Facebook Security Dangers

[wingnut55]

I recently joined Facebook and found many of my friends in CAP also were members. Than I began to notice pictures of me doing CAP missions or activities appeared. So I canceled my Facebook and have started sending emails to people who have these pictures.

1. I have no desire to have my membership in CAP advertised since I participate in many of the CAP functions in support of the the U.S. Govt. and state.
2. Facebook in not secure and it has many security holes for hackers and the such

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7918839.stm

A. What do you think?
B. Should NHQ have a written policy about web sites like Facebook and security?

[Stonewall]

It's easy enough to be found on the internet, but I don't want to add fuel to the fire.

A friend of mine recently told me "I need to get on facebook; all our friends have pages, you need one too."  I declined.

I guess my friends, many from a long long time ago have pictures posted that include me.  I don't really care, but I'm not going to contribute.  Luckily there is someone more popular than me out there with the same name who comes up a few pages before me when you use google.

Personally, I'm not a fan of facebook or myspace.  I don't even know how to log into them to see someone else's page.

[dwb]

I've had a Facebook account for almost two years now, and it's tough to keep on top of the privacy stuff.  It seems every few months they add a "feature" and leave it open to anyone with a Facebook account.  I have to regularly comb the privacy settings to make sure only people that I have added as a friend can see my profile information.

Facebook is only the most visible of a large number of web sites that store personal information for people to see.  We as a society, and certainly CAP as an organization, are not doing a good job of educating people on how to best represent themselves online.

IMO, you can't just opt out of the Internet.  Somewhere between Google, Facebook, and online directories of public records, your personal information is out there.  At the very least, you should try to exercise some control over it.

[Pylon]

Your problem here has nothing to do with Facebook. 

If you don't like the idea of other people taking pictures of you with their cameras and then doing what they please with their photos (i/e: posting somewhere on the Internet, sharing with their friends, publishing in a newsletter, or whatever), then you need to stop them before they take the photograph or stop them from sharing it if one is taken spontaneously.  You can't expect other people to be conscious of your personal level of comfort when sharing their photos with their friends, especially if you've allowed them to take your photo.

And, out of sheer curiosity and since you brought it up, does your desire for privacy really come from some sense that you're a potential target because of your volunteer status with Civil Air Patrol?

[Eclipse]

If you don't like the idea of other people taking pictures of you with their cameras and then doing what they please with their photos (i/e: posting somewhere on the Internet, sharing with their friends, publishing in a newsletter, or whatever), then you need to stop them before they take the photograph or stop them from sharing it if one is taken spontaneously.  You can't expect other people to be conscious of your personal level of comfort when sharing their photos with their friends, especially if you've allowed them to take your photo.

I disagree vehemently - no one has a right to post photos of anyone else on one of these useless "social networks" - you feel its necessary to share every iota of detail about your life with others who are doing the same, fine. 

They might be "their" photos, but its my image - that doesn't change just because the photons reflected off of it are on someone else's CCD.

Leave me out of it.  If I wanted those photos posted, I'd have posted them myself.

I'm not sure what is more frustrating - the huge amount of time wasted on these sites, included ruined careers and reputations, or how surprised people are when you tell them you don't want to play.

[NIN]

If you don't like the idea of other people taking pictures of you with their cameras and then doing what they please with their photos (i/e: posting somewhere on the Internet, sharing with their friends, publishing in a newsletter, or whatever), then you need to stop them before they take the photograph or stop them from sharing it if one is taken spontaneously.  You can't expect other people to be conscious of your personal level of comfort when sharing their photos with their friends, especially if you've allowed them to take your photo.

I disagree vehemently - no one has a right to post photos of anyone else on one of these useless "social networks" - you feel its necessary to share every iota of detail about your life with others who are doing the same, fine. 

They might be "their" photos, but its my image - that doesn't change just because the photons reflected off of it are on someone else's CCD.

