Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Will He Ever Get the Hint?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeniorGeek" data-source="post: 195898" data-attributes="member: 4823"><p>I did not find the actual text of the new regulation. It seems that the Army thinks that releasing the OPSEC regulation to the public "...could cause harm to Army operations or personnel."</p><p></p><p>So they have made it an OPSEC violation to reveal regulations about what constitutes an OPSEC violation?</p><p></p><p>I find a response that is alleged to come from the Army (but I find no authoritative source) that clarifies the regulation we are no longer allowed to read, saying in part</p><p><a href="http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/05/03/#008697" target="_blank">http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/05/03/#008697</a></p><p></p><p>To sum up what I have seen about this regulation:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Many claim the new version requires permission for every message, or something to that effect,</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Army decided that this new version should not be available to the public (though the previous version is already out there),</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The fact sheet (alleged to be from The Army) claims that the new version does not have the sort of changes many have complained about, but</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The "fact sheet" has details that are contrary to some of the details from an interview with the author of the new regulation at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090415010030/http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/the_army_has_is.html?" target="_blank">Army's Info-Cop Speaks</a></li> </ul><p>So I don't know what to believe about this new regulation. I can't tell if the modifications amount to censorship of political views or hiding crimes. Or just refining OPSEC standards.</p><p></p><p>I hope the military does something about other sources, too. According to <em>DJ Elliott, IS1(SW), USN(Ret) </em>on <a href="http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/05/opsec_the_oobs_and_t.php" target="_blank">OPSEC, the OOBs and the Myopic Mis-Focus of Security Personnel</a>, "<em>The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon.</em>"</p><p></p><p>There appear to be a number of people concerned about OPSEC violations, many of them searching websites for info - but I do not know how you go about reporting the violation you found.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeniorGeek, post: 195898, member: 4823"] I did not find the actual text of the new regulation. It seems that the Army thinks that releasing the OPSEC regulation to the public "...could cause harm to Army operations or personnel." So they have made it an OPSEC violation to reveal regulations about what constitutes an OPSEC violation? I find a response that is alleged to come from the Army (but I find no authoritative source) that clarifies the regulation we are no longer allowed to read, saying in part [URL]http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/05/03/#008697[/URL] To sum up what I have seen about this regulation: [LIST] [*]Many claim the new version requires permission for every message, or something to that effect, [*]The Army decided that this new version should not be available to the public (though the previous version is already out there), [*]The fact sheet (alleged to be from The Army) claims that the new version does not have the sort of changes many have complained about, but [*]The "fact sheet" has details that are contrary to some of the details from an interview with the author of the new regulation at [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20090415010030/http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/the_army_has_is.html?']Army's Info-Cop Speaks[/URL] [/LIST] So I don't know what to believe about this new regulation. I can't tell if the modifications amount to censorship of political views or hiding crimes. Or just refining OPSEC standards. I hope the military does something about other sources, too. According to [I]DJ Elliott, IS1(SW), USN(Ret) [/I]on [URL='http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/05/opsec_the_oobs_and_t.php']OPSEC, the OOBs and the Myopic Mis-Focus of Security Personnel[/URL], "[I]The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon.[/I]" There appear to be a number of people concerned about OPSEC violations, many of them searching websites for info - but I do not know how you go about reporting the violation you found. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Will He Ever Get the Hint?
Top