OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

[chosen_karma]

I usually dont go off on a tangent or make it a public spectacle, but I feel I have to air this as I want to know if I am out of line. I recently went to a local Army Navy Surplus store to browse through the memorabilia and see what interesting things I could find. It is a pretty shoddy looking old building, dirty and unkempt as most of them are, I noticed a bookshelf filled with all types of military books and manuals and such. I figured I would take a look as I like to read and with my job it is always good to have references and stay up to date on certain knowledge. The first thing I noticed was a whole section on military TM manuals, no big deal really but as I kept looking I found several of them marked FOUO, several others marked "Distibution authorized to US Govt agencies and their contractors" with Destruction Notices as well. As I kept looking I found unit handouts and pamplets that had information on unit SOP's, information regarding our current communications systems to include other information that DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS(I wont go into depth as I would be no better than them) With that being said I went to the gentleman sitting in a ratty recliner staring at a tv, and politely asked him if he had read all of the manuals before putting them out for anyone to purchase. He for some reason got irritated and asked me what I was talking about and what business it was of mine. So I calmly informed him of my findings and then told him a bit about who <span style="font-style: italic">"I"</span> am, and <span style="font-style: italic">why</span> it <span style="font-style: italic">concerned</span> me... He immediatley lost it and spouted off with <span style="font-style: italic">"everything there can be found in the Library Of Congress, and is covered under the "Freedom of Information Act."</span> Bla bla bla, <span style="font-style: italic">"If you dont like it, theres the door". </span>So being as I did not want to cause a scene, the last thing I asked this foodblister, that touted himself as some "former war hero", was simply "can you explain to me why any normal citizen would need the TM manual for an M1A1 Abrams, or the manual for an ANCZY-10 ?" I heard him cussing and sputtering as I walked out to my truck. Me? I was infuriated.. So, with that being said, was my anger justified, or am I just being obsessively paranoid ? <span style="font-style: italic">Could</span> I have said more ? I know I <span style="font-style: italic">could have </span>but the question is <span style="font-style: italic">would it have mattered </span>?

 

[doc76251]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

Who is John Galt?

Cheers,

Doc

 

[Switchblade]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

How do you think the US desiminates information to those who would raise arms in the event of civil insurrection? It is all just a well laid plan of getting information and misinformation out to the poeple.
If you wanted the Billy Joe Bubba Bob's of the militia to get their hands on 'the latest training manuals and DAPAMS' where woud YOU put them? Army Navy Surplus Store, right?
How many of the ones you found are current doctrine? Have they been made obsolete? With the new uniform changes, weapon changes coming in, as well as tactics and doctrine changes, many manuals are no longer valid. Only the most basic manuals are valid for today's American Warrior. Just a thought on the subject

 

[Rhys]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

That was my initial thought reading this. I doubt much if any of that stuff is current enough to be of much good.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

Well normally FOUO is what it is but as one of the engineers upstairs said "Things slip through the cracks".

Unfortunately I tend to agree with what the jerk said to you, FAS.ORG has all of that information, generally.

Although radio schemats etc are nice and the information SHOULD be kept to a minimum - NONE Of it is any good without the encryption keys.


Here's a bit of info I just found on what I did in Alaska, COMSEC Custodian - sheesh.

I was the youngest and lowest ranking Comsec Custodian in teh US Army in 1988.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/usareur_pam380-40/380-40F.HTM

The info is out there, probably better hidden on a shelf than on the internet...

PS _ Find (On this page) on that link and you'll find your net controller device a/n cyz-10.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

PS - look at Army.com someday, google document numbers and TM's and you'll find most are online. Some require CAC access but I can still get them and I'm not in the Army - they don't lock down by DOD CAC issuer.


EDIT: If you think that's scary - wait:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/index.html#fm

 

[shark0311]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

OPSEC = Operations Security

What your referring to is "information security"

Two very different things.

 

[Guest]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

My head hurts.

 

[chosen_karma]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OPSEC = Operations Security

What your referring to is "information security"

Two very different things.</div></div>

Army Regulation 530–1 FOUO falls under OPSEC.
Marine Corps MCO 3432.1 Section 5

 

[chosen_karma]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

My whole intention towards the guy <span style="font-style: italic">wasnt</span> to pull his punk card at all, I was merely trying to inform him that some of the information that he was openly providing was not something that the gen populace <span style="font-style: italic">needed to know</span> and that perhaps he should <span style="font-style: italic">consider</span> that before he looks at just making a buck. So I was merely trying to <span style="font-style: italic">help</span> him,(as some of the information <span style="font-style: italic">was</span> not for the public) then he went off on a tangent, so instead of me giving him the chance to make things right, he is dealing with other issues now. Like I said I was just asking if my anger was warranted, I know there are those of you that believe as well as I do that there is certain information that just simply <span style="font-style: italic">shouldnt</span> be made readily available to the public, case in point being something like TM-31-<span style="font-weight: bold">x</span>10, yes I can download it, on the net,but WHY? For what purpose ? Some light reading on how to mix stuff up and create havoc ? I dont know, just doesnt seem right...IMHO

 

[Switchblade]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

AH, we truly are so much better off for the use of the internet making the old black book, 'Anarchist's Cookbook' truly obsolete.
FOUO floats so easily through the air from dumpsters for days after so many units deployed. I wonder how many are currently floating through the air at the Tri County Dump.
What we are seeing CK is possibley a lack of 'give a fuck' from the highest levels down to the lowest private's when it comes to all that paper, and the PITA of actually shredding it or going through the ordeal of turning it in. There are also so many civilian contractor's who are retired military that, well, they can care less what goes on when it's a quarter to three. Try to go get something done on a base. 1500, man they are packing it in and hauling ass!