Leave me out of it.  If I wanted those photos posted, I'd have posted them myself.

I'm not sure what is more frustrating - the huge amount of time wasted on these sites, included ruined careers and reputations, or how surprised people are when you tell them you don't want to play.

And I'm sure you and the IL Wing PAO have had this discussion, too, right?

Or did you sign a model release?

[Eclipse]

And I'm sure you and the IL Wing PAO have had this discussion, too, right?

Or did you sign a model release?

The IL PAO does not run a Facebook site.

There is an understanding that official use photographs taken during operations may be posted on any number of official CAP sites.

I have no issue with that whatsoever, its part of the game.  That is not the same thing as someone posting photographs of me on a personal website and then tagging them as such, etc.

[Pylon]

If you don't like the idea of other people taking pictures of you with their cameras and then doing what they please with their photos (i/e: posting somewhere on the Internet, sharing with their friends, publishing in a newsletter, or whatever), then you need to stop them before they take the photograph or stop them from sharing it if one is taken spontaneously.  You can't expect other people to be conscious of your personal level of comfort when sharing their photos with their friends, especially if you've allowed them to take your photo.

I disagree vehemently - no one has a right to post photos of anyone else on one of these useless "social networks" - you feel its necessary to share every iota of detail about your life with others who are doing the same, fine. 

They might be "their" photos, but its my image - that doesn't change just because the photons reflected off of it are on someone else's CCD.

Leave me out of it.  If I wanted those photos posted, I'd have posted them myself.

I'm not sure what is more frustrating - the huge amount of time wasted on these sites, included ruined careers and reputations, or how surprised people are when you tell them you don't want to play.

Well fortunately the law completely disagrees with you.  When you wrote "No one has the right...", what would have been accurate there is that "Pretty much everyone has the legal right...".  For example, if a reporter is hanging around a mission base and snaps your photograph doing sooper sekrit SAR they can put that image smack dab on the cover of their newspaper, website and social media group if they so choose.  Again, the beef you all seem to have here should be with the individual taking the photograph; not the venue they happen to choose to share it.  If this was 1942 and they were posting their photos on a community bulletin board in the town centre, would you be all huffy and puffy about "those dern kids and their privacy-violatin' bulletin board"?   Yeah.  "They spend too much time decoratin' that there picture board and lookin' at other people's photos and not enough time doing whatever I feel is more important..." 

And I'm sure you and the IL Wing PAO have had this discussion, too, right?

Or did you sign a model release?

The IL PAO does not run a Facebook site.

They could if they wanted to; multiple CAP units do have facebook presence.  And they still wouldn't need your permission to post your photos.



So you can either act indignant and rant incessantly about how other people share the photos they took of you, or stop this debate before it even happens:  just speak up when someone snaps a shot of you to tell them that it's not okay, or even better, let people at activities know thoroughly in advance.  People aren't mind readers.

[Eclipse]

But we're not talking about legitimate media reporting the news, are we?  We're talking about private individuals taking and using photographs without permission. 

So let's not get all indignant about the first amendment, etc.

And you might want to check on that law, because news outlets routinely require photo releases before they will print photographs, especially in situations not involving person considered "public individuals.

And if we're going to compare things, lets use the same fruit - town square bulletin boards are not electronically cross-referenced, tagged and stored in perpetuity - the only use is the wet-wired optics in your head.

[Pylon]

But we're not talking about legitimate media reporting the news, are we?  We're talking about private individuals taking and using photographs without permission. 

So let's not get all indignant about the first amendment, etc.

And you might want to check on that law, because news outlets routinely require photo releases before they will print photographs, especially in situations not involving person considered "public individuals.

And if we're going to compare things, lets use the same fruit - town square bulletin boards are not electronically cross-referenced, tagged and stored in perpetuity - the only use is the wet-wired optics in your head.

Again, I'll just repost my closing paragraph which was glossed over.  Unless you're willing to say something about your privacy wishes to people taking your photograph, it just looks silly to complain about what they do. 

But we're not talking about legitimate media reporting the news, are we?  We're talking about private individuals taking and using photographs without permission. 

Even more clear.  Private photographers, amateur, casual, tourist or otherwise, have never needed releases for the pictures they take and share.  I was in God-knows-how-many tourists' photographs when I lived in Paris.  A photograph of me taken drinking a beer on a sidewalk cafe appeared in an advertisement in a Chicago airport once; I had no idea it was going to be used commercially.   The point is if you don't tell people you don't want your photo taken up front, you don't have much recourse after the fact. 

[Eclipse]

Even more clear.  Private photographers, amateur, casual, tourist or otherwise, have never needed releases for the pictures they take and share.  I was in God-knows-how-many tourists' photographs when I lived in Paris.  A photograph of me taken drinking a beer on a sidewalk cafe appeared in an advertisement in a Chicago airport once; I had no idea it was going to be used commercially.   

Walking down a public street is not that same thing as being involved in a relief operation for a agency which happens to be a private corporation.

Those granted permission officially have limited access and use of photographs they take - "Joe Member" with a camera has neither.

One could also raise the OPSEC flag just to make the argument.

In theory (though I wouldn't be foolish enough to try and make the argument that it is happening in practice), photos released by NHQ or other official CAP sources  have been vetted for content, OPSEC, and images that would shed a negative light on the organization.

Joe Member, posting on Facebook, has likely done none of that, and is just posting based on cool factor.  If I happen to be in the background of some operational photo, that's one thing, but there's no reason to be tagging it with my personally identifiable information, and certainly the photographer doesn't have carte-blanch right to my image, non-commercial or not.

Same goes for indices of the corporation, which, as has been held by NHQ, includes just about everything on the uniform, unit insignias, etc.

[jimmydeanno]

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

Seems to have a pretty good explanation about the balance between your right to privacy and the right of publicity.  Of course it appears to apply to professional journalists, etc as opposed to the amateur photographer.

But, I would definitely argue that if I took a picture of you in a public setting I most certainly do have the right to do whatever I wish with the photograph so long as it isn't used out of context or try to make money off it (unless it's newsworthy of course )  The other stipulation is that I didn't publish non-public information about you.  Your name isn't private.

Of course, if I was your buddy and you said, "You know, I really don't want my picture on your facebook account."  I probably wouldn't put it there. 

[alamrcn]

I'm not sure what is more frustrating - the huge amount of time wasted on these sites, included ruined careers and reputations, or how surprised people are when you tell them you don't want to play.

You're talking about CAP-Talk, right? 

[NIN]

Interestingly, I'm in the middle of working up a new website for the DZ that I jump at.  One of my compadres in this little project said "Oh, wait, we need a model release from anybody on the website..."

I reminded him that when someone comes in to make a jump (experienced or student), the waiver they sign includes a photo release.  So anybody in freefall above our DZ that jumped from our plane is fully released (whew!)

But more to this point: at what point does "snapshots" turn into "full blown media presence?"

There are photos on many photos sites, personal websites, etc, of me WIWAC.  So?  Did that not happen?  Does me standing with my hands in the pockets of my fatigues constitute an OPSEC/PERSEC violation?

[Eclipse]

But, I would definitely argue that if I took a picture of you in a public setting I most certainly do have the right to do whatever I wish with the photograph so long as it isn't used out of context or try to make money off it (unless it's newsworthy of course )  The other stipulation is that I didn't publish non-public information about you.  Your name isn't private.

And for the most part I would reluctantly agree with you, however the majority of CAP operations are not by any means "public settings".

An outside party is not bound by our membership, ethical, or OPSEC regulations, and in most cases was either invited to take photos, at which time I could self-select, or the activity was, in fact, a "public setting" such as a DR exercise, etc., and then, for the most part, all bets are off.

