Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2017, 09:02:53 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: FOUO, For Official Use Only
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print
Author Topic: FOUO, For Official Use Only  (Read 49512 times)
RADIOMAN015
Banned

Posts: 1,990

« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2008, 10:54:38 PM »

 ???I'd be very careful about any "witch hunts"...  NO CAP member has ANY authority whatsoever in CAP's name to ask ANYONE to remove ANYTHING from their personal website.   That includes ANYONE at National Headquarters.  You will get yourself burned & the organization will get burned if this happends. 

There's a lot CAP units with web sites around the country that still have lots of radio information on the public side of the website.  Use the right search terms and it will appear for the picking & monitoring.

The only true way to prevent monitoring of our frequencies is to "encrypt" the transmissions.  Otherwise, whatever the frequencies we in CAP operate on, it will be found and monitored.

RADIOMAN   

Cadet Turkal,

...snip..snip..

The real concern: Where did the Web site get more specific information than a twist of the dial may or may not have produced? Whether that information is correct or not, it represents a potential OPSEC violation.
...snip..snip..
All anyone has to do is Google "Civil Air Patrol frequencies" and they can find a bunch of stuff, as you know. That the information is out there means the Powers That Be need to get out there and warn the Web site operators they should be voluntarily mum on CAP operations, regardless of the veracity of the information. After all, we're a nation at war. Each of those Web sites -- whether they're accurate or not -- represents a violation that needs to be addressed by someone higher up the food chain than a squadron commander in Tampa Bay.


Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,864

« Reply #41 on: March 04, 2008, 01:16:08 AM »

???I'd be very careful about any "witch hunts"...  NO CAP member has ANY authority whatsoever in CAP's name to ask ANYONE to remove ANYTHING from their personal website.   That includes ANYONE at National Headquarters.  You will get yourself burned & the organization will get burned if this happends. 

There's a lot CAP units with web sites around the country that still have lots of radio information on the public side of the website.  Use the right search terms and it will appear for the picking & monitoring.

The only true way to prevent monitoring of our frequencies is to "encrypt" the transmissions.  Otherwise, whatever the frequencies we in CAP operate on, it will be found and monitored.

RADIOMAN   

Cadet Turkal,

...snip..snip..

The real concern: Where did the Web site get more specific information than a twist of the dial may or may not have produced? Whether that information is correct or not, it represents a potential OPSEC violation.
...snip..snip..
All anyone has to do is Google "Civil Air Patrol frequencies" and they can find a bunch of stuff, as you know. That the information is out there means the Powers That Be need to get out there and warn the Web site operators they should be voluntarily mum on CAP operations, regardless of the veracity of the information. After all, we're a nation at war. Each of those Web sites -- whether they're accurate or not -- represents a violation that needs to be addressed by someone higher up the food chain than a squadron commander in Tampa Bay.




They may not have the "authority", but I bet that if you ask nicely and give a good reason for your request, most people would take the stuff off their web site.
Logged
BuckeyeDEJ
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,069
Unit: GLR-001

« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2008, 12:47:37 AM »

Radioman, they also have the right to report troop movements if they see them. But we all know what happened when Geraldo did that.

I agree that encryption makes this discussion moot, but until that time, someone with some authority in CAP can ask the Web site owner to take the information down because of its sensitive nature -- regardless of whether it's accurate.
Logged


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group and wing PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member, at region level now
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now in marketing.
C JMeyer
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2008, 04:23:55 AM »

Im new but i think every CAP member either signed the OPSEC (operational security) form or agreed to it on e-services if you dont if you go
https://www.capnhq.gov/eServices.aspx?SID=97CF3FCB-5B53-4CFD-AE55-696E27D3522D
log on and select
CAP Online Exams
scroll down and youll see
View Operations Security Video (Optional) if that doesnt work select
  Download Operations Security Video (18635 KB)
hit open...
« Last Edit: March 22, 2008, 04:31:25 AM by C JMeyer » Logged
desertengineer1
Seasoned Member

Posts: 365

« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2008, 09:37:52 PM »

OK, folks.  I don't even begin to claim "authority" on this subject, but as a military member and a Comm guy, here is my $0.02 worth.

