http://www.chat11.com/Basic_Communicator_Training (http://www.chat11.com/Basic_Communicator_Training)
Why would anyone do this? Is any of the info in the ACUT and BCUT Wikis of consequence?
The Wikis can be edited by anyone but should we be watching it to make sure it doesn't come back? Should the owner be contacted concerning the posted items?
Doesn't look like it violates any regs. It's an open note test anyway, corrected to 100%.
You can google CAP FREQUENCIES and get anything you would really want covered under OPSEC anyway.
Same difference with OHWG posting the "cliff notes" to ECI 13.
Both are good refreshers, IMHO.
Brian
PAWG
Quote from: Rangercap on August 22, 2008, 04:18:30 PM
Doesn't look like it violates any regs.
Actually it does since it mentions the [snip]mhz frequency which is FOUO.
Quote from: Rangercap on August 22, 2008, 04:18:30 PM
You can google CAP FREQUENCIES and get anything you would really want covered under OPSEC anyway.
I can also find members violating other regs, doesn't mean that *I* can do it. That argument sets a bad example IMHO.
Doesn't Radio Shack sell frequency charts that spell out who uses what frequencies? (what ranges are licensed to whom?)
Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 22, 2008, 07:23:57 PM
Doesn't Radio Shack sell frequency charts that spell out who uses what frequencies? (what ranges are licensed to whom?)
They used to - I don't think they still do - and they were generic (i.e. "Government" as opposed to "MacDill AFB flight line operations", etc). They also sold(/sell?) Scanner Master, which did/does identify individual frequency users.
well... its been edited... it now says:
Quotewant to know about the civil air patrol, visit www.gocivilairpatrol.com
but who knows how long that will stick... No time to check but the past versions are probably still there....
Quote from: JoeTomasone on August 22, 2008, 07:20:06 PMActually it does since it mentions the [n]mhz frequency which is FOUO.
Um...
If you find web sites that contain information that should not be posted about comms, you should notify your Wing DC so he can address having it taken down, instead of just ignoring it or perpetuating it.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2008, 11:25:49 PM
If you find web sites that contain information that should not be posted about comms, you should notify your Wing DC so he can address having it taken down, instead of just ignoring it or perpetuating it.
I questioned it as I was not sure. I guess I could have inquired the same of the Wing DC. I will keep that in mind for the next time. Thank you.
I was running out the door when I made the edit to those pages. Like I said the original is still listed if one was to look at past versions. Has anyone brought knowledge of this to their Wing leadership?
Any chance you took care of this Eclipse? (Don't want to duplicate your efforts unless needed) And the wiki owner really only needs to be contacted by one competent person.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2008, 11:25:49 PM
If you find web sites that contain information that should not be posted about comms, you should notify your Wing DC so he can address having it taken down, instead of just ignoring it or perpetuating it.
What's the Wing DC going to do, sue them?
"Stop or I'll... Umm... Throw my hat at the monitor! I Mean business, mister!!!!"
LOL!
There's nothing we can do. NHQ and the Comm folks are aware of the situation.
I recommend anyone who has the idea CAP is an enforcement agency, or think the spooks are going to come after them, take 30 minutes and read AFI 10-701. OPSEC is NOT what you think it is.
Quote from: RiveraJ on August 24, 2008, 04:09:13 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2008, 11:25:49 PM
If you find web sites that contain information that should not be posted about comms, you should notify your Wing DC so he can address having it taken down, instead of just ignoring it or perpetuating it.
I questioned it as I was not sure. I guess I could have inquired the same of the Wing DC. I will keep that in mind for the next time. Thank you.
I was running out the door when I made the edit to those pages. Like I said the original is still listed if one was to look at past versions. Has anyone brought knowledge of this to their Wing leadership?
Any chance you took care of this Eclipse? (Don't want to duplicate your efforts unless needed) And the wiki owner really only needs to be contacted by one competent person.
Like I said in a previous post, this is not classified information. Anyone coming across such information can freely post it openly. The only thing CAP has authority (if you can call it that) to do, is issue corrective actions if the individual speaks as CAP. That situation is covered under the membership agreement and the OPSEC tab you pressed.
You can email the wiki owner all you want, but be very careful, you can only ask them to remove the information as a favor, or something similar. You CANNOT threaten them with anything beyond that - especially if you wear the CAP badge in such an email. THAT can get everyone into trouble - worse case, we get a visit from someone like the ACLU or the person's attorney.
I'm an OPSEC guy for the military and am frustrated. We've done an extremely poor job of explaining what OPSEC is, and our responsibilities with respect to what we can and cannot legally do.
I'm more frustrated with some members on this board. After it's been explained to them time and time again, some posters continue to treat this as borderline police state information.
You guys need to CHILL....
...Or as I've heard it put: "It's OPSEC, not GESTAPO". :D
I agree with desertengineer
OPSEC has been a runaway word, buzzword that has been worn out
When "you" join the RM, then the CAP membership will get a REAL treat was OPSEC is
Some of CAP freqs are as common as 122.8 and 122.0
Some of CAP's stuff MAY warrant OPSEC, but what kind of horsepower is behind it??
When CAP gets its self into a true fold, if we ever do, with DHS type of missions, then a OPSEC issue MAY come around. But running around with the "sky is falling" type of "wannabeeeeee spook" stuff makes CAP look like ambulance chasers
Probably the best legal issue would be for CAP to copyright the stuff. Much easier to prosecute, if they wanted to go that far, then OPSEC. Especially when no two members in CAP have the same definition of OPSEC.
Quote from: arajca on September 02, 2008, 03:16:07 AM
Probably the best legal issue would be for CAP to copyright the stuff. Much easier to prosecute, if they wanted to go that far, then OPSEC. Especially when no two members in CAP have the same definition of OPSEC.
Mere lists of information (such as the designator documents) have been deemed to be uncopyrightable by courts in the past, mostly centered around phone book listings as I recall - but also has been extended to baseball statistics lately (MLB Properties sued some fantasy leagues and lost because the court ruled that facts cannot be copyrighted).
So someone publishing a list of our frequencies (and designators) likely could not be successfully prosecuted. Posting a manual or other easily copyrighted work would be an interesting court case since essentially all government-created documents are in the Public Domain, but CAP's status is unique.
The topic here is the B-CUT adn A-CUT materials, which could be copyrighted.
Then refer to the second paragraph. :D
Regarding copyrights, go here (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci).