Operations Plans and U/FOUO

[RiverAux]

I don't have any problem with posting operations plans for CAP exercises on public web sites since I don't think they "give away" anything about our procedures or capabilities of any real use to anybody that couldn't be obtained easily from other sources.  The only thing that should not be on them would be specific radio frequences (Channel 1=okay, but what frequency Channel 1 actually is = not okay). 

All that being said, there is a certain Wing -- I won't say which one, but it is one of our largest -- that has at least one operations plan posted on their website which is marked as Unclassified - For Official Use Only. 

A group in another Wing seems to have marked all its operating instructions (on the web site) as U/FOUO.

Several squadrons have marked their entire web pages with that. 

So, if your're going to mark something as a category of information that we're supposed to keep somewhat confidential, why would you post in on your public web site?  Are some CAP webmasters going "wannabe" by putting this on their sites? 

[Pylon]

I'd like to add an honest addendum to this question:  Who is authorized to classify documents as U//FOUO or any other classification?  Can it just be Lt Col Joe Anycapmember?

[cuselead]

So why not send an e-mail to the webmaster to the Wing/Group(s) where the issues are posted on? Perhaps it's an oversight on the end user?

Be part of the solution that corrects the situation instead of posting it for everyone to see?

Just my thoughts.

[RiverAux]

I didn't post it so everyone could see -- I didn't name any names in order to avoid any embarrassment. If a CAPTalk member from one of those units wants to contact them, they should.

I posted what I did because it was an honest question -- why mark it U/FOUO and then post it publically? 

[SJFedor]

I'm guessing that something came from upon high that said our OPLANs have to be marked U/FOUO. Our Wing DOS released a new OPLAN template last week that had the revised marking on it. I don't think it can be coincidence....

[Short Field]

If you post something it on a website that is not password protected - it is not FOUO.  FOUO means you keep it out of the public domain and only people who have a need to know the information have access to it. 


If I told you what I use to do for a living, it would come out in my annual polygraph and they would come and get you...   

[Gunner C]

I'd like to add an honest addendum to this question:  Who is authorized to classify documents as U//FOUO or any other classification?  Can it just be Lt Col Joe Anycapmember?

FOUO isn't a classification - more of a handling instruction.  As far as what should be marked that way, the organization needs to have specific instructions on what is EEFI (Essential Elements of Friendly Information).  Outside of comm info and what was on the initial training, I don't think I've seen an exhaustive listing of EEFI.

GC

[ELTHunter]

The same goes for email footers.  I see a lot of people in CAP putting the FOUO footer on an email that contains nothing that is FOUO.  Unless I forgot my DOE classification rules, material that contains no classified or sensitive information shouldn't be marked as such.

Correct?

[chiles]

FOUO is a handling instruction that means the document is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. It was never intended to be a catch all for unclassified material that people didn't want to share with others. So, it's not supposed to be slapped on to any old document. I saw it on a bunch of slides for a CLC once. I doubt that there was any need to keep that slideshow on leadership away from the general public. Especially considering you can download it from the National website. If you want more information on it, you can read a brief write up about it from the IOSS here. It includes handling instructions of the material and the quote as to the use of it as a catchall.

[sardak]

The Government is confused about FOUO. A GAO report released in 2006 found 56 different categories of "sensitive but unclassified" (SBU) information. Thirteen federal agencies (all DoD components count as one) use FOUO with at least five different definitions. Most agencies allow any employee to decide what constitutes FOUO material.  Remember too, that FOUO is not restricted to the government, anyone can declare information FOUO.

In late 2007, a new government wide policy was presented to the President for approval.  It would standardize all SBU or "Controlled Unclassified Information" (CUI), including FOUO, and define standardized markings. The DoD formed an executive level task force to implement the new markings and procedures. The group's first meeting was scheduled for January 29, 2008. It's supposed to be a five year transition.

The current DoD directives which discuss FOUO are regulations 5200.1 and 5400.7.  Per 5400.7:
"For Official Use Only (FOUO)" is a designation that is applied to unclassified information that may be exempt from mandatory release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)....So, by definition, information must be unclassified in order to be designated FOUO.
Bold text is in the regulation. By this DoD regulation, the U/ in front of FOUO isn't required unless the FOUO material is in a classified document.