1.  I've noticed a disturbing number (albeit small) of people who don't understand what FOUO is, and go over the "spook" cliff, using words like classified and restricted, etc...   Let me be very clear, nothing the normal CAP member does is classified, and most important - none of us are authorized to be originators anyway.

The fault here lies with all of us.  We've done a poor mentorship job of explaining the what and why of FOUO and how it ties to frequencies (and other info).  FOUO is basically a tie-in extension of AF domain policy.  DoD owns the frequencies and set the authoritative policy foundation.  USAF is the component user.  CAP is USAF authorized to use them, and therefore must comply with the rules.  In those rules, OPSEC is the process we're required to use.  Frequencies are in the CI list.

Now, what is the reality?  What's fluff and what's meat?  The meat is just what we've all been briefed - frequencies are FOUO.  You don't give them to your scanner buddy.  You don't give them to your beer pal at the TV station to monitor. 

But there is also the fluff part - to which I'm sorry to admit - but it's a reality.  This is a rule that has no legally binding authority to us as CAP members.  I can sit at my computer and see every frequency at the local AF base on my PCR-1000 spectral display - even though those frequencies are also mandated as FOUO.  No dark clothed ninja spooks will carry me away for listening.  I actually think it's pretty hilarious to hear all the huffing and puffing authority talk about OPSEC and CI's, ect.. and then turn on my radio to hear exactly opposite in practice.  I know what airplanes are broken on the flightline, how many are code 3, who's ordering pizza through base ops, and  who's in the pattern overhead.  Sad...  but I can't change it, and I digress....

The same thing will happen with our new repeaters.  About five minutes after units come on line, they will end up on the scanner forums, and everybody will know.  The OPSEC rule has little teeth with the frequencies themselves.  Who is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute a 13 year old who gets caught blabbing?  No punitive authority is clearly defined anyway.  Absolute worse case, this will earn someone a 2B or a suspension.  No one will be going to prison, and if someone tries, lawyers will have a field day with all the holes and the lawsuits will ensue.  Clicking on an "I agree" button after a briefing is within CAP anyway (suspension, 2B, butt chewing)

Bottom line (reality) the FOUO policy letter was a box to be checked to meet AF OPSEC requirements, and is still something to be followed, regardless.  It places the responsibility on you, the members.  It doesn't matter how many sites the frequencies and PL tones are listed on, you still keep it protected because you represent CAP, and are directly entrusted with the information.  Joe scanner dude watching a spectral display isn't, and is free to post whatever he wants.  Your options are a little different.  If you want to wear the uniform and do the cool airplane stuff, you'll have to follow the policy.       
Logged
desertengineer1
Seasoned Member

Posts: 365

« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2008, 09:50:55 PM »

Radioman, they also have the right to report troop movements if they see them. But we all know what happened when Geraldo did that.

I agree that encryption makes this discussion moot, but until that time, someone with some authority in CAP can ask the Web site owner to take the information down because of its sensitive nature -- regardless of whether it's accurate.

Geraldo signed a very tight contract agreement with the USMC as a condition of his embedded status.  That also included documented, formal training on exactly what and what he was not allowed to discuss.  His violation of that agreement earned the trip home - at his own (network's) expense.  You signed nothing of the sort, so if you see it, no one can come after you. 

