eservices trust & privilege

[SarDragon]

My ending commentary follows.

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.

You quoted my post, and then attached commentary not related to its content. I made no mention of any of these items - "transfer," "Ops Qual," WIMIRS - therefore I shouldn't be taken to task because others dig out this information and post it. If you think I've done something improper, then address things that I have done, and not those of others. Don't lump me in with the others just because it's convenient. If I screw up, and get caught at it, I'll take responsibility for it. I am not compelled to be responsible for the behaviour of others. That, IMHO, is not being thin-skinned.

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.

I repeat for the benefit of anyone who missed it the first time:

The general info available to all members (perhaps only SMs) is:
Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit

Anyone (perhaps only SMs) who can log into eServices can click Member Search on the left hand menu, and get the above info on any current member in the database. [I add the SM comment, because I don't know what a cadet screen in eServices looks like.]

So it's not just commanders and other command level persons who are able to see, and use, this info. BTW, I don't recall posting any of this specific info on anyone myself, although I may have discussed things on a general basis without revealing personal info.

I'm done. Y'all can battle on without me. I'm gonna lurk for the entertainment value now.

[Daniel]

Name
Grade
CAPID
Unit

Anyone (perhaps only SMs) who can log into eServices can click Member Search on the left hand menu, and get the above info on any current member in the database. [I add the SM comment, because I don't know what a cadet screen in eServices looks like.]

Hi, Cadet here. Before everyone goes all "Leave this thread and never come back, SM are talking" (which predictably is coming)

A) Remember, Cadets can and are reading this and every thread..
B) I can confirm, that the only information I see in "member search" is my own.

peanut gallery out.

[JeffDG]

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 

That, sir, is an unfounded assumption.

[FW]

^Yes, a clear case of unfounded assumption indeed.  I ask forgiveness for my "senior moment" 

[JeffDG]

^Yes, a clear case of unfounded assumption indeed.  I ask forgiveness for my "senior moment" 

I know it was unfounded, because I looked in my last CAPWATCH download at the "Citizenship" field and....nah, just kidding, I knew it was unfounded because I'm from the GWN.

[FW]

And, I'm pretty sure our friend from Lichtenstein is in the "other than U.S. citizen" field as well; aye?

[Major Carrales]

My ending commentary follows.
I'm done. Y'all can battle on without me. I'm gonna lurk for the entertainment value now.

Have it your way, friend.  Just be advised that it is possible that I, or anyone else, can make more than point in a post or thread.  The world does not necessarily revolve around you and thus, if someone replies to your post...then makes another point contributing to the greater discussion, its not "calling anyone out" its a discussion.

If its all that improper to further a discussion, the mods can lock the thread. 

Still, I cannot see how anyone (including and excluding you) could defend the practice of using the CAP official e-services to try to "one up" someone here.

[NIN]

I don' t know about using it to "one up" someone, but to establish the bonafides of a particular individual?

ie. If I came on here and started spouting a bunch of crap about how I like to fly our planes in > 60 degree banks and less than 1000 ft AGL during a search, I'm _reasonably_certain_ that everybody with access to the appropriate modules would be in the database going "Is this dude for real?"

Why? Because they wanna see if I'm a hoopie, stirring up crap in the forums (a heck of a sport, as evidenced by this thread), or if I'm a for-real CAP pilot who needs to have his ability to fly CAP planes revoked (and maybe a certificate action) so he doesn't wind up taking himself and three others to their reward in a 100LL-soaked pile of twisted aluminum.

Now, I make some statement like "I prefer to make my approaches at 100kts and only a notch of flaps" someone might go "Uh, what?" and then see if I'm a pilot or not (I'm not, BTW) and say "OK, shennanigans.  You doing this in Flight Simulator?"    Or, I might say "Yeah, I'm fully checked out in MT-7s, C-172s, T-41Bs, C-182, C-206s, the GA-8 and the Blanik gliders.." and someone might say "Wait, this sounds fishy, I need to check this out."   So maybe  I am checked out in those things (I'm not) and that person sits back and says "Hmmm, ok, cool. Sounds like this guy has his stuff in one sock" and is able to lend further credence to things I say WRT C-206 weight & balance, or the best way to crab a Blanik on short final.

Or, maybe, its determined that I _don't_ have those qualifications.  Then I say "I'm a unit commander, I give cadets pushups, and I put $100 from the unit's petty cash in my pocket each week.."   Now you say "Uh, wait, he was full of it on that other thing, is he just kidding?"

I'm not saying you should post people's info.  But certainly, confirming that they're not a poseur is probably not a bad thing.

[Major Carrales]

NIN, I have to cry foul on some of that (I see what you are saying, but am bothered by one aspect).

CAPTALK discussions, in the grand scheme of all this, are not worthy of using official e-service materials to be "outing people."  If some fellow comes on here and makes statements about flying...this or that...I would think that the OFFICIAL CAP safety and flying programs would be the appropriate authority, not CAPTALK discussions.

No one should take CAPTALK as serious as it seems some people do.  I take it serious as a place where I can float ideas, filter proposed squadron programs against the experience and knowledge of those here.  Also, to promote communications with other people in CAP from across the nation. 

