eservices trust & privilege

[James Shaw]

I have noticed several posts on CAPTalk that make reference to member's records in eservices. These are records that people are looking up and describing to some extent on this forum. There have been references made about their current qualifications, ranks, and the like. This is not what our "granted access" is for. That information is supposed to be used for CAP purposes and not for forums.

Those members that request and are granted access need to remember that it is not a "right" it is a "privilege" granted by CAP. They need to be mindful of the OPSEC training you should have taken. If you have access to eservices and are posting this information on CAPTalk or any other forum you are violating that trust.

[JeffDG]

Good points.

Just because you can access some information doesn't mean you should.  And certainly sharing confidential information, regardless of how widely distributed it is within an organization, outside the organization is a big no-no, and I'm not even talking about OPSEC, just basic confidentiality provisions that almost every employer has.

An example, as an IT guy, I have access rights to just about anything on the network at work...does that mean I can go pawing around in HR or payroll records to see what I can find about co-workers?  Nope...I have the access rights, but with that goes the responsibility to determine what I actually need to do...

[BillB]

If CAP followed the military classifcations, the information on eServices would be classified as RESTRICTED. Someone accessing eServices in an area that doesn't concern them and posts it on CAPTalk or CadetStuff should have their access revoked.

[a2capt]

It does say right there in the top:

This Data is for OFFICIAL CAP USE ONLY All other use is prohibited. Read Me

But since it's access is available from the left side of the screen, it isn't asked for by the member specifically, either, though one could argue, and the ToS agreement probably confirms it, that by requesting password access to the system at all is in effect requesting access.

There are times when use of access to membership data may be a proper use in a non-official forum like this, when abuse of other members or impersonation is taking place, and dealt with behind the lines.

[coudano]

I think fouo ist theterm you are looking for
In other words, ypu should only be accessing, let alone releasig information for official use

Busting this might be actionable...
Though maybe not the way capis set up, heh

Wrt it, you shouldnt even as an admin, have complete access.  Leas privilege ftw . Thats a breach waiting to happen

[Major Carrales]

I'm sure some person will attempt to defend the practice citing all sorts of nonsense or even real technicalities...however, Integrity should be placed into practice and Respect should be considered as being part of our core values.


Additionally...
I have noticed the above practice many times.  It seems to be that we should attack one's message not on as an individual.  An ad hominem attack has little place here...and one backed up with data from e-services has NO PLACE here.  Imagine that...looking up such things for the purpose of one-upsmanship?

What message is it supposed to be saying?  Maybe "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?   Don't MESS WITH ME"  and "I CAN SQUASH YOU LIKE THE WORM YOU ARE!"

I hope to never use such tactics. 

[SarDragon]

The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit

I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.

YMMV.

[JeffDG]

The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit

I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.

YMMV.

True, about the profiles, but what I or another member chooses to reveal about him/her self is a different matter entirely from what someone else reveals on their behalf.

[Westernslope]

The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit

I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.

YMMV.

The difference is that those CT members who display more chose to display more.

Most members would have some reasonable expectation that information in e-services would not be used/misused by other members for personal reasons. Depending on permissions, a lot more information can be obtained for members inside and outisde of a unit.  Just today, a CT member  posted the aircraft rating/currency of another member.

I would bet that members outside CT also have used e-services for personal reasons but hopefully they are not passing on information on message boards, blogs, social media or elsewhere. AND I am sure that they know that e-services is to be used for official CAP business!

IMO it is, at the least, a clear violation of core values of respect and integrity and should be subject to disciplinary action. 

[Mustang]

Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.

Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.

[Thom]

Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.

Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.

That may be, but I would suggest that the prudent course of action if you believe you have uncovered wrongdoing is to contact your Inspector General or your Commander, NOT to post it on a public forum.


Thom

[James Shaw]

I feel that if anyone uses there access to eservices and puts that info on a forum of this sort, there access should be removed.

If a member chooses to put their info in the forum than that is their business.

There is no justification for using access and then putting that info out.