 

[Arch]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

I disagree with you Switch. The effort to make all things and all knowledge available to everyone is part of the same effort that is hellbent on destroying any foundation that once allowed structure to rise. And the people that complain about being stopped in their personal pursuits are sometimes also the same people complaining the loudest about their freedoms being eroded. In a word, it is us.

I have seen people here relentlessly pursue and complain about equipment only available to the military and law enforcement. Sign up! I say. But money allows people their own personal freedeom.

And the comment about contractors is not what I have seen either. A contractor knows he can be quickly replaced. A government employee is forever. It is a wholly different contract.

What has changed is not that the info is available, but the many ways that it is now being used. People used to look the Army and say U.S. Army. Now the U.S. is not used so much, and some people might think of themselves as an army. We live in interesting times. Confucious meant this as a curse...

 

[shark0311]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChosenKarma</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OPSEC = Operations Security

What your referring to is "information security"

Two very different things.</div></div>

Army Regulation 530–1 FOUO falls under OPSEC.
Marine Corps MCO 3432.1 Section 5</div></div>


Canceled by MCO 3070.2 dtd 18 May 07

 

[Switchblade]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

PM to you 41

 

[Switchblade]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

or not, your box is full. What I have to report is heainous activity regarding FUOU but not here

 

[Arch]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

I cannot provide the answer for you; I must rely on another.

City of God
by St. Augustine
Book I, Chap. 33

<span style="font-weight: bold">That the overthrow of Rome has not corrected the vices of the Romans.</span>
Oh infatuated men, what is this blindness, or rather madness, which possesses you?... Depraved by good fortune, and not chastened by adversity, what you desire in the restoration of a peaceful and secure state, is not the tranquillity of the commonwealth, but the impunity of your own vicious luxury. Scipio wished you to be hard pressed by an enemy, that you might not abandon yourselves to luxurious manners; but so abandoned are you, that not even when crushed by the enemy is your luxury repressed. You have missed the profit of your calamity; you have been made most wretched, and have remained most profligate.

 

[shark0311]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

Don't get your panties in a bunch gents ITAR is alive and kicking and BIS is one hell of a hammer. The shit that is important is very well regulated and secure.

 

[Graham]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

The battle is always to reduce counterproductive secrecy while assuring necessary secrecy.

According to Rodney McDaniel, Executive Secretary for the National Security Council, only ten percent of secrecy is legitimate, the rest is turf protection.

Have a look at Thomas P. Croakley, ed., <span style="text-decoration: underline">Issues of Command and Control</span>, National Defense University, 1991, p. 68: Unnecessary secrecy impedes the effectiveness of government, as does lip service to OPSEC.

Bottom line: Roughly twenty percent of secrecy is justified, but half of that is done badly.

 

[Arch]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

No bunching here. Important is current, or relative to profit.

 

[Graham]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The shit that is important is very well regulated and secure. </div></div>I disagree.

For example: Clandestine operations run out of official installations that result in nothing being kept secret including the identity of every single officer operating under official cover.

 

[shark0311]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

Guys if you genuinely feel that you have witnessed an ITAR violation check to see if the item in question is on the United States Munitions List. If it is report the violation to the Bureau of Industry and Security.

Graham if you have witnessed an OPSEC violation report it to your Facilities Security Officer.

 

[Graham]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham if you have witnessed an OPSEC violation report it to your Facilities Security Officer.</div></div>To whom do I report the existence of <span style="font-style: italic">wikileaks</span>?

 

[shark0311]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

I think they have that one covered.

 

[chosen_karma]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

<span style="font-weight: bold">Switchblade</span>_"What we are seeing CK is possibley a lack of 'give a fuck' from the highest levels down to the lowest private's when it comes to all that paper, and the PITA of actually shredding it or going through the ordeal of turning it in."


<span style="font-weight: bold">Forty-One_</span>The effort to make all things and all knowledge available to everyone is part of the same effort that is hellbent on destroying any foundation that once allowed structure to rise. And the people that complain about being stopped in their personal pursuits are sometimes also the same people complaining the loudest about their freedoms being eroded. In a word, it is us.


I appologize for not knowing how to properly"quote" in a post but I will say I agree with BOTH of the above statements, I have observed both actions and have done my part to prevent the flow of information that does not need to get out, both CONUS and OCONUS, <span style="font-weight: bold">Graham</span>, I agree with you as well, I have been on the recieving end of that as well, I have seen things slip through the cracks that compromised peoples lives and actions for no other reason than "the public wants to know". We as Americans have become to comfortable in the aspect of our freedom, the very people whose freedom we are trying to protect, bitch about the fact that we are violating their "freedom to know", its a vicious cycle. All we can do is "police our own" JMHO..

 

[chosen_karma]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shark0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think they have that one covered. </div></div>


I wish I could agree, but the www. and the flow of information that is passed by other means, accidental though it may be, unknowingly perhaps, has become to large and wide for any one agency to cover, albeit there <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> some things that cannot be uncovered unless you <span style="font-style: italic">know</span> what you are looking for, but lets not underestimate the enemy, we did that one time, back in 9/11. Trust me I am the <span style="font-style: italic">last</span> person that wants information hidden from me, but I also understand the cost of freedom <span style="font-style: italic">isnt</span> free.

 

[USAFDoug]

Re: OPSEC.. leash or leniency?

Report it to CID?