I try not to use it as a place to influence policy (as in let me post the way I think I should be so that some Col and read it and bring it up at the National Board), hammer some Wing Commander I don't like or try to zoom in on some new cadet here for a "really cool" dog-pile on them with threats to contact their commander.

It is often claimed here the CAPTALK is not an "official" place, however, over time that is forgotten.  This issue is one such occasion.  Using e-services FOUO info to win arguments in CAPTALK crosses a certain line.

As for unsafe practices being boasted about on CAPTALK...one has to run this rubric...1) Is this person even in CAP, (a few "in forum" questions will address that after a while) 2) if so, is what they claim truthful and 3) if it is genuine, what official channels do we follow.  People come onto forums all the time causing trouble.  Until there is an official forum one has to be a CAP member to join, this will always be an issue.

As for using CAPTALK as a whistle-blower's tool?  Can't say I can speak for that either way.  I have seen, already written about this in an above thread, seen alleged "lies" become "questionable suspicion" then to "rumor" and then make the leap to becoming "gospel fact," on these forum with no substantiation.  But using FOUO info on CAPTALK is inappropriate.  There are official channels and systems in place for that...this is not one of them.

[Pylon]

Okay Joe, I'm calling the bluff.  Can you link to any thread where someone inappropriately used e-services information to "one-up" someone, win an argument, make another person uncomfortable, or "out" an anonymous user?  One single instance?  Ever?


I'm not seeing the "enemy" that this "crusade" is getting all preachy about.  It looks like a lot of vitriol about a non-issue to me.

[Major Carrales]

Okay Joe, I'm calling the bluff.  Can you link to any thread where someone inappropriately used e-services information to "one-up" someone, win an argument, make another person uncomfortable, or "out" an anonymous user?  One single instance?  Ever?


I'm not seeing the "enemy" that this "crusade" is getting all preachy about.  It looks like a lot of vitriol about a non-issue to me.

Here's one...

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=77.msg6045#msg6045

Mhmm, and on what system are you a Mission Scanner? 'Cause e-services doesn't say you are.

Oh, and how do you get GTM 3 through GBD all done in the same month? Is that when your wing switched from paper to MIMS?

Here is a page where someone is asking for instructions on who to access e-services for uses of less then official nature...

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2127.msg36565#msg36565

Is there anywhere where I, as a humble worker bee in CAP, can search for other members?  Im just curious to see if some people are still around.

[NCRblues]

I hate to sound like a school boy but, uh-hum....."OH ITS ON!! ITS ON LIKE DONKEY KONG"

[NIN]

NIN, I have to cry foul on some of that (I see what you are saying, but am bothered by one aspect).

Cry foul all you want.  I wasn't talking about outing people or whatever.   I spoke of establishing bonafides. Entirely different.

Like Pylon, I run a message board. Occasionally (and thankfully, in almost 10 years, only _very_ occasionally) we get someone who tries to make like they are someone who they are not.  They act like they're an authority on flying or the infantry or something.  And then something they say comes across "odd," and we think "What, uh, hold on one sec.." and we do a little careful checking.

Why? Because people tend to believe crap they read on the Internet more and more every day. And cadets (sorry, guys, its true) are pretty gullible sometimes in that regard.  "But it was in Wikipedia.."

Let me put this in another way.

You're an educator.  Thankfully, schools check the credentials of educators pretty carefully before they hire them. But what if they didn't?  Or maybe they were in a pinch for a substitute that day?

What if you had a suspicion, based on what a fellow teacher was saying around students, that something wasn't quite right? (Cops would use the world "hinky" here..) 

And it just so happened that you had access to the school's personnel system for some reason (you know, you're on the social committee, right??) and could find out where the guy worked last? 

Since you didn't want to just march right up to the principal on a hunch and potentially wrongly accuse the guy of being a dirtbag or a liar, you poked your head in the personnel system, saw where he worked last, and called a buddy who worked at that same school.

So you buddy says "Oh, he's a great guy, real squared away, but occasionally its like he has tourettes or something, weird things just pop out of his mouth.."  (*whew* Glad I didn't toss this guy under the bus with the principal...)

Or your buddy says "Him? Jeebus, dude, call the cops. He's not supposed to be within 200 ft of anybody under the age of 21, let alone IN a school..."

Was it wrong to use the personnel system to potentially avoid embarrassment and scorn, or to potentially keep a person who should not be around students away?  In that case, sure.

(Think it can't happen? Think again. A couple year back, many of us got burned by a Canadian Forces "LCol" who not only purported to be a currently serving CF officer whilst being a Canadian Air Cadets officer, but in fact had been ejected from his cadet organization against his will due to, ahem, improprieties, and was still associating with cadets!  And was not ever in the Canadian Forces in any capacity, let alone as an officer and let alone as a LCol.  And this kept on because nobody bothered to check his bonafides until he started saying things that were... odd.  And then, someone just did a "stupid check" against what he was saying, and not only was what he was saying bogus, but the reasons he was saying it, supposedly as a CF officer, was bogus, too.   Mind you, I stood in my living room on a casual summer day one year chatting on the phone with a CF Captain in the Canadian Forces personnel division at CFHQ in Ottawa, Canada, ascertaining that I had a fraud on my hands.  I've seen this one up close and personal, let me tell you.  And I had to tell two of my best friends in the world that a guy they trusted was a phony. Man, that was a tough one..)

Again, I'm not saying you should "out" someone just to out them.  But if you find evidence of impropriety while just checking to make sure someone is on the level?  Its in your best interest to do so post-freakin'-haste.

It is often claimed here the CAPTALK is not an "official" place, however, over time that is forgotten.  This issue is one such occasion.  Using e-services FOUO info to win arguments in CAPTALK crosses a certain line.

Yeah, again, I'm not saying that e-services data should be used in that way at all.  Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.

As for using CAPTALK as a whistle-blower's tool?  Can't say I can speak for that either way.  I have seen, already written about this in an above thread, seen alleged "lies" become "questionable suspicion" then to "rumor" and then make the leap to becoming "gospel fact," on these forum with no substantiation.  But using FOUO info on CAPTALK is inappropriate.  There are official channels and systems in place for that...this is not one of them.

Well, since the 5,000 lb elephant in the room is that this bruhaha got started over the discussion of whether Sean Fagan overstated his qualifications a little during an interview, and someone just did some basic fact checking, you tell me: Is a CAP colonel making a statement about being qualified to "fly everything," when it appears to be that he's qualified to "not fly everything" or even "not qualified to fly -anything-" in the press a smart move? Is it indicative of a leader you would tend to trust? 

I don't know the guy from Adam.  Hell, I'm not even in CAP anymore (check out my dead sexy "Retired" ID card...Gets me a cup of coffee if I hand it over with a buck...)  so I don't have a dog in this fight, even.

As far as I knew, he's probably the greatest GA pilot ever to grace the skies since, uh, who was that guy? Roscoe Turner!  Maybe he's checked out on everything from a Piper Cub to a B-747.  Awesome.  Thats a guy from whom I would believe aviation information.

Oh, wait, he's not? Whoops.

[Major Carrales]

NIN, you and I are in agreement some 90%.  Fact is, if I were to try to do some "fact checking" of the sort you mentioned in my school district I would likely be fired...or censured.  Every person in Texas has to undergo a fairly strict background check with photo ID issued and any withholding of info (as in if the background check revealed something or if one committed an infraction and attempted to hide it from the police) warrants instant termination.  Putzing around (narrowed term from Pylon, I am familiar with its Yiddish origins) with personal/personnel date is verboten!

And since Pylon suddenly is the "works cited" police...
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=6.msg17#msg17

Normal teachers are not privy to that information.  We are privy to student info, but on an FOUO basis if you will.  Let's say, for example, I taken an instant dislike to some student I do not have and start pulling up all sorts of info from the "on line grade book."  The using this info on a student I have no official dealings with?  The ethics of that are questionable. 

Now if I were a coach or other sponsor, I could look into their grades and the like to monitor their academic achievement...but I have an "official capacity" as a coach.

Same as here...aside from being a member of the organization I have little need or cause to have access to, let's say, Pylon's records...unless he was down here for Hurricane Relief or visiting our unit.  But in those cases, I would have an official capacity to look it up...the prior as a likely MS looking up ES data for a mission the latter to examine his credentials to participate fully/interact in the activities of the Squadron...again, in my official capacity as squadron commander.

But to look it up to win a CAPTALK debate or make an ad hominiem attack here?  Specious argument at best.

Look, Pylon challenged me to find an instance of the practice, I found one...I suspect there might be a handful of others (I have a Mariachi gig in Alice, Texas at 7:00 so I can't waste too much "real life" time scouring through posts looking for them.)

Despite that, the practice is, in my opinion, a violation of ethics.  If its has happened here more than once...let us just resolve to prevent it in the future.  Gentleman's Agreement?

[HGjunkie]

Okay Joe, I'm calling the bluff.  Can you link to any thread where someone inappropriately used e-services information to "one-up" someone, win an argument, make another person uncomfortable, or "out" an anonymous user?  One single instance?  Ever?


I'm not seeing the "enemy" that this "crusade" is getting all preachy about.  It looks like a lot of vitriol about a non-issue to me.

It's been happening on a semi-frequent basis here.

[Mustang]

Just to put a slightly different spin on this, there are a whole lot of NB members who wish they'd been alerted to the fact that Chuck Carr had a domestic violence conviction on his record prior to casting their ballots for National Vice Commander.

Just sayin'.

Knowledge is power.  Withholding knowledge is...well, abuse of power.

[AirDX]

Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.

Insensitive, but hilarious!

[NIN]

Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.

Insensitive, but hilarious!

Totally.

And thats coming from the parent of a kid with special needs.

[Mustang]

Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at Special Olympics: Even if you do win, you're still retarded.

Insensitive, but hilarious!

Totally.

And thats coming from the parent of a kid with special needs.

That's nothing compared to her dad's special needs! ;-)

[ol'fido]

Why don't we crank it down a notch every body and do what we usually do in this situation. Turn it into a unform thread.