Opsec training for cadets

[Pylon]

My gosh Mike, read the thread you're posting in!

Lancer answered your question yesterday: "Immediately after completion of OPSEC training insert a copy of this report into each member's personnel file, place the original in the unit's master file, and report completion online in Ops Qualifications."

Sorry... haven't had my caffeine yet.   

[Ned]

One question we asked, and haven't had answered yet is "How do you make a minor child agree to anything?"

As a parent, I still wonder about that.  Some of the toughest battles of my life have been spent trying to convince my five year old daughter to wear socks to school.

No offense intended to the cadets 'round these parts, but if you ain't 18, you can't sign a contract for any reason.

I'm not sure you meant what you said here, because minors sign contracts all the time.  Heck, WIWAC, we actually had to sign a formal written  contract for each cadet achievement promising to study the materials, do our physical training, and participate in the Moral Leadership discussions. 

I suspect you are really asking about enforceability of contracts involving minors.

Sure, they can sign a hundred NDAs, problem is how can we enforce it since they can't legally be held accountable for anything?

Remember, there are two components to the OPSEC thing -- training and the NDA.

Cadets benefit as much -- if not more -- from training as any senior member.

And I don't think CAP ever contemplated much litigation against members for violations of the NDA.  Even contemplating suing members in 52 different jurisdictions (not counting the overseas units) would be a daunting prospect for our legal officers.

But there are other remedies available to CAP in the event of NDA violations.  Most of these are administrative, and apply equally to minors and adults.  Things like internal discipline, loss of privileges, and perhaps even membership.  Both cadets and seniors can be demoted for misconduct.  That sort of thing.

But it is nice to have the same standard of training for both cadets and seniors, don't you think?

Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

[Galahad]

I have never understood why OPSEC is now required for every member in CAP.  If it's true "operational security", then OPSEC should be part of GES.  If you participate in ES operations then you need OPSEC. If not, then you really don't have any operational knowledge to share with outsiders.

If the real purpose of OPSEC is to function as a corporate non-disclosure agreement that can be applied retroactively following any embarrassing information release, then it has little to do with actual operational security concerns.  We ought to call it what it is - "CAP-NDA" a contractual tool that wing commanders can use against members that speak out of turn.  It has nothing to do with "loose lips sink ships."

I can't wait until cadets start using OPSEC for leverage at home:  Mom: "Hi son, what did you do at CAP this weekend?"  "Sorry mom, you know I'd like to tell you where we went and what we did, but you're not OPSEC cleared!"  Mom then speed-dials the squadron DCC: "$#%#@!!"   

[RogueLeader]

I have never understood why OPSEC is now required for every member in CAP.  If it's true "operational security", then OPSEC should be part of GES.  If you participate in ES operations then you need OPSEC. If not, then you really don't have any operational knowledge to share with outsiders.

What about comm freqs?  I know that they can be found online, but still, you don't have to be in GES to get them.  I had my A-CUT almost a year before I get ES qualified.

[Tim Medeiros]

Not to mention members personal information that while not as sensitive as frequencies are still for official use only such as email and mailing addresses and phone numbers.  I'm sure you don't want your contact information being sold to others by SM Smith who works in telemarketing.  Believe it or not, but every SM has that information for their unit at least.

[Nick]

Let's try this on for size.

You have a cadet. You give that cadet an NdA to sign. He/She just accepted an order from a senior CAP officer to protect sensitive CAP information ("I will obey my officers", that the parent agreed to in approving the application with his/her signature). If the cadet breaches OPSEC, you don't pursue legal binding of the document itself -- the document was a written acknowledgement of an order given by a senior CAP officer, and the cadet violated it. Ergo, 2b, have a nice day.

[flyguy06]

But what does 2b mean to some cadets? Some people dont really care about being 2b'd. If they are going to give out personal  informationthey are going to do it wheather you 2b them or not

[ADCAPer]

Not to mention members personal information that while not as sensitive as frequencies are still for official use only...

He/She just accepted an order from a senior CAP officer to protect sensitive CAP information...

You have both hit on one of the key failures in the way CAP has handled this program. To begin with, OPSEC is not about dealing with classified information, and it is much more than dealing with FOUO or FOIA information.

National has implemented a training program, but they have yet to issue the Critical Information List that goes with it. You can't just tell people "how" to protect information, you have to give them a clue as to "what" to protect.

Did anyone happen to catch the e-mail that the Georgia Wing distributed a few weeks ago concerning the pilots that were no longer authorized to fly becaause they failed to meet some Wing policy? It was distributed to every member (and a few non-members) of the Georgia Wing who are on the mass e-mail system. It was obviously an attempt to embaress a select group of people, but it is a prime example of a blatant OPSEC violation.

[Nick]

You have both hit on one of the key failures in the way CAP has handled this program. To begin with, OPSEC is not about dealing with classified information, and it is much more than dealing with FOUO or FOIA information.

National has implemented a training program, but they have yet to issue the Critical Information List that goes with it. You can't just tell people "how" to protect information, you have to give them a clue as to "what" to protect.

Heh heh.  I didn't want to touch that (yet), but you're absolutely right.  That's the problem -- everyone has their own definition of what are the essential elements of critical information.  Obviously, NHQ considers anything they classify U//FOUO to be protected under the OPSEC policy.  But, no subordinate levels of command have guidance on what information to protect (outside of Privacy Act information)... and therein begins the perpetual cycle of ever-changing standards.

[mikeylikey]

^ I am glad that in the military the cover of each FM or REG will state what can be released, who it can be released to and if it should be shredded before we are over run by the enemy.

Actually, I have not picked up a paper copy of an FM for about 3 years, except for FM 6-20 because my electronic copy would not open in the PDF reader the AF sent me on the memory stick.  Man, I don't know how we all did it reading paper copies of regulations and manuals.  With a mouse and a monitor I can search for the info I need and cite references like I actually know what is going on.  (Iraq taught me one thing, if our computers go down, it gets awfully stressfull until they get them running again).

As for OPSEC for CAP, when I first heard it was going to be required, I thought back to those funky little cards the DOD used to give out about watching your back when serving overseas, always locking your car up, never giving strangers rides (no matter how cool or HOT they looked) and those bomb call ID sheets that used to be kept by the telephones everywhere in case you received a threat.