The Air Force supplement to 5400.7 states:
Information that has not been given a security classification pursuant to the criteria of an Executive Order, but which may be withheld from the public because disclosure would cause a foreseeable harm to an interest protected by one or more FOIA exemptions 2 through 9 (see Chapter 3) shall be considered as being for official use only (FOUO). No other material shall be considered FOUO and FOUO is not authorized as an anemic form of classification to protect national security interests.

The AF supplement also says:
An unclassified document containing FOUO information shall be marked "For Official Use Only" at the bottom on the outside of the front cover (if any), on each page containing FOUO information, and on the outside of the back cover (if any). Each paragraph containing FOUO information shall be marked as such.
Bold text is in the supplement, because that's an AF specific requirement beyond 5400.7. CAP doesn't have to follow the DoD or AF regs, but have anyone seen a CAP document that marks the individual paragraphs?

As for email,
Each part of electronically and facsimile transmitted messages containing FOUO information shall be marked appropriately. Unclassified messages containing FOUO information shall contain the abbreviation "FOUO" before the beginning of the text.

Lastly, the DoD and AF regs aren't specific about posting FOUO information on public websites.  I guess they figure the user is smart enough to know not to do that. However the Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 11042.1 specifically states:
FOUO information will not be posted on a DHS or any other internet (public) website.

Edit- Forgot this quote (from a George Washington University study) that directly answers River's initial question/concern:
"The fact that for official use only (FOUO) and other sensitive unclassified information (e.g. CONOPS, OPLANS, SOP) continues to be found on public web sites indicates that too often data posted are insufficiently reviewed for sensitivity and/or inadequately protected."
-- Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2003)

CAP can certainly make up its own rules and definition for FOUO, but given our relationship with USAF, it would make sense to follow the DHS, DoD and AF regs and supplements.

Mike

[N Harmon]

Civil Air Patrol should be as open and honest with the public about who we are and what we do. That should only stop when it interferes with performing our missions. I think inappropriately marking anything as FOUO damages our reputation.

[JayT]

Civil Air Patrol should be as open and honest with the public about who we are and what we do. That should only stop when it interferes with performing our missions. I think inappropriately marking anything as FOUO damages our reputation.

I get the impression this is sort of a 'Let's pretend we're more military then we really are by stamping our stuff with stuff!'

[SarDragon]

The CAP communications program is in a great state of flux these days. There are almost as many opinions out there on how it should run as there are radios. A year from now, things my be different, either better or worse depending on your POV.

I see some benefit to protecting our specific frequencies, if for no other reason to help minimize outside interference. A few years ago, I was on a distress mission that ended up on an indian reservation. The media caught wind of the mission, and we ended up blocking the access road to prevent them from coming all the way up to the crash site.

If the freqs are protected, it may be a little harder for  these folks to jump on a mission and get in the way.

YMMV.

[Stonewall]

IThe only thing that should not be on them would be specific radio frequences (Channel 1=okay, but what frequency Channel 1 actually is = not okay). 

I just did a google search for "Civil Air Patrol frequencies" and it popped up with several sites that list complete frequency lists, to include one with a repeater list.

One page actually said this:

Due to these frequencies now being classified as under Homeland Security, the frequencies that were on this page had to be dropped. However, there are several references in the public sector that has additional information.

[wingnut]

I am predicting some type of meaningful policy on the type of information being disseminated out here in Cyberland. CAP is and will continue to support Military classified and Law Enforcement sensitive programs, but people are shooting their mouths off in eateries and bars and some day someone (Bad Guys) are going to take out an Aircraft through sabotage or other nefarious means.

We as a Team are not really protecting ourselves from many external threats (Drug Cartels, Martians,etc) the planes are available for anyone to walk up and pour sugar into the gas tank (just before a CD Mission) any number of things could happen. I feel like many members are pretending to be playing at FOUO.

But hey maybe I am just paranoid, not everyone with a law enforcement background worried about a bad guy following them home, kidnapping their wife and Dog, and never giving the dog back , go out and stop $400 million of drugs coming into the US (NHQ Web site), tell me some Coyote is not going to take something into his own hands some day.