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

[Eclipse]

helio - you're not even discussing the same issue.   

This has nothing to do with whether CAP is a private or public org, or its overall positive press, and everything to do with the new issues being brought to the front when the entire world is digitized and indexed.

25 years ago your photos weren't posted in a public area that the entire world could see, comment on and reuse to their heart's content.  Nor was your unit bulletin board indexed for 1-click searching, and the pictures there weren't tagged so that every bit and byte is further crossed referenced into the tubes.

As to your comments on OPSEC and FOUO - 25 years ago your written communications weren't being scraped for content by dozens of mail servers all over the world.  The computing capability to listen or scrape for key phrases across millions of messages didn't exist, let alone be available to anyone with a few hundred dollars for botnet access.

25 years ago, the ability to send a single photograph to the entire world and end the career or credibility or someone or an organization with a single click was non-existent.

Ask Michael Phelps what he thinks about privacy and the internet.

[heliodoc]

Thanks for help , Eclipse

I know the dangers of today quite well

Thanks for the current day education

Phelps and I we are on the phone right now......

[winterg]

The Phelps issue is a perfect example.  Maybe he shouldn't have used drugs.  Then his amazing accomplishments wouldn't be so tarnished.

If we make sure we are acting properly (and look professional) when in CAP uniform then any pictures can only help our image.  The same can be said for our personal lives.  If you don't want a picture of "it" getting out (excluding OPSEC issues) you probably shouldn't be doing it! lol (speaking from experience  )

As to the concurrent issue being discussed in this thread.  Please put the copy of 1984 down.

[flyguy06]

I have my army pics on Facebook. Whats the big deal?

[Eclipse]

I have my army pics on Facebook. Whats the big deal?

You...want...them...there...

[M.S.]

I have my army pics on Facebook. Whats the big deal?

zOMGSss!!! OPSECx violations!!!!111  Teh Bad guys will find us all now!!  They now know what Civil Air Patrols AND Army members looks liek!  They will be able to take over now.   Did you get model releases from EVERY other Army dudes in the backgrounds?  And have them each fill out individual personal privacy feelings surveys?  

[PhoenixRisen]

I'm so glad that you get pages and pages of images of "The Bronx Bomber" (an 80's boxer) when you search my name.  Phew.


(Ok, ok - fine - one picture actually comes up of me... In a group, from 2006...  But that's about it)

[flyguy06]

I have my army pics on Facebook. Whats the big deal?

zOMGSss!!! OPSECx violations!!!!111  Teh Bad guys will find us all now!!  They now know what Civil Air Patrols AND Army members looks liek!  They will be able to take over now.   Did you get model releases from EVERY other Army dudes in the backgrounds?  And have them each fill out individual personal privacy feelings surveys?  

[NIN]

Let me steer this back on topic a bit..

I guess I shouldn't have to remind some folks that today's social networks are to, say, bulletin boards & newsletters what email was to the telephone and the postal service nearly 15 years ago.  Truly I am amazed that there are folks, especially folks within the technology field, who hold fairly Luddite views on these things.  

I was the IT Director at a small liberal arts college up here in New England until about 4 1/2 months ago.  During my tenure there, Facebook arrived, and then EXPLODED all over the face of things, so to speak.  I was present during the first discussions between students and the administration over the concept of "Internet privacy" as it pertained to Facebook.

A number of students were decidedly unhappy (I believe the word was "pissed" but the curse filter may obviate that word) that at some point during the vetting process for Residence Advisors, someone looked on Facebook and noted a number of photos depicting some RA applicants who were less than 21 with alcoholic beverages in their hands.  This resulted in these applicants having their applications placed in the "EPIC FAIL" pile.  

These students were unhappy that someone had gone onto a public place (Facebook) and observed photographs of them posted in that same public place, in most instances posted BY THEM (I believe this was before the concept of "tagging" was brought to FB but I could be wrong), doing things that were something you don't want your RA's doing and especially don't want them condoning of their charges.  Especially after most of them swore up and down they were as virtuous as alter boys.