There are those rare times someone sees something they shouldn't have, and get a quick lesson on certain legalities.  But they usually sign NDS's when briefed, and those activities have certain presidential-tied authorities that don't come under john Q public freedom.  They also have goobs of legal process checks to boot.  Joe Q Public won't be around it anyway.
Logged
BuckeyeDEJ
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,069
Unit: GLR-001

« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2008, 12:41:05 PM »

GerryRiv went through embed training and spilled it anyway, so thanks for pointing that out (and for pointing out that I didn't). A journalist who agrees not to reveal certain sensitive information (be it off the record, deep background, whatever) has to stand by that agreement.
As a newspaper editor in real life, I know that if confidential information is revealed by an authoritative source (without an agreement, mind you) and I print it, the liability doesn't fall on my shoulders. Of course, I'm going to intensely grill a reporter to ensure my butt's covered.
In much the same way, liability doesn't fall on someone who publishes freqs and other guarded information on the Web after finding it through totally legal means.
When I said CAP NHQ can persuade Web site owners to take down sensitive information, it's no different than following up with someone to get a nondisclosure statement signed. Of course, it's like trying to stop leaks in a sieve, one hole at a time....
Logged


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group and wing PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member, at region level now
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now in marketing.
desertengineer1
Seasoned Member

Posts: 365

« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2008, 05:58:33 PM »

My post certainly wasn't intended to "catch"  LOL!   :)  I was deployed for two tours and was familiar with the standards they are put under.  With his history in previous news (Murrah), I wasn't surprised.  IMHO, I think he was lucky not to have the snot beat out of him and left tied to a stump.

With respect to information, lawyers can do a much better job with the details than I can, but I think it boils down to both what you are legally "oathed" to do, who the originator is (they signed the 312 in your example, not you), and the actual intent of the act when measured against the first two - an acid test.  For the military people, the NDA (SF 312) is the first part of the triad.  It is a legal record that you are briefed (and understand) your responsibilities - and does spell out the possible penalties.  As CAP members, you have signed no such equivalent (clicking on a web page button does not count).  Any "threats" of prosecution or legal action to someone who does release something like frequencies has no tangable teeth.  But the process within CAP does.  So while you most likely cannot be prosecuted or charged legally (as I have heard several members say, and patiently endure my drivel about it - LOL), CAP can darned sure issue suspension or termination - because it's well under the conditions of membership, and ultimately falls under the authority of the wing commanders (the membership priveledge vs right argument).

The AF (DoD) does not have jurisdiction over you as they do with military members.  Any yahoo can (and I expect they will) post wing frequencies.  You have no authority to force them to do anything.

Besides, some additional civil liberty arguments can be made that the moment a repeater is radiating, you're open broadcasting the frequency anyway.

I'm definately not advocating going against the FOUO policy letter and blabbing info.  I'm just being honest about the legal facts.  The frequencies WILL be available on google within days, and to assume otherwise is pretty absurd.  As a member, I follow the policy letter, say "sorry, can't help you", and press on to more important things that I can control.

Again, just my $0.02 thoughts.....


GerryRiv went through embed training and spilled it anyway, so thanks for pointing that out (and for pointing out that I didn't). A journalist who agrees not to reveal certain sensitive information (be it off the record, deep background, whatever) has to stand by that agreement.
As a newspaper editor in real life, I know that if confidential information is revealed by an authoritative source (without an agreement, mind you) and I print it, the liability doesn't fall on my shoulders. Of course, I'm going to intensely grill a reporter to ensure my butt's covered.
In much the same way, liability doesn't fall on someone who publishes freqs and other guarded information on the Web after finding it through totally legal means.
When I said CAP NHQ can persuade Web site owners to take down sensitive information, it's no different than following up with someone to get a nondisclosure statement signed. Of course, it's like trying to stop leaks in a sieve, one hole at a time....
Logged
MajFitzpatrick
Recruit

Posts: 23

« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2008, 07:21:08 PM »

I really have to agree with desert above. FOUO is a process we as members abide by. We can't punish civilians from getting the information. Just don't advertise it. We have secret and top secret stuff that gets out, Its a fact of life. We just need to try not to disclose this information so everyone knows (Even if they already do). Its the "game" we play.
Logged
Putting Warheads on foreheads
chanson1
Recruit

Posts: 5

« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2009, 09:00:35 PM »

Anyone know where I can find OPLAN-1000?
Logged
Christian M. Hanson
us11cav
Recruit

Posts: 28

« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2009, 12:57:03 AM »

Just a word of caution: Regardless of what freqs are published or not published--as has been mentioned here--the freqs are not encrypted, and people listen in with scanners. Someone from the FAA told me they were monitoring your traffic during a SAR and that they were "very turned off" by the fact that the CAP chatter had more to do with people worrying about who, what, when and how they were going to be paid for fuel used for the search, than with the SAR op.

