I have just been told (by command) that we are not allowed to make *any* mention of Civil Air Patrol on Facebook or *any* social media. I have been advised to remove all references to CAP from my Facebook account. Is this what everyone else is being told? CAP is now to be kept as a secret? Cannot list our participation, no pictures of anything? I would suspect that even this website is now in blatant violation of CAP regs. Is this really what is happening?
Post restored
Did your command cite any authority, regulation, written order, etc? Or did you perhaps do something ( like add your squadron's facebook link to amsterdamkiddieporn.com's website?) that might have caused you to be singled out?
Major Lord
No one told the National Safety Officer because he is still up on Facebook and Twitter as I write this response. Must be a local thing.
Sorry, I can't talk about it now. It's not just me, it is for everyone in CAP - I was not singled out. No pictures of CAP aircraft, no mention of membership, no references to CAP. This website is probably in complete violation as of now. And no, I am not trolling or flaming.
I suspect the black vans are in route to all of our houses now. Good thing I'm on the road. :)
Quote from: c172drv on February 13, 2012, 02:03:55 PM
I suspect the black vans are in route to all of our houses now. Good thing I'm on the road. :)
I'm charging mah lazer!
Considering his other thread, I think that it's just a local issue. But just in case, I'm going to go hide in my zombie proof bunker now until the black vans pass.
No aircraft, no mention, no ..nothing.
Step back for a moment and just thing how incredibly ludicrous that sounds.
You'd need an army of black van people just to enforce it.
Talk about Unfunded Mandate.
They are quite serious about it.
They who?
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 03:38:11 PM
They are quite serious about it.
National has several facebook pages. My wing has Facebook, Twitter and Youtube pages and pretty much requires subordinate units to have face book pages. Prove what you are claiming.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 03:38:11 PM
They are quite serious about it.
Really? So then we should ignore the fact that no mention of this new policy exists anywhere on the web? And we should ignore the fact that National still has Facebook, Twitter, etc. active?
I think either someone is being stupid, or someone is pulling your chain. Or you really are just trolling.
Quote from: ß τ ε on February 13, 2012, 03:39:15 PM
They who?
You know...
THEY. Same folks who spread the chemtrails and put flouride in the water to act as a mind-control agent.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 13, 2012, 03:46:24 PM
Quote from: ß τ ε on February 13, 2012, 03:39:15 PM
They who?
You know...THEY. Same folks who spread the chemtrails and put flouride in the water to act as a mind-control agent.
The shadowy overlords, don't you know that?
No posting of anything on FB or other social media except through official channels. Was discussed at recent conferences. National is involved. So I am being told.
If that were true, they would never be able to stem the tide of hate mail from the members telling them to do impolite things to themselves.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
No posting of anything on FB or other social media except through official channels. Was discussed at recent conferences. National is involved. So I am being told.
All that means is "don't circumvent the mission PIO or echelon PAO". That's not new - posting things to FB or other social media outlets about missions and similar activity except by the IC or PIO has been verboten since the inception of ICS and OPSEC.
By the way, why did you nuke your post?
Not even sure I can talk about it here. Yes, I think this is stupid.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 04:00:46 PM
Not even sure I can talk about it here. Yes, I think this is stupid.
You misunderstood what they were trying to tell you. All you can't do is post mission pics or discuss mission activities without clearing it first. I've posted oride pics day of, because I sent an email to the wing PAO first and she gave me some simple stlye guidelines to follow and then cut me loose to do my thing.
I hope it is that simple. But that is not what I am being told.
Well, considering the original post was pulled, some may never know ;-)
Meanwhile, back at the farm..
https://twitter.com/#!/CAP_USAF_AUX (https://twitter.com/#!/CAP_USAF_AUX)
https://twitter.com/#!/civilairpatrol (https://twitter.com/#!/civilairpatrol)
https://twitter.com/#!/teamcap (https://twitter.com/#!/teamcap)
https://twitter.com/#!/cappawing (https://twitter.com/#!/cappawing)
https://twitter.com/#!/CivilAirPatrol (https://twitter.com/#!/CivilAirPatrol)
https://twitter.com/#!/ORCivilAirPatFA (https://twitter.com/#!/ORCivilAirPatFA)
https://twitter.com/#!/KY_123_CAP (https://twitter.com/#!/KY_123_CAP)
https://twitter.com/#!/nebraskacap (https://twitter.com/#!/nebraskacap)
https://twitter.com/#!/CAPDALLAS (https://twitter.com/#!/CAPDALLAS)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rocky-Mountain-Region-Civil-Air-Patrol/383563880460 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rocky-Mountain-Region-Civil-Air-Patrol/383563880460)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Civil-Air-Patrol/107647995924164 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Civil-Air-Patrol/107647995924164)
http://www.facebook.com/IndianaCAP (http://www.facebook.com/IndianaCAP)
http://www.facebook.com/AZWingCAP (http://www.facebook.com/AZWingCAP)
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 04:06:37 PM
I hope it is that simple. But that is not what I am being told.
What you are being told is crap.
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2180/kw/social%20media (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2180/kw/social%20media)
http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2253/kw/social%20media (http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2253/kw/social%20media)
David, all those links say is that CAP has a social media presence and that there is a committee being organized to look at social media.
They claim OPSEC for anything to do with the airplane. Even a picture of it sitting on the taxiway.
"I'm being told....THEY...."
Who's telling you, who is THEY? It's a far way from "ILLEGAL" to do so.
I just posted a picture of me and the Wing commander on my facebook, looks like I'm gonna do 20 years hard time now.
Again who is "THEY"....
They also say CAP is extending it's Facebook presence. I do think it is rediculous to get uppity about taking pics of the planes on the ground. I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...
Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk
(http://gocivilairpatrol.com/media/contentboxes/header_589757C8354BA.jpg)
Oh noes!!
(http://www.capmembers.com/images/soldiers.jpg)
(http://gocivilairpatrol.com/images/inside_header.jpg)
Oh, and "illegal"? No. Totally the wrong term.
Yes, it OK for CAP to have webpages, etc, and it's OK for squadrons to post stuff with approval. But, now it seems that you or I posting a picture of us in uniform or standing next to a plane or any pictures taken from the plane, etc... are illegal. And the reason I am being coy with the facts here is that I suspect "they" will even be upset with me posting about it. You also can't say/write anything that anyone might see as negative in any way about CAP or it will come back to haunt you.
I'm sure that arthurfreidheim actually heard, or thought that he heard, someone in his squadron tell this tale. Being a new member of this forum, I can see his desire to be the first one to post this "breaking news" about social media.
With all the members here that serve at Wing, Region and National positions, I'm sure that we would have had some heads-up.
At face value, the OPSEC claim is bogus. If you were to take a picture of airplanes parked on the ramp in front of my unit, it's the same view as from the other side of the fence.
However, there are some situations where CAP members have access to views not available to the public, and it might be appropriate for pictures of some areas to remain unpublished. This could, and should, be handled locally.
Wait a while folks....this is gonna get fun. >:D
You can't do it.
But you can't talk about it.
Oh, yes, did I say you can't do it?
But I can't talk about it to tell you who said not to do it.
Whatever.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg)(http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/august042009/cap_cadets.jpg)
Quote from: a2capt on February 13, 2012, 05:23:11 PM
You can't do it.
But you can't talk about it.
Oh, yes, did I say you can't do it?
But I can't talk about it to tell you who said not to do it.
Whatever.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg)(http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/august042009/cap_cadets.jpg)
^^^^^
Is that the guy from the Mummy movies and Spartacus: Blood and Sand? ;D
^^^^^^
Not exaclty the Aurora is it? They've made what....45,000-50,000 of them? ???
Now that the OP is restored I can say I've seen smaller loads of crap come out of a dairy. My wing PAO and Wing CV both have pics of themselves in uniform on their personal FB pages.
Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk
Funny, I spent about an hour with the NHQ/PA at the FLWG Conference this past weekend and he talked aboiut how social media is such a great tool and needs to be utilized more... And in fact there are initiatives in the works at NHQ that will promote or even require the use.
After seeing the original post, it is entirely possible the OP is getting this message from his commander. Now, it's also quite possible that said commander is overreacting to stuff coming down the line, probably from Air Force. There is a LOT of attention in the military right now about internet presence, especially unofficial sites.
Nope, we're the CAP not the CIA. 8)
It sounds like the nuclear way to prevent someone from doing something stupid on their social media page while having public ties to CAP (which could theoretically discredit the organization).
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 01:46:03 PM
I have just been told (by command) that we are not allowed to make *any* mention of Civil Air Patrol on Facebook or *any* social media. I have been advised to remove all references to CAP from my Facebook account. Is this what everyone else is being told? CAP is now to be kept as a secret? Cannot list our participation, no pictures of anything? I would suspect that even this website is now in blatant violation of CAP regs. Is this really what is happening?
Post restored
No, this is not what is happening.
Your commander may have said this to you, even in the direct way you've indicated here, however that directive holds no
legal weight outside CAP,
and unless you'e posting something which is false, violates OPSEC, or discredits yourself in uniform or CAP as a whole, difficult to enforce.
I am but a lowly lieutenant reporting what I was told by command above me.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 06:27:20 PM
I am but a lowly lieutenant reporting what I was told by command above me.
So your response to being told that any mention of CAP on the web is to immediately post about that on the web?
When people tell you things that don't make sense, or sound too far-reaching, your responsibility as an adult is to
"Trust but verify".
I still have my doubts you are even a member.
The "reg" quoted is the AP task guide, which talks about ownership of photos taken on cap missions. CAP owns them all. That, coupled with "sensitivity" of higher leadership about what members might post on FB is what is driving this now. Any flight is considered a mission.
I think this is misguided, but I am not in a position to fight it.
Stop feeding the troll, gentlemen. ::)
Only the most ambitious of trolls could contrive to make our organization's need to sensitively handle mission photographs into "CAP bans members from using tha Intarnets and all social media like everr and stuff! I swear iz true!"
Quote from: Pylon on February 13, 2012, 07:31:49 PM
Stop feeding the troll, gentlemen. ::)
Only the most ambitious of trolls could contrive to make our organization's need to sensitively handle mission photographs into "CAP bans members from using tha Intarnets and all social media like everr and stuff! I swear iz true!"
Nope, you don't get it.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 07:29:26 PM
The "reg" quoted is the AP task guide, which talks about ownership of photos taken on cap missions. CAP owns them all. That, coupled with "sensitivity" of higher leadership about what members might post on FB is what is driving this now. Any flight is considered a mission.
I think this is misguided, but I am not in a position to fight it.
The AP Task guide is not a "reg", and the reference regarding photos refers to the mission tasking photos, not random photos of CAP activities in general.
Common sense and OPSEC regarding mission work does not equate to a prohibition in regards to members posting photos of CAP activities on public websites.
You're in a position to use your common sense to stop trolling this board.
Pylon, can I give you a phone call?
Dude.
It seems that you are the ONLY ONE being told this. I am a squadron commander and they have not told me to stop. We have a squadron web page and a squadron facebook page.
I don't doubt that you are being told this. But I think maybe that someone has misinterpreted some information and things are getting blown out of porpotion.
A regular poster here is a member of the BoG....I am sure that if it was policy not to post on these sites he would let us know.
I really take offense at being called a troll. I am asking a real and legitimate question. I am not making this stuff up. Eclipse, quit making this into a fight. You are not helping.
Lordmonar, thanks for your comment.
You haven't "asked" anything. Corrected, see next post.
You've had exactly two threads on this forum.
One where you tried to characterize CAP as ignoring process and terminating people unfairly, and now one where you assert that CAP's use of
public web services is "illegal".
The best advice, again, is to follow the lead of your pseudonym.
Actually, the original post was a question, at the end, of a laughable reaction and declaration.
(http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/demotivational-posters-trolling1.jpg)
Thanks, you guys are really useless. I'm gone. Idiots.
Quote from: spacecommand on February 13, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
Nope, we're the CAP not the CIA. 8)
Ahhhhh! he said "the" CAP, and "the" CIA! It burns , it burns! Also, someone at National told me it was illegal, or possibly "Ill Eagle" to say "the"
Major Lord
"She said "Jehova!"
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 08:43:22 PM
Thanks, you guys are really useless. I'm gone. Idiots.
QuoteWe don't believe the words, we just love the way they sound
They're acting like we're idiots, They're lying to our face
Maybe we are idiots, we buy it anyway
The listserve used by PAOs has had a thread on social media going on recently (which had posts from very high level PAOs) and nothing was mentioned about any changes.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 08:43:22 PM
Thanks, you guys are really useless. I'm gone. Idiots.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!
^^ Great Safety Message!