I sat in these meetings in amazement.  Kids had just posted photos of them doing something illegal, in a publicly accssible forum, and then had a sufficient degree of logical disconnect to swear up and down that they should not be judged on either their colossally poor judgment or their obvious inability to connect cause with effect.   They said things like "Well, those are my photos, you shouldn't be looking at them." or "I didn't post them for you to look at, just my friends" or my favorite "The Internet isn't a public place. Its the Internet." (oh, man, after that guy graduated, he worked for the Department of Redundancy Department.")

Finally, I got fed up and said to the head instigator, a young man who was very intellectually smart but possessed less common sense than the armrest in my car: "OK, let me pose a hypothetical to you.  You just got back from the local Walgreens with your double-prints of the film from your latest frat party bash.  So your buddies will see them, you make sure that you stick them on the bulletin board in the hallway.   Some days later, the area coordinator (a staff member who supervises the RAs) sees these photos, and remembers that you're not old enough to drink. Even in Canada.  The some weeks later, when its time to interview RA candidates, this area coordinator remembers your 'Tower of Molson Power' image from the frat party and decides that your statement of 'I would never condone underage drinking' does not square with the image of you doing Atomic Keg Stands, or the pic of you passed out in a crumpled heap in the living room of the frat at 18 years old.   He declines to hire you as an RA for the coming academic year.  Who is wrong here?  You, the guy who drank underage, and then posted photos of it for everybody to see, while at the same time saying you don't condone underage drinking and expecting someone to believe that stinking load of crap, or the area coordinator, the guy who doesn't want a lying weasel with piss-poor judgment and a terminal case of the stupids to supervise freshmen next year? And besides, if you pinned up your photos in a public place, like that hallway, you have now COMPLETELY lost the expectation of privacy.  Think of Facebook as that bulletin board..."

Clearly, their argument stemmed from a slightly different situation, however.  Had this guy's buddy stuck up on the bulletin board a photo of  this guy, clearly passed out from excessive consumption, with Sharpie, *ahem*, phrases scrawled on his forehead, without his permission or knowledge, and the area coordinator looked at them, the buddy is surely at risk for screwing his friend, but does it change the fact that the behavior occurred anyway?  No.

Its like these so-called "celebrities" who wind up with photos or video of them doing really intimate things on the Internet.  If you pose in front of the camera, or allow yourself to be photographed by your amateur cinematographer boyfriend doing things your mom doesn't need to see, chances are you're going to be giving mom a show eventually. Nature of the beast.  Would help if you just didn't do it in the first place, or have photos taken of it, in any event.

I make sure that people have a tough time taking photos of me doing something stupid. I don't always succeed.  

[Eclipse]

You're still assuming the issue here is getting narc'ed out doing something dumb.

I don't care if its the best staged portrait of me ever taken - if I want it posted publicly, I'll do it myself.  Have photos of you doing something "awesome" in CAP? Fine - there's no reason to be tagging all the other random people in the photo so that searchs for them come up as well.

[Pylon]

You're still assuming the issue here is getting narc'ed out doing something dumb.

I don't care if its the best staged portrait of me ever taken - if I want it posted publicly, I'll do it myself.  Have photos of you doing something "awesome" in CAP? Fine - there's no reason to be tagging all the other random people in the photo so that searchs for them come up as well.

You do know that active tags only can be made if you have a Facebook account, and you can remove the tags of you on anyone's photos (which also prevents the user from retagging them), right?

[NIN]

Two things I thought of this morning...

I know two guys who are on Facebook.  Each is, obstensibly, a "public figure."   One is a political operative in Michigan, the other an aspiring country & western signer in Nashville.  Each is a former CAP cadet.

In every instance where one of them was tagged in a photo from "Back In The Day," they've untagged themselves.  In the C&W singer's case, its because he's using FB as a marketing vehicle and photos of him looking like a gigantic high school chess club dork in an Air Force uniform are probably not going to be beneficial to his demographic. (oh and he sure looked like a gigantic high school chess club dork back then, too.  Thick glasses, etc... I can see why)

In the other instance, I suppose that this "political operative" wants to downplay his background.  Whatever.   Honestly, after I had friended him up all I got was reams upon reams of BS political rantings in his status updates (it was right around the election) and stuff that he was doing on a radio show he hosts.  I soon realized that maybe his untagging of all his CAP historical photos was actually for the best, since I didn't think that CAP would much want to be associated in any way with an outright hack like him.   I unfriended him a month or so later because I got tired of the vitrol.