[NCRblues]

Let me start off by saying, i do not believe that information from eservices should be used here on captalk, or anywhere else for that matter except for official CAP business.

Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.

Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.

That may be, but I would suggest that the prudent course of action if you believe you have uncovered wrongdoing is to contact your Inspector General or your Commander, NOT to post it on a public forum.


Thom

Now i have to ask a question. What happens when contacting the IG, or your commander doesn't pan out? A public forum would be your only answer then. If the chain fails you (and it does fail sometimes, don't try to brief me that it never fails) where do you turn next? Who will listen when no one in the chain cares anymore? Sometimes public uproar is the only thing that can bring people back down to earth from their positions on high. Information is power, and secret squirrel stuff in CAP has gotten out of hand again. So when all else fails, where do you turn if you cant turn to the general CAP members on a public forum?

[Major Carrales]

The general info available to all members is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit

I don't see how someone can do much harm with just those items. Many CT members put much more info in their profiles.

YMMV.

Don't play coy.  What is being described here are those occasions when someone "looks up" someone for the purpose of making a "cool come back" or "THREADSTER KILL SHOT."


Looks something like this...

CAPTHREADSTER: "Hello, every one.  Just came up here to ask about SUBJECT X.  I was told by my squadron commander that PRACTICE X was used at a local SARex.  I prefer PRACTICE X to how is it generally done."

OFFENDER: "PRACTICE X is not the way it should be done.  We have used PRACTICE Y and it works for us.  PRACTICE X is ridiculous."

CAPTHREADSTER: "I disagree...PRACTICE X is used through out our Wing, even mentioned in SUPPLEMENT K under CAPR 60-X."

OFFENDER: "That is WRONG.  In our Wing we found that MATTER Z, does not allow PRACTICE X to work.  (sarcastic) It's not like I'm and expert or anything...I am only SO-AND-SO and appointed as X in my Wing."


CAPTHREADSTER: "That might be so, MATTER Z does not exist in our area and is not a factor.  SUPPLEMENT K was approved for this purpose."

(here it comes...wait for it)

OFFENDER: "Well, I looked up/googled your email as it is in your profile and you are assigned to SQUADRON W and are listed as only GES and UDF.  You don't having anything compared to me.  Suppose I send a letter to Capt SOMEONE.  How dare you try to hold a candle to me?"

This is what is being discussed here.  Using the "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS and other sorts of thing I could imagine using to get this information for the purpose of the classic "CHEAP SHOT."

Nowhere is it even close to being acceptable to use CAP E-SERVICES for such a thing.  Also, this place is "unofficial" and the data there in is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

[SarDragon]

Nice jab, but none of what you brought up - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - is in my list, nor is it available to the general membership.

It's OK to bust my chops, but be fair about it. Address the specifics of my post when doing so. If you want to throw out fangs in general, be general all the way around.

[Major Carrales]

Nice jab, but none of what you brought up - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - is in my list, nor is it available to the general membership.

It's OK to bust my chops, but be fair about it. Address the specifics of my post when doing so. If you want to throw out fangs in general, be general all the way around.

Oh please...suddenly your thin skinned?!?  I'm addressing things that I have seen in this forum and the nature of the topic at hand.

The topic begins...

I have noticed several posts on CAPTalk that make reference to member’s records in eservices. These are records that people are looking up and describing to some extent on this forum. There have been references made about their current qualifications, ranks, and the like. This is not what our “granted access” is for. That information is supposed to be used for CAP purposes and not for forums.

This means that what you are talking about isn't even germane to the topic at hand since "current qualifications, ranks, and the like" indicates that it is commanders and other command level persons (those "granted access") doing this.

[Thom]

Let me start off by saying, i do not believe that information from eservices should be used here on captalk, or anywhere else for that matter except for official CAP business.

Last I checked, making false statements to or concerning CAP was a terminable offense.

Uncovering wrongdoing in that regard is not a violation of trust, it's upholding our core values.

That may be, but I would suggest that the prudent course of action if you believe you have uncovered wrongdoing is to contact your Inspector General or your Commander, NOT to post it on a public forum.


Thom

Now i have to ask a question. What happens when contacting the IG, or your commander doesn't pan out? A public forum would be your only answer then. If the chain fails you (and it does fail sometimes, don't try to brief me that it never fails) where do you turn next? Who will listen when no one in the chain cares anymore? Sometimes public uproar is the only thing that can bring people back down to earth from their positions on high. Information is power, and secret squirrel stuff in CAP has gotten out of hand again. So when all else fails, where do you turn if you cant turn to the general CAP members on a public forum?

These questions are moot until the proper avenues of redress have failed. And even then, we must sometimes accept that we are powerless to change things, even when we know they are wrong.

If a situation so grieves you, after exhausting all avenues, including direct contact with the IG at a higher level, that you are unable to bear the thought of the situation continuing then I would recommend that you resign. This organization has a very comprehensive review and oversight program, much more open, available, and powerful than in many other organizations, and if that entire program has failed to address an issue to your satisfaction, then it is likely that you are incompatible with the organization.

Anyone who wants to air dirty laundry in a public forum to address a wrong should consider it only as a last resort when fraud, waste, and abuse so shock the conscience that no other course is justified. I would suggest that in the presence of evidence of such overwhelming evildoing or negligence, one would be better off contacting one's congressman than a public forum. The congressman at least has some (roundabout) method of investigating and correcting the issue at hand, at least insofar as CAP still accepts taxpayer dollars.

On any matter lesser than that level of FWA, I would suggest you salute and execute. Life is too short to bemoan that the IG won't make Major so-and-so stop wearing the blues even though he is 30 pounds overweight, or that the Transportation Director always gives your squadron the oldest van in the wing.

Worrying about these things, after you have addressed them to the proper avenues, is counterproductive to our goal: Citizens Serving Communities, Performing Missions for America.



Thom

[Major Carrales]

CAPTALK is not a forum for addressing grievances against individuals, gather disciples for personal perceived injustices or for influencing policy.  There are official channels and those are the only channels that matter in terms of policy.  The problem has been, in CAP forums, that people seems to think that this is a place to do all that and more.

Someone has a problem with a WING, REGION or NATIONAL COMMANDER and comes here to try that person in the court of public opinion.  In the end, all that does is further rumor and innuendo of all kinds.

I have seen, between the existing forums, people posting speculations at one forum and then it quoted as fact on another and then the "if you see it in more than one place it must be true" axiom used to turn lies and half-truths into COLD HARD FACTS.  Then those facts turn people against one another.

These sorts of things cause nothing but division since, even if all CAPTALKERS vote in a poll on here, it will not change, IAW regulation et al, the outcome of anything...but WILL make enemies of people who should be friends.

We should be here to help each other...not play petty politics and use every item at our disposal, be it quals, unit location or the like, to basically "blackmail" a person off of a point TO WIN AN ARGUMENT IN CAPTALK?  Am I the only one that sees how ridiculous that is?  How inappropriate it is?

[Pylon]

I'm sorry, did I miss something?   Like perhaps the thread where we allowed members to make attacks against other members?  Or willfully "out" a member who wished to remain anonymous?  Or where we allowed people to make unsubstantiated accusations against people?   


Because I don't recall any of these things going on.  Not sure why this thread is even going on so long.  We have a member code of conduct and an expectation of professional behaviour from all of forum members, and our policy and expectations haven't changed since day 1.

[FW]

I see two different lines of discussion brewing here.  The first is using FOUO eservices information to violate the CT code of conduct.  The mods would take care of that pronto (thanks guys).

The second line is diving into a can of worms.  Trying to correct wrongs by posting here "when proper channels fail".  Well, there may be some instances when this would be appropriate. After all, we are US citizens and there is something called the 1st amendment.  However, to accuse or criticise someone, I would attach hard evidence backing up an accusation to the post.  Otherwise, I would clearly state it is your opinion that there is a wrong because of x, y and or z.  It can't be fact and rumor/inuendo.

I have absolutely no problem with adding sunshine to a cover-up when discovered.  That's the American way and, those who do wrong should be warned.

YMMV