[NIN]

Of course, if I was your buddy and you said, "You know, I really don't want my picture on your facebook account."  I probably wouldn't put it there. 

I think Bob's point might be that since he's not a FB member, he really doesn't even KNOW whats on FB that might have him tagged in it.

[Eclipse]

I reminded him that when someone comes in to make a jump (experienced or student), the waiver they sign includes a photo release.  So anybody in freefall above our DZ that jumped from our plane is fully released (whew!)

So you've got a release - if they don't read it, bad on them - but someone, sometime thought it relevant enough to
include in the contract.

But more to this point: at what point does "snapshots" turn into "full blown media presence?"

Thanks to Google, everything on the web is accessible to everyone in the world (except China), and its indexed for easy access, so the idea of a "media presence" is somewhat moot.

[winterg]

In theory (though I wouldn't be foolish enough to try and make the argument that it is happening in practice), photos released by NHQ or other official CAP sources  have been vetted for content, OPSEC, and images that would shed a negative light on the organization.

I'm glad you put "in theory" in there! 

[NIN]

I reminded him that when someone comes in to make a jump (experienced or student), the waiver they sign includes a photo release.  So anybody in freefall above our DZ that jumped from our plane is fully released (whew!)

So you've got a release - if they don't read it, bad on them - but someone, sometime thought it relevant enough to include in the contract.

Ever see a skydiving waiver?  You have to initial every paragraph.  If someone ain't reading, they miss the paragraph where they have to give all their hard-earned dollars to me.

(OK, that really ain't in there, but anybody who jumps can tell you: It costs you $200 for your first jump, then half your money for the rest of your life, so I suppose they should just put that in the waiver and get it over with..)

But yeah, they added that to the DZ's waiver about 4-5 years ago, and I thought it was odd, until I remembered it, and then it solved a TON of issues we were about to have with model releases.

But more to this point: at what point does "snapshots" turn into "full blown media presence?"

Thanks to Google, everything on the web is accessible to everyone in the world (except China), and its indexed for easy access, so the idea of a "media presence" is somewhat moot.

I guess my point is, where does it cross from "innocuous" to "issue"?  Does Aunt Tessie posting a photo on Flickr of her with her arm around her newly graduated nephew, C/AB Smith, constitute an OPSEC or PERSEC violation? How about AB Smith @ Lackland?


Betcha this guy didn't get a chance to "opt out."


Hey, I'm that fat guy in the back left. I didn't authorize this photo! (nevermind that it was linked from a site called "diaperswappers" .. Eeek!)

Had I known you were going to post my photo on the Interwebs, I would have gone for the Curtis Silwa look... Oh, wait...

These are but a few examples. There are hundreds of thousands.

EDIT: Betcha you're real fun at family gatherings..

Uncle Ted: "OK, everybody I'm gonna take a picture of the group here for my Facebook page... Everybody say.."
[Sound of Uncle Ted's camera shattering into a million pieces]
Bob: "No pictures."

[heliodoc]

I sure am not a FB junkie but there are plenty of SAR AND DR operations that get pictures taken.

CAP needs to realize (other than FB) that IF we are to get our name out there for more"missions for America" that we tout

JUST MAYBE the coverage we get in a positive light.......well you folks figure it out....others have

NIN just said his DZ uses for photo and press release

SO CAP  ........... just blank out peoples faces and blur the nametapes if you are so worried about

25 years ago CAP never was so worried about "OPSEC" and FOUO as today

WE need positive press...I had my photos shot in the old CAP rag in 1979.... never got a nickel and never threw the privacy flag

CERT gets good press and I am pretty sure they are not on this type of notion of all things private...

CAP maybe "private" to some......  we are accepting funds, grants, and aircraft from 1AF and other sources...so when we accept THAT.......we do have a "public presence" and better learn to accept faces and our activities being published.   When accepting the "goodies" better get real.......we become public so I personally wouldn't get excited about FB when there are truly other worries to worry about