The other thing that I wanted to bring up was part of my post above but I got distracted and my laptop was running out of juice.  At the same time we started having these Internet privacy discussions with the students, the administration also started ramping up its presence on Facebook.  Some of the more savvy profs were already there  and in a meeting of all the middle-management team, people were encouraged to setup FB pages on their own.  Some folks (ie. admissions) offered to help the less knowledgeable.  Admissions had been using FB like crazy for many months and they had a fairly well developed FB presence.

One of our profs who was also the Dean of Faculty came to me, distraught at the idea that she *had* to put her personal information on FB and that people would see it.  I patiently explained to her that she had fairly granular and nearly complete control over what information was there and what was available to whom.    And my overriding caveat to the whole thing was "If you don't want it there at all, just don't put it there."

Sure, your name is there. Maybe even a nice flattering photo.  But you can restrict and control just about EVERYTHING else.

She now has a nice, simple FB page that allows her students another avenue to get in touch with her, and yet nobody still knows where she lives, who her husband is, who her dog is, etc, etc, etc....

Its hard to control the presence if you don't participate.  If you do participate, however, you have a much better chance of controlling the message.

[winterg]

^+1

[Rob Sherlin]

  Sometimes you can't stop the photos from appearing...The fact you have to realize is that there is no danger from it unless there's information with it..." This is my buddy "so and so" who is affiliated with "such and such" organization. And even then, I really don't think anyone is out to target CAP members, it would kind of be a waste of time to terrorist and such ( I really don't know what the fear is about ). If you are the main subject in a picture, then they should ask you for permission. If you're just in the background....well, most people don't usually put that much information in those situations as to where you need to fear anyway.

[JoeTomasone]

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. 

Ahh, negative, sir.    The law on this is pretty clear; photographs of you used for personal things are fair game, but commercial use without permission is a big no-no.   The company that made that ad owes you money, and likely damages since it was used without permission (depending on the law in France which I am admittedly unfamiliar with).

Generally speaking, your photograph can be used in conjunction with reporting news without license.  However, a newspaper cannot use your image in a way that falsely portrays you. 

And before anyone gets carried away, these are (pretty good) generalities, but each State has their own right-to-privacy/publicity laws. 

As far as Facebook goes, if a member posts your photo, you have no legal recourse.

[Rob Sherlin]

 OK, maybe I missunderstood the intent of the post. I was under the assumption that the upset was caused by someone the individual knew........My mistake. I agree, general media such as news and such is different, but why would it be a topic on myspace? Granted I don't participate on myspace and really just see it as a way to "show off"....."Look at me, I have a website", type of thing. But from what I understand about myspace, it's mostly just individuals. So, what pictures could someone be talking about? If it's someone just using your photo maliciously out of revenge or whatever reason with a caption or story that's untrue, you may not be able to do anything about the posting of the photo, but can't you sue for slander?

[winterg]

Myspace and facebook came in very handy when I was away in the military and when my friends were/are.  It is a valuable tool to keep in touch and exchange messages with friends and family, sometimes on a daily basis.  I live very far from any family and see them only once or twice a year.  But with Facebook and I can chat with them as often as I want for free.  Like any technology, social networking sites can be used for anything from frivolous inanity to actual practical applications and everything in between.

I do like Facebook for the fact that if I do not add you as a friend (and I don't unless I personally know them) you cannot see my profile or anything about me or my pictures.

[Eclipse]

It is a valuable tool to keep in touch and exchange messages with friends and family, sometimes on a daily basis.  I live very far from any family and see them only once or twice a year.  But with Facebook and I can chat with them as often as I want for free. 

People say that all the time.

How is this different / better from email and IM?

[Pylon]

People say that all the time.

How is this different / better from email and IM?

Uhm, besides being completely different from the basics of its design and concept?  Or was that rhetorical?

[NIN]

People say that all the time.

How is this different / better from email and IM?

People said the same thing about the phone and the US Mail, too....