Quote from: HGjunkie on February 13, 2012, 08:42:53 PM
(http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/demotivational-posters-trolling1.jpg)
You and your .jpgs
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 08:43:22 PM
Thanks, you guys are really useless. I'm gone. Idiots.
Thats where you went wrong. You forgot that the singular form of the word idiots is idiot, and that you are supposed to use out when leaving a conversation. And over, never forget over.
It should have looked like: "Thanks, you guys are really useless, over. Idiot, out."
Much, much more appropiate. All of these conversations are being monitored due to social media concerns, and the black vans seems to take notice of people who do not use correct radio protocol.
Way to go folks, acting like a bunch of jerks.
The adults were bad enough, but where did you cadets ever get the idea being so disrespectful is acceptable?
Quote from: EMT-83 on February 14, 2012, 12:33:05 AM
Way to go folks, acting like a bunch of jerks.
The adults were bad enough, but where did you cadets ever get the idea being so disrespectful is acceptable?
From watching us Seniors, why?
Quote from: EMT-83 on February 14, 2012, 12:33:05 AM
Way to go folks, acting like a bunch of jerks.
The adults were bad enough, but where did you cadets ever get the idea being so disrespectful is acceptable?
Where did calling people idiots go become acceptable. It is a two way road, and I refuse to show respect to someone who does not show it to me. Your point, which comes from a good place, does not apply to this situation. I expect everyone here to be held to the same standard. If we are not, than we should be flagged with either cadet or senior member, so we can clearly identify what standards we abide by. And what des that say for Senior Members, that they are allowed to pick on people, but cadets are not? Sorry if you find this disrespectful, but I am troubled by the double standard.
Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action. And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind. And you will find that life is full of double standards.
Quote from: abdsp51 on February 14, 2012, 01:30:12 AM
Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action. And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind. And you will find that life is full of double standards.
I firmly believe the world would be a better place if more idiots, were told they were idiots. Less diplomacy, more honesty.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 14, 2012, 01:41:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on February 14, 2012, 01:30:12 AM
Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action. And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind. And you will find that life is full of double standards.
I firmly believe the world would be a better place if more idiots, were told they were idiots. Less diplomacy, more honesty.
[/quote
I agree, but as with everything there is proper way to go about it.
Interesting how someone would think this kinda crap applies to CAP, when the military has loads of content out in the open... I guess we're just too high-speed secret-squirrel for them.
LOL - I've been called worse, for less. What the heck. It's still laughable and absurd.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 14, 2012, 01:41:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on February 14, 2012, 01:30:12 AM
Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action. And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind. And you will find that life is full of double standards.
I firmly believe the world would be a better place if more idiots, were told they were idiots. Less diplomacy, more honesty.
That makes two of us. I'm a very blunt honest person. Diplomacy today means not hurting feelings and letting problems persist until a solution can be made that won't hurt someones feelings. I can say some of the biggest lessons I learned so far in my time came with hurt feelings.
Its impossible to remove 70 years of this, that and the other. And if you can't tell us who "THEY" are; than someones yanking your chain or your messing with us. Are you afraid that if you tell us who "THEY" are that the people in the black vans will snipe you from two miles away? ???
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 05:08:33 PM
Yes, it OK for CAP to have webpages, etc, and it's OK for squadrons to post stuff with approval. But, now it seems that you or I posting a picture of us in uniform or standing next to a plane or any pictures taken from the plane, etc... are illegal. And the reason I am being coy with the facts here is that I suspect "they" will even be upset with me posting about it. You also can't say/write anything that anyone might see as negative in any way about CAP or it will come back to haunt you.
CAP and or the GOV don't have enough money to remove
70 years of information. Is just not possible.
Quote from: spacecommand on February 13, 2012, 05:47:55 PM
Nope, we're the CAP not the CIA. 8)
Exactly you're absolutely right CAP is
"NOT" a Black Ops organization. Matter of fact we are far from it. And until we are told other wise we will never be.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 13, 2012, 06:47:36 PM
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 06:27:20 PM
I am but a lowly lieutenant reporting what I was told by command above me.
I still have my doubts you are even a member.
well i wouldn't go there he maybe new at it.
Quote from: arthurfreidheim on February 13, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
No posting of anything on FB or other social media except through official channels. Was discussed at recent conferences. National is involved. So I am being told.
;D The National Board has made several attempts to create guidelines for posting on social networking sites and internet "blogs". However, a certain mention of something called the "1st amendment" to the US constitution always halted further discussion. I think there is a group still trying to figure out a way to sync our freedom of speech with the need to protect the good name of Civil Air Patrol. There is also CAPR 110-1. This is NOT an attempt to ban anyone's freedom to post opinions, pictures, facts, BS or, other such materials here on CT and other sites.
Now, I'm going back to eating some buttered popcorn to enjoy the rest of this... :o
Quote from: davidsinn on February 13, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...
Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk
But taking pics at any airport is bad, ever sense 9/11 is a NS risk. I was taking pics of my car in the parking lot and got maybe two pics in and TSA swarmed around me took my cam and that was that.
The Region PAO came by last night and we spoke for awhile. He stated as far as photos on social media go that you follow the same guidelines you would for any other press release. He also stated National is very supportive of social media. In fact he reminded me that their is a class from the 2008 PAO Academy on social media that is available online.
Quote from: usafcap1 on February 14, 2012, 12:10:07 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 13, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...
Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk
But taking pics at any airport is bad, ever sense 9/11 is a NS risk. I was taking pics of my car in the parking lot and got maybe two pics in and TSA swarmed around me took my cam and that was that.
That's a load of bullpuckey.
Taking pictures at an airport does not pose any risk to national security...whether before or after 9/11. I would have asked those TSA maroons what legal authority they had to take your camera in a publicly accessible parking lot.
Modified to add a really handy document for photographers: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf (http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf)
Quote from: FW on February 14, 2012, 12:02:16 PM
However, a certain mention of something called the "1st amendment" to the US constitution always halted further discussion.
Aw, the old First Amendment canard. The first amendment bars federal government interference with the protected rights. Via the 14th Amendment those protections are extended to restricting state government action. There are no First Amendment rights assertable against private persons or corporations, which CAP is, with some exceptions such as shopping malls that function as the modern commons.
The only thing that bars CAP from attempting to restrict the alleged and non-existent free speech rights of its members is the fear the members will quit if CAP goes overboard and overbroad.
Quote from: RRLE on February 14, 2012, 01:06:36 PM
Quote from: FW on February 14, 2012, 12:02:16 PM
However, a certain mention of something called the "1st amendment" to the US constitution always halted further discussion.
Aw, the old First Amendment canard. The first amendment bars federal government interference with the protected rights. Via the 14th Amendment those protections are extended to restricting state government action. There are no First Amendment rights assertable against private persons or corporations, which CAP is, with some exceptions such as shopping malls that function as the modern commons.
The only thing that bars CAP from attempting to restrict the alleged and non-existent free speech rights of its members is the fear the members will quit if CAP goes overboard and overbroad.
While I am generally one to make the "1st Amendment doesn't apply to private organizations" remark...CAP is kind of a hybrid public-private organization.
While I think it would be undeniable that CAP could restrict members publishing information about corporate events without running afoul of the1st Amendment (as a private organization), once you cross into the "Acting as an instrumentality of the United States" territory (for example on an A5 SAREX), you would probably be subject to 1st Amendment protections.
Quote from: usafcap1 on February 14, 2012, 12:10:07 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 13, 2012, 04:58:15 PM
I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...
Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk
But taking pics at any airport is bad, ever sense 9/11 is a NS risk. I was taking pics of my car in the parking lot and got maybe two pics in and TSA swarmed around me took my cam and that was that.
This guy owns a hangar on that particular airport. The ramp was directly visible from a county road and a state highway. This was a major exercise that was given a lot of media coverage. Running an av-fan off is not a good idea in that case.
The TSA is a bunch of fascist goons and a complete and total joke. Their very existence is an affront to the constitution.
Besides rampant unsubstantiated rumor trolling, we've now delved right into name-calling and politics. I'd say we've crossed several lines here. Recall, please, that this forum is primarily for sharing information of professional interest and use for fellow CAP members. We're not a rumor mill. And while confirming confusing matters or sharing pertinent new information can be an important part of keeping abreast as a volunteer professional, this "rumor" is clearly unsubstantiated in any form (and fairly outlandish to begin with); if the OP legitimately wanted to know if this was true, I think we've all included sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Since this is effectively resolved and the direction of the thread has now devolved into politics, name-calling, and mockery: lock.