Forum: F-16.net feedback

Good morning, New guidance from the USAF supporting US Activities and Information, I thought you all should know this.

Recently, the definition of public disclosure in Air Force Instruction 10-701, Operations Security (OPSEC), was modified to include anything that “may be viewed by the public.” Off duty Internet activity is specifically identified as falling within this realm.

All personnel now have an obligation to seek an OPSEC review and Public Affairs approval prior to discussing work related information via the Internet or any other forum which may be viewed by the public (reference AFI 10-701,para 2.2.2.11, 3.2.1.8, and 3.3.1.7, and AFI 33-129, Web Management and Internet Use, para 12.7).

Simply put, you must have permission to post or discuss any work related information on the Internet (e.g., on a personal homepage, in a blog or chat room, etc.). The same goes for any other forum which may be viewed by the public!

Based on many 'chat rooms and sites like this" the USAF is taking a very strong stance on the release of information...you need to know this, effective immediately. This site and many others are need being monitored much more closely...heed the warning folks, I am posting this you help keep many of you Out of Trouble...

Tom Wharton, USAF - Foreign Disclosure Officer

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

AFI 10-701 was published in September of 2005 and AFI 33-129 in Feburary 2005.

Quote:

2.2.2.11. Ensure OPSEC considerations are included in PA’s review and approval process for the
publishing or releasing of information to or that may be viewed by the public, i.e. base newspapers,
safety magazines, flyers, web pages, television interviews and information for news articles.

Not applicable. This is referencing the PAO's duties.

Quote:

3.2.1.8. Ensure OPSEC reviews consider the proliferation of internet/web-based bulletin boards
and logs (blogs) and evaluate the risk presented by web content in annual OPSEC assessments.

This prohibits nothing, only says these methods of communication should be evaluated in OPSEC reviews.

Quote:

3.3.1.7. Conduct OPSEC reviews of information submitted for publication or release to the public,
i.e. base newspapers, safety magazines, flyers, web pages, television interviews information
for news articles.

Again, nothing is verboten, this section says this is one of the responsibilities of the OPSEC coordinator.

Quote:

12.7. Operations Security (OPSEC). The Internet access available to personnel at home is an additional
security factor. OPSEC training and education apply to computer use just as it does in
face-to-face and phone conversations and correspondence. Policies restricting communications with
unauthorized personnel also apply to Internet communications. Newsgroups (Network News Transfer
Protocol [NNTP], Usenet News, Chats, etc.) give personnel the opportunity to converse electronically
to a worldwide audience. Military and government employees will not discuss work-related issues in
such open forums. Such discussions could result in unauthorized disclosure of military information to
foreign individuals, governments, or intelligence agencies or the disclosure of potential acquisition
sensitive information. For example, news media monitoