Cadet Protection

[JayT]

Even if you are not directly involved with cadets, my advice is to be vigilant that your unit's adults are complying with the provisions of CAPR 52-10, Cadet Protection Policy.  ANY deviation should send up a red flag to take a closer look.

During my AF career I witnessed the family devastation (including my direct supervisor (who worked for this commander) and one of my peers in the same unit)  that occurred when an active duty, full colonel commander sexually abused over one dozen (about 15, trying to find the article in my files) children, BEFORE he was caught and brought to justice (rotted away in jail).

So don't let your guard down and each of you will have to decide whether you want to go to local law enforcement authorities without even tipping off anyone in Civil Air Patrol, so they can run a discrete investigation.   I know in the example above (whether the sexual abuse mostly occurred off base), one of the parents (BTW who's husband was deployed overseas on a contingency mission at the time) went directly to the Sheriff's office that had special investigators for these type of crimes and the multi location abuse unfolded quickly.
RM 

I would just.........love to spend a day with you to see what goes through your head. Love it.

[Short Field]

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

I can see the headlines now:  "CAP expels member for reporting child abuser to police".

[Ned]

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

I can see the headlines now:  "CAP expels member for reporting child abuser to police".

Sigh. 

As usual, I hate to spoil a traditional CT furball, but actually reading the regulation reveals that there is nothing that discourages reporting suspected abuse to the authorities. Indeed, it specifically discusses reporting to the authorities in paragraph 1d.

IOW, it is perfectly fine to report a matter to the police AND your commander in an appropriate situation. 

[LGM30GMCC]

If you wind up being 24601 though, remember when you get out you have to become the mayor of a struggling factory town.

[RADIOMAN015]

The regulations make no such distinction.  Members are always within the reach and scope of our regulations.
What I said was that we have no recourse or control over non-members, parents or otherwise.

I can see the headlines now:  "CAP expels member for reporting child abuser to police".

Sigh. 

As usual, I hate to spoil a traditional CT furball, but actually reading the regulation reveals that there is nothing that discourages reporting suspected abuse to the authorities. Indeed, it specifically discusses reporting to the authorities in paragraph 1d.

IOW, it is perfectly fine to report a matter to the police AND your commander in an appropriate situation.

Ned, my emphasis on your reply.  Surely, one's personal level of knowledge on a cadet protection policy regulation violation(s) will dictate WHO gets notified at WHAT point.    Hearing something through the "grapevine" is definitely just a unit commander type informal notification/talk.    Directly observing a violation of criminal law (not CAP regulation) is an immediate law enforcement issue and one is going to comply with what law enforcement (and the District Attorney) advises.     

I know that having an open dialogue with parents sure can help a unit, if the cadet goes homes and makes a statement to the parent about something that occurred at a CAP meeting.  Example:    Interpretations of 'good touch' versus 'bad touch' is defined by the receiver of the 'touch', and the VERY wise thing to do by any senior adult member is the ONLY physical contact touching is to basically shake the cadet's hand for a job well done.  (and in this specific example an ill informed male senior member basically just quickly patted the male cadet's chest area for a job well done).

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

Surely some senior members can end up in a cadet protection "mine field", even IF they have good intentions and are very good people (not criminals) when they do 'dumb' things.
RM                             

[RADIOMAN015]

...
BTW I think it is the 'victim(s)' that need(s) to be protected first, rather than ANYONE else   
RM

There isn't always a victim, or perhaps the victim isn't who you think.  You don't get to unilaterally decide who the victim is.  That's the point of due process.

For the most part you are a cooked goose IF there's every a charge brought against you for any sexual misconduct with a child/teenager.  Relatively recently I knew an individual "victim", (only through a non profit organization I belonged to) who finally took a plea deal based upon legal advice, and of course available money to defend himself.   I personally thought it was a setup against him by the two related kids (but unrelated to him) involved.   BUT again in my ancient history experience, I never would have ever thought that a military hospital commander (who was a pediatrician by specialty) would have been sexually molesting young boys at his off base residence.       

In CAP the Cadet Protection Regulation/Policy is the MINIMUM that has to be complied with.  Each senior member involved with cadets may very well want to add some additional protection (e.g. female member present at any overnight activity with cadet females attending), as well as have an acceptable comfort level with the other senior members assisting with cadet supervision at an activity.

The way I see it, if a senior member is naive, they can become a 'victim'

BTW other than directly observing someone involved in sexual misconduct with a child, I don't see myself going to law enforcement with any "hunches".  IF someone (e.g. a parent of a CAP cadet) approached me about something happening at a CAP activity, I would listen and depending upon what they said "probably" would suggest they talk with the senior leadership (commander) in the squadron first.           

RM     

[sarmed1]

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

CAP isnt going to (likely) tell you what you can and can not do in your non CAP time; however its generally a good practice to follow the following rule/guide:  Unless you happen to be family, if you are a senior member and you are doing any activity that you are associating with cadets, its a CAP activity (if it doesnt meet some sort of approved CAP activity guideline....you shouldnt be there or be there with them)

just sayin'

mk

[Ned]

   Surely, one's personal level of knowledge on a cadet protection policy regulation violation(s) will dictate WHO gets notified at WHAT point.   

No.  Your responsibilities lie in what the regulation says, not what you think it says.

Hearing something through the "grapevine" is definitely just a unit commander type informal notification/talk.    Directly observing a violation of criminal law (not CAP regulation) is an immediate law enforcement issue and one is going to comply with what law enforcement (and the District Attorney) advises. 

I'm not sure I concur here.

I can easily imagine situations where I might notfy law enforcement (as an elected official, I am a mandatory reporter in California) even if I only heard about it on the grapevine.  If If I reasonably believe a situation may have occurred, I will take action.

Similarly, I can imagine a lot of situations where I observe a criminal law violation by a CAP member and would not call the cops.  (Littering, 66 on the freeway, camping without a permit, etc.)  I would take appropriate action ("pick that up," "hey, slow down a little," or "let's drive to the Ranger station and make sure we are OK.")

Example:    Interpretations of 'good touch' versus 'bad touch' is defined by the receiver of the 'touch',

Really?  Why do you say that?

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

I'm not sure I understand your concern here.  Improper fraternization is strictly prohibited, 24/7.  "On or off duty," regardless or whether it is an authorized CAP activity.  See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3.

But we do not prohibit all possible contact between cadets and seniors outside of activities.  You don't have to take the side exit from the mall when you see a cadet coming.  Senior members who are teachers are allowed to have cadets in their Calculus classes.  The chaplain can still give a sermon on Sunday morning, even if a cadet happens to be part of the congregation.  And yes, sometimes a senior and a cadet can be at the same baseball game without violating the rules.  Indeed a single senior can take a group of cadets hiking, and it is entirely proper withing the regulations.

Surely some senior members can end up in a cadet protection "mine field", even IF they have good intentions and are very good people (not criminals) when they do 'dumb' things.
RM                           

Well, the "dumb things" I saw in reports and investigations that prompted me to write the fraternization portion of the regulation mostly included 30 year old seniors "dating" 14 year old cadets.

It is easy for certain kinds of  people to imagine "mine fields" even when there are none.  I don't think there is much we can do about that, other than to continue to educate them and guide them.

But the overwhelming majority of seniors involved in the CP are wonderful assets who challenge, mentor, and lead cadets in a vigorous and successful program.  And these seniors have had our training, read the regs, and bring a wealth of common sense and experience.

God bless 'em.

[RiverAux]

So, lets take what appears to be Radioman's premise at face value - that there might be some CP issue that you observe that you then report to the police who for some reason order you not to report it through your CAP chain of command in order to avoid compromising their investigation.  And lets assume that they have some authority to make that order.  So, later on CAP finds out that you knew about this incident but did not report it to them. 

Radioman -- are you really saying that the member would be kicked out of CAP and that if he chose to appeal the 2b that the MARB would uphold it even though the person was acting under orders from civil authorities?  That is just so far-fetched as to be unbelievable and totally not worth worrying about.

If that is really a concern, then you must also be worrying about how CAP will implement our cadet protection policy when the Martians without either male or female sexes join CAP and encampment commanders need to figure out bunking arrangements.

[PHall]

Radioman, I have a surefire solution to your CAP "problems". Get out of CAP.

You seem to have nothing but problems here, so to reduce the stress in your life you need to get out of CAP.

You good health could be at stake here!

[Major Lord]

My youngest son ( not the CAP former Cadet) attended an elementary school where the "unwritten" policy was that any accusation made against a teacher would first be "investigated" by the Administration, even in the event of witnessed assault. Strangely, when my son was knocked to the ground by a teacher in front of about 30 witnesses ( and since my son is a lot like me, people want to hit him quite often) the Administration found no need to report the witnessed ( but probably deserved) "child abuse".  In fact, after diligent questioning of students and teachers, no one could identify a single such incident being reported to the police; Right up until the time a P.E. Coach was identified as having molested several female children, a fact that it seems in retrospect, was well known to the student body, but of which the Administration, with all their scrupulous "investigations" never caught the slightest whiff.

From the standpoint of organizational dynamics, its no surprise that an organizations' policies are primarily designed for the protection of the organization, and the identification of possible apparent criminal activities might be tacitly "discouraged", being sold to the members from the standpoint of fairness. In fact, a single Cadet could, as I understand the Regulation, shut down an entire encampment by claiming that he was forced to play "naked movie star" with the entire Senior Member Staff, who would, by regulation, have to be immediately suspended. There is no provision I am aware of that would exempt this, save a very rapid and despository investigation conducted at the appropriate level. A senior member who sees an activity that he knows or suspects is a crime should have no fear of repercussions; in fact, anyone discouraging him should be drawn,quartered, and executed by musket fire, as required by CAP regulations ( Okay, that Reg is way in the back of the book, but I am pretty sure its there.......)  The idea of even caring about one's own CAP "career" is preposterous when weighed against the proposition of harm to a child ( or even a S/M, although we probably don't have a legal obligation to report abuse of S/M's so feel free to dual and brawl to your hearts content) If in doubt, call the police; They will understand the elements of an actual crime, versus some random S/M's view of what constitutes "child abuse". Heck, I have met parents of Cadets who thought that encampment in and of itself was child abuse. ( Only if performed correctly)

Major Lord

[RADIOMAN015]

Radioman, I have a surefire solution to your CAP "problems". Get out of CAP.

You seem to have nothing but problems here, so to reduce the stress in your life you need to get out of CAP.

You good health could be at stake here!

Overall I like CAP and do what I can within my limitations.

As a 'volunteer' in CAP, i decide what I do (am comfortable with) and what I won't do (what I am not comfortable with).   There are other adults in CAP units that I am familiar with, who do put restrictions on whether they will participate or not (e.g. overnight camp outs with females, must have a female senior member present).   Why take ANY chances    I think most "smart" adults in any volunteer program are going to run a self risk management using their own criteria.  We aren't getting paid and we don't need the hassle IF something goes astray.       
RM

[jimmydeanno]

There are other adults in CAP units that I am familiar with, who do put restrictions on whether they will participate or not (e.g. overnight camp outs with females, must have a female senior member present).   Why take ANY chances  

These types of senior members are the ones that don't have any business working with cadets in the first place.  Making up rules like this only serve to open themselves up to other issues as they relate to equal opportunity and our non-discrimination policies.  Not holding activities, that you can otherwise staff under the actual rules imposed, because a female wants to participate is wrong and contrary to policies we have in place.

[Eclipse]

We aren't getting paid

Wait, what?

[JayT]

Radioman, I have a surefire solution to your CAP "problems". Get out of CAP.

You seem to have nothing but problems here, so to reduce the stress in your life you need to get out of CAP.

You good health could be at stake here!

Overall I like CAP and do what I can within my limitations.

As a 'volunteer' in CAP, i decide what I do (am comfortable with) and what I won't do (what I am not comfortable with).   There are other adults in CAP units that I am familiar with, who do put restrictions on whether they will participate or not (e.g. overnight camp outs with females, must have a female senior member present).   Why take ANY chances    I think most "smart" adults in any volunteer program are going to run a self risk management using their own criteria.  We aren't getting paid and we don't need the hassle IF something goes astray.       
RM

No great loss.

[RADIOMAN015]

   Surely, one's personal level of knowledge on a cadet protection policy regulation violation(s) will dictate WHO gets notified at WHAT point.   

No.  Your responsibilities lie in what the regulation says, not what you think it says.

I think there's a distinct difference between it being at a CAP activity or not being at a CAP activity and the seriousness of it.   Lets face it the CAP regulation is to protect CAP Inc first and the member second.  Frankly, I think once a senior member makes a police report/written statement due to the directly observed criminal offense,  that's pretty much it, and making any more statements to CAP authorities is really not in the best interest of that member, who likely would be emotionally frail from the incident.   Perhaps, maybe a simple verbal statement by the CAP member with the knowledge, that senior member X was arrested by (and give the police departments name), for alleged (whatever)  is sufficient reporting under the regulation  

Hearing something through the "grapevine" is definitely just a unit commander type informal notification/talk.    Directly observing a violation of criminal law (not CAP regulation) is an immediate law enforcement issue and one is going to comply with what law enforcement (and the District Attorney) advises. 

I'm not sure I concur here.

I can easily imagine situations where I might notfy law enforcement (as an elected official, I am a mandatory reporter in California) even if I only heard about it on the grapevine.  If If I reasonably believe a situation may have occurred, I will take action.

Well Ned, IF I don't see something directly but hear about it (second hand information), my comfortable level would be to talk with our squadron commander first.   Law enforcement doesn't need to be brought into every situation that is a violation of the Cadet Protection Policy, but likely is not a criminal violation.
   

Similarly, I can imagine a lot of situations where I observe a criminal law violation by a CAP member and would not call the cops.  (Littering, 66 on the freeway, camping without a permit, etc.)  I would take appropriate action ("pick that up," "hey, slow down a little," or "let's drive to the Ranger station and make sure we are OK.")
Well, I don't play cop out on the roadways. (cause i'd have to make a citizens arrest when a state police car late for work passes me at 80 mph ).  HOWEVER, I am getting increasing concerned about my safety and other with those drivers texting while driving their vehicles.

Example:    Interpretations of 'good touch' versus 'bad touch' is defined by the receiver of the 'touch',

Really?  Why do you say that?

Well in my state the kids under the DARE program are pretty much indoctrinated on what is a 'bad touch', in the example, I gave,  the cadet talked to his parent on it, since he felt it was a 'bad touch'.  Fortunately, the rapport was there with that respective squadron commander.   Here again in the cadet protection training, perhaps that senior member lacked the full understanding.  (BTW, some of our friends that are teachers in the lower grades K to 3, and they were advised never to hug a kid, even to comfort them).       

Also I don't think the policy is strong enough about adult senior members contact with cadets at NON CAP activities.   There's a good possibility that the lines can get blurred in a parents' view when the cadet/teenager says (What I've seen as an example) ---  Cadet says "I'm meeting (or he's picking us up) Lt X from CAP is bringing us/going with us for a hike or to a sports game, etc" WHEN IT IS NOT a CAP sanctioned activity.

I'm not sure I understand your concern here.  Improper fraternization is strictly prohibited, 24/7.  "On or off duty," regardless or whether it is an authorized CAP activity.  See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3.

OK, here's another example:  A male senior member takes some older cadets to a hockey game, not as a CAP sponsored activity (the chain of command doesn't know about it).  They sit together, the senior member buys himself a beer while sitting with the cadets.   If he didn't buy himself a beer does it change the outcome    

But we do not prohibit all possible contact between cadets and seniors outside of activities.  You don't have to take the side exit from the mall when you see a cadet coming.  Senior members who are teachers are allowed to have cadets in their Calculus classes.  The chaplain can still give a sermon on Sunday morning, even if a cadet happens to be part of the congregation.  And yes, sometimes a senior and a cadet can be at the same baseball game without violating the rules.  Indeed a single senior can take a group of cadets hiking, and it is entirely proper withing the regulations.

Please see the example I gave above, where the senior member actually transports the cadets to a non CAP activity.   I do understand that that a chance meeting or association because of ones normally employment is not a violation of any policy.  Also though the hiking would be a CAP activity correct not just a senior member stating to a group of cadets, outside a meeting, hey lets go hiking, and there's no parental slips signed or no notifications (e.g. the chain of command doesn't even know it is going on) -- that's what I am talking about

Surely some senior members can end up in a cadet protection "mine field", even IF they have good intentions and are very good people (not criminals) when they do 'dumb' things.
RM                           

Well, the "dumb things" I saw in reports and investigations that prompted me to write the fraternization portion of the regulation mostly included 30 year old seniors "dating" 14 year old cadets.

It is easy for certain kinds of  people to imagine "mine fields" even when there are none.  I don't think there is much we can do about that, other than to continue to educate them and guide them.

Well again everyone has their own comfort level, and some folks that have been in the program a long time, are still very conservative, especially on overnight camping with both males & females,  (making sure a female senior member is present).    We all have our own personal risk avoidance standards.


But the overwhelming majority of seniors involved in the CP are wonderful assets who challenge, mentor, and lead cadets in a vigorous and successful program.  And these seniors have had our training, read the regs, and bring a wealth of common sense and experience.

God bless 'em.

I do agree with you overall on what you state above  :clap: :clap:, BUT a few have taken the training and really became paranoid, trust me, they were really spooked  , perhaps it was their personalities.  I haven't taken the specific CP training, and probably won't allocate my volunteer time to do this. 

Also thank you for your service to the cadet program.   Some of our squadron members have had a chance to meet you and have had very good things to say about you.  :angel:
RM

[Ned]

]I think there's a distinct difference between it being at a CAP activity or not being at a CAP activity and the seriousness of it.   

Strong non-concur on whether it took place at a CAP activity, but I suppose the "seriousness of it" will always be a factor.

For example, if you have reason to believe that a SM is improperly intimate with a cadet, it does not matter if that abuse took place at an "authorized CAP activity" or not.  You MUST report it per 52-10.  No grey area, no "maybes" - it must be reported and the commander must take the actions prescribed in the reg.

Lets face it the CAP regulation is to protect CAP Inc first and the member second. 

Again, strong non-concur.  The primary emphasis is protecting the cadet; as it turns out that protecting the cadet also protects the member.  It is simply two sides of the same coin.

Frankly, I think once a senior member makes a police report/written statement due to the directly observed criminal offense,  that's pretty much it, and making any more statements to CAP authorities is really not in the best interest of that member, who likely would be emotionally frail from the incident.

Umm, what?  Seriously?  Reporting a crime makes a typical senior member so "frail" that they cannot pick up the phone and call the commander to fill her/him in on the facts?

C'mon.

Well Ned, IF I don't see something directly but hear about it (second hand information), my comfortable level would be to talk with our squadron commander first.   Law enforcement doesn't need to be brought into every situation that is a violation of the Cadet Protection Policy, but likely is not a criminal violation.
   

I actually agree with you here.  You can always call a commander first and comply with the regulation.  And there are a bunch of CPP violations that would not amount to a violation of criminal law.

]OK, here's another example:  A male senior member takes some older cadets to a hockey game, not as a CAP sponsored activity (the chain of command doesn't know about it).  They sit together, the senior member buys himself a beer while sitting with the cadets.   If he didn't buy himself a beer does it change the outcome    

Well, first let me point out that whether a higher level commander knows about an activity is probably not the most important factor in determining whether a given activity is an official one or not.

It would be one of many factors, but not the most important one.

My squadron published a schedule, of course, like most units.  But if something came up suddenly, like a uniform run to the local AFB on Saturday, it was not necessary to brief the group commander and get some sort of permission.  I suppose a group or wing commander could make their own rules on this, but that would be local policy, not a National-type directive.

