remain private to the group it is being sent to, respect that and move on.
Lawyering up about it is a waste of everyone's time.

[FW]

MIGCAP, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

I'm not a lawyer however, I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express quite a few times over the years......

Your responses to my previous post, while entertaining, have no basis in reality.  To date, there has never been any judicial or official ruling by any govt. branch that CAP is a governmental agency.  

"FOUO" has been found in documents of many private corporations, clubs, fraternal organizations, parents, teachers, and a host of others who wish to keep written correspondence closely held.  As has been said before, "lighten up".

[RedFox24]

FW

Thank you.  

We take the "training" to abide by the rules.  We work to keep the rules, we work to insure that we operate with the guidelines of that "training" to the best of our ability.  And we work to see that we abide by not only the rule but the spirit of the rule.  

FOUO or not.

In the program or not.

As a member, not a volunteer, I have what I believe to be obligations that I take very seriously.  I have to many years invested in this organization not to take those obligations seriously.  However I don't see that others take or make any effort anymore to see that those obligations are a part of their membership.

Ok, better quit here before I get banned from the board.............

Just make sure when you come to get me in that white van that you check the air pressure in the tires first!!!

RRR

[Spike]

Spike, are you the CS for the Wing here because that is the same arrogant non answer that he gives.

If you could read, you would see that the original question was my trying to find out what my OBLIGATIONS were when presented with what I believed to be a breach of FOUO.  Again learn to read before you shoot your fingers off on the key board.    

Red......when you wrote that you were not going to follow the rules, you voided your original question, and presented a new issue to respond to.  

I have no obligation to respond to your original question after you tell ALL OF US that it does not matter since you are going to do something that would go against our logical responses.

You had your answer the moment you wrote your original question, you just don't like the fact that you have to follow FOUO guidelines and are looking for others to back you up.

RedFox, don't play people like they can not read into your questions and discover your real motives.

Now you will bash me and tell me that wasn't your real motive, and that you were genuinely interested in a answer, when in fact the answer you will reference is on the Knowledgebase already and you will twist that answer to support your belief.

I read the posts, I got my answer out of your original question.  I decided to respond to more intelligent questions further down in the thread.

Red Fox, I suggest you read more slowly next time.  You obviously skimmed the material, and have no clue what it means.

Bash Away......but I already expected that from you, a person looking for a fight either about your subject or some other skewed tangent!

[AlphaSigOU]

Here's an explanation on U//FOUO - and this is from the CAP NTC website:

SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" MEAN?

One of the most commonly encountered questions we get deals with the real meaning of "For Official Use Only" and the implications for storage, transmittal, and disposal. The following information, while not formal policy, will hopefully help steer you straight.

First, off, "FOUO" is primarily a Department of Defense phrase/acronym. Other government departments use it, but many have also come up with their own, similar phrases, to include "Sensitive but Unclassified," or "Law Enforcement Sensitive," or just "Official Use Only." While this discussion only covers FOUO, it hopefully might also answer questions relating to these other, similar markings.

"Unclassified//For Official Use Only" (abbreviated to U//FOUO) is a handling instruction, as opposed to a true classification marking. It is used only for documents or products which contain material which is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. That is, U//FOUO cannot be gratuitously placed on any document simply as a means of better controlling the content.(emphasis mine - CEC)

For any document/product correctly bearing the U//FOUO handling instruction, certain safeguards must be taken. Generally speaking, the material should be treated as if it were classified CONFIDENTIAL. This means it cannot be discarded in the open trash, made available to the general public, or posted on an uncontrolled website. It can, however, be shared with individuals with a need to know the content, while still under the control of the individual possessing the document or product. For example, U//FOUO material relating to security precautions during overseas assignments may be shared with family members at home. The material should then be returned to the government office and be properly retained or destroyed. Wherever possible, U//FOUO information should not be passed over unencrypted communications lines (e.g., open phones, non-secure fax, personal e-mails). If no secure communications are available for transmission, U//FOUO material may be sent via unprotected means, with supervisory approval after risk has been assessed.

Unfortunately, it appears people are getting hung up on 'secret squirrel' pseudo-classifications. I'll hafta agree the CAP OPSEC training isn't the greatest in the world - there is far better available from the Interagency OPSEC Support Staff (www.ioss.gov). Tacking on legal confidentiality disclaimers on an email when none are needed just tells the world 'Look at ME! I'm important!!!' There is a time and a place for them, and routine emails aren't one of them. But I'll shut up and color, lest I get slapped.

[Short Field]

Unfortunately, it appears people are getting hung up on 'secret squirrel' pseudo-classifications.

Or they just like showing people they really don't know what they are doing.   The negative there is that it makes some folks question what else they are doing wrong.....

[AlphaSigOU]

Unfortunately, it appears people are getting hung up on 'secret squirrel' pseudo-classifications.

Or they just like showing people they really don't know what they are doing.   The negative there is that it makes some folks question what else they are doing wrong.....

Exactimundo... 

[ol'fido]

It all boils down to ... Let's quit worrying about the ants while the elephants are stomping us to death.

[Short Field]

Exactimundo...