[winterg]

It is a valuable tool to keep in touch and exchange messages with friends and family, sometimes on a daily basis.  I live very far from any family and see them only once or twice a year.  But with Facebook and I can chat with them as often as I want for free. 

People say that all the time.

How is this different / better from email and IM?

I would not say it is better, mostly different.  With email, I compose it and send it off to the people I "believe" will care what I have to say.  With Facebook, I write on my wall and my friends, who WANT to can come by and read what I have to say and comment, sometimes beginning a dialogue.  Facebook also has a real-time chat function that I use on a regular basis.  I am kept appraised as to the goings on with my friends and family much easier than email alone would allow.  

As I said, this is not "better or worse" then they way it used to be done.  Merely different.  It seems like the most vehement condemnation of this new technology comes from those who do not use it and do not fully understand how it works.  Are there ways to abuse these sites? You betcha.  Just watch the news.  But wouldn't it be better to keep on top of these types of sites in order to better help our cadets navigate the pitfalls?

How many of your cadets have Facebook pages?  How many of them routinely discuss engaging in risky behavior on those pages?  

The question we should be asking is how can these social networking sites better help us to provide open and honest guidance to our cadets on issues that are relevant to them today.

[PhoenixRisen]

Are there ways to abuse these sites? You betcha.

Any form of communication nowadays is succeptable to abuse... Even e-mail.

Wait...

Does that mean I'm really not a bajillionare all thanks to that Ethiopian prince I gave my credit card number to???

[darn]!   

[notaNCO forever]

Are there ways to abuse these sites? You betcha.

Any form of communication nowadays is succeptable to abuse... Even e-mail.

Wait...

Does that mean I'm really not a bajillionare all thanks to that Ethiopian prince I gave my credit card number to???

[darn]!   

Wait that was a scam? 

[PhoenixRisen]

Wait that was a scam? 

They all seemed so trustworthy...

[Eclipse]

My bud in Nigeria was just telling me to watch for those Ethiopians, bunch of crooks.

[NIN]

My bud in Nigeria was just telling me to watch for those Ethiopians, bunch of crooks.

Really? I just sent my good buddy in Nigeria a check for $20,000 to open the account he's going to deposit the entire GDP of Burkina-Faso into...

[Stonewall]

My bud in Nigeria was just telling me to watch for those Ethiopians, bunch of crooks.

Really? I just sent my good buddy in Nigeria a check for $20,000 to open the account he's going to deposit the entire GDP of Burkina-Faso into...

Ethiopia?  Nigeria?  Burkina Faso?

Been to all three of those countries.

[PhoenixRisen]

Ethiopia?  Nigeria?  Burkina Faso?

Been to all three of those countries.

Stonewall's the real Nigerian, Ethiopian, and Burkina Fasoan (?) Princes!!

I totally figured it out!

[winterg]

Topic.....

Oh wait, thought I was MIKE there for a sec! 

[MIKE]

You wish!

[winterg]

You wish!

Who doesn't? 

[wingnut55]

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?

So those  who have never held a law enforcement position you do not understand and I defer to your uneducated remark.

So i will make it plain. I work in a law enforcement situation, my dmv record is sealed, we have people who threaten to kill me or my family or my dog every month!! this is how they "other side" operates. I suggest that CAP does not properly prepare it's members for the actual dangers that involve CAPs involvement in 'Contractual Work " for customers. Until someone gets popped for what we do or the bad guys seek revenge.  4,000 law enforcement personnel have either had their heads cut off or their remains melted in acid. Oh but that only happens south of the border. this year We have had several officer in the L.A. Area assassinated going to work .

I am pointing out the potential dangers of sharing your involvement to the world, but some people think the Drug War is a TV show.

We live in a bad world and playing cops and robbers is no joke. But in the Military there are places were  photography is allowed, I am not a public official so no one in CAP has the right to "Publish my Picture on the Internet. We stupidly wear civilian cloths and fly red white an blue Airplanes. But we are a deterrence, like a security guard at the drive in Theater.

If you dress up like a Union soldier in Richmond Virginia you might get the snot kicked out of you.

but I digress, what are we talking about?

[PhoenixRisen]

what are we talking about?

Burkina Faso? 

[MIKE]

Lock.