Nor do I think that whether a senior member has a beer (or commits some other potential violation of a regulation) is very helpful in determining whether a given activity is an officially authorized one.  That just invites mischief rather than provides clarity.

Please see the example I gave above, where the senior member actually transports the cadets to a non CAP activity.   I do understand that that a chance meeting or association because of ones normally employment is not a violation of any policy.  Also though the hiking would be a CAP activity correct not just a senior member stating to a group of cadets, outside a meeting, hey lets go hiking, and there's no parental slips signed or no notifications (e.g. the chain of command doesn't even know it is going on) -- that's what I am talking about

I don't think it is very helpful to try to determine whether any particular cadet/senior contact is an "official CAP activity" or not, since it does not change your reporting responsibilities either way under the regulations.

Or even to the authorities. 

Whether an particular action is a crime or not does not depend on whether it was an authorized activity or not.  Similarly, things like a senior improperly fraternizing with a cadet is equally improper whether is occurs at an authorized activity or not.

Well again everyone has their own comfort level, and some folks that have been in the program a long time, are still very conservative, especially on overnight camping with both males & females,  (making sure a female senior member is present).    We all have our own personal risk avoidance standards.

No doubt.  And I imagine some seniors are sexist and/or racist.  Would it be OK for them to use their "own personal avoidance standards" and not go on activities where that was a minority cadet?

Of course not.

But as others have pointed out, by declining to participate in activities like your hypothetical overnight without a senior female present, you inevitably wind up hurting the female cadets.  And society has a name for folks who discriminate against females. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Well again everyone has their own comfort level, and some folks that have been in the program a long time, are still very conservative, especially on overnight camping with both males & females,  (making sure a female senior member is present).    We all have our own personal risk avoidance standards.

No doubt.  And I imagine some seniors are sexist and/or racist.  Would it be OK for them to use their "own personal avoidance standards" and not go on activities where that was a minority cadet?

Of course not.

But as others have pointed out, by declining to participate in activities like your hypothetical overnight without a senior female present, you inevitably wind up hurting the female cadets.  And society has a name for folks who discriminate against females.

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  IF a male member feels that he is at undue risk (with of course another male member present) without a female senior member being present (with cadet females attending), surely as a volunteer his concerns are important also   Likely the regulation was written to allow the most flexibility possible.   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.  BTW, in the units I'm aware of, they all seem to be able to get a female senior member to attend these overnight type activities.

Also regarding reporting, IF you don't have permission slips signed by parents for a CAP activity away from your normal meeting location; it is not on the schedule; and the unit commander or deputy commander for cadets is not aware of it, than it is (per my limited knowledge) NOT a CAP activity.    HOWEVER, I do understand that ANY activity a CAP senior member engages with cadets in, due to their association in CAP, likely would still be considered by CAP to still be required to meet the cadet protection policy/regulation/guidelines.
RM           

[Ned]

Ned, please note I stated above personal RISK avoidance standards.  ( . . .)   I don't think it's fair to pull the discrimination card on someone for this.

There is really no question that the actions you propose have a significant discriminatory effect on female cadets.  And only female cadets.

Is "I'm just not comfortable working with female cadets" really any different than saying "I'm just not comfortable working with minority cadets?"

Really?

"I'd rather not work with cadets with any sort of diagnosed disability.  I'm just not comfortable doing so."

Tell me again, what's the difference?  I'm glad you can internally rationalize your actions to avoid having to think of yourself as a misogynist.

But I'll bet a lot of folks who dislike minorities can rationalize their actions (at least to themselves) as well.

However, the significant discriminatory effect on our cadets is exactly the same, no matter what you tell yourself the "real" reasons are.

[ol'fido]

So, it all boils down to being aware of what the regulations and CPP ACTUALLY say and NOT what we THINK they say. Apply the "Reasonable Man Doctrine" and use some common sense and you should be fine.

RM, playing the "what if...?" game is fine to a certain, reasonable point, but when you take it to a ridiculous extreme it will just make you paranoid. OR, in your case, more paranoid.