Radio discipline is always a good habit. Save the chatter for the water cooler.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,922

« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2009, 10:37:25 AM »

Quote
Someone from the FAA told me they were monitoring your traffic during a SAR and that they were "very turned off" by the fact that the CAP chatter had more to do with people worrying about who, what, when and how they were going to be paid for fuel used for the search, than with the SAR op.
I can't say that I've ever heard that sort of talk on a CAP radio since that is usually worked out before the mission starts.  I suspect they were hearing talk about where to send fuel tickets and other documentation.  It costs a lot of money to launch an airplane and making sure that we get all the paperwork in order is absoulutely critical and is definetely official business.  If the FAA doesn't like us talking about it, they can just shove it. 
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2009, 11:38:36 AM »

Paying for the mission is part of the mission.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

N Harmon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: GLR-MI-063

Monroe Composite Squadron
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2009, 04:35:17 PM »

Civil Air Patrol tries to keep operational communications on our designated command and control frequencies as opposed to the AM aircraft band that FAA would be monitoring. That FAA expressed feelings of being "very turned off" seems to be more a reflection of their ignorance in how we conduct our operations.

Logged
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2009, 04:49:42 PM »

While some our membership can tell the FAA to shove it and how the relections of FAA ignorance and MAYBE

NONETHELESS, maybe we can conduct our operations and limit the chatter on fuel reciepts til on the ground..

Seems to me with CAP talking and preaching sterile cockpit when needed, the fuel reciept chatter CAN WAIT til on the ground.

The"critical" fuel paperwork can wait til the prop stops.  In my mind, as a very green MP, where I fly, that is CHATTER and not operational in the "box"

Pay attention to the SAR mission and do and talk the paperwork about fuel on the ground.

Just keep on keepin' on about telling the FAA to shove ........REAL PROFESSIONAL , folks
Logged
N Harmon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: GLR-MI-063

Monroe Composite Squadron
« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2009, 07:43:10 AM »

Of course, none of us have a clue who or what this chatter was about, or by whom so it's all speculation on our part. We don't know if this communication occurred before or after the prop stopped.

All I'm saying is that if the only communication of ours non-CAP people are aware of is our talking to the FBO about getting gas, then that is good opsec and kudos to the members for keeping CAP business on CAP channels.
Logged
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron
Cecil DP
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,208

« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2009, 07:23:47 PM »

Thanks for that. Itype fast sorry. What sensetive information do we broadcast on our radios that we dont want the general public toknow? The only thing I canthink of is names of deceased people we find. In my other little organiztion known as the United States Army, we do have very sensative items. I just dont see that in CAP. Sorry
And you still didn't use the spell check

A simple explanation of For Official Use Only is it's none of your business. If someone asks for information they have no need to know whether they're a member of CAP, the Armed Forces, or the media it's none of their business. If they persist refer them to someone higher in the chain-preferably the Information people. When I was at CENTCOM, I had no problem telling Colonels and a few Generals that  the information they were asking for was not available to them and if they had any problem with that there was a  BG was down the hall., who could tell them the same thing.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85
starshippe
Suspended

Posts: 238
Unit: ser-ga-072

« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2011, 05:45:08 PM »


. . are u actually looking for a copy of oplan 1000, or is it a trick question!!!???


bill
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,995

« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2011, 05:47:41 PM »


. . are u actually looking for a copy of oplan 1000, or is it a trick question!!!???

. . you denecroed
. . an 18 month old
. . thread
. . for that?
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Jack172402
Recruit

Posts: 10

« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2012, 02:40:30 PM »

Thanks for pledging this, as online security is an increasing problem in all governmental departments.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: FOUO, For Official Use Only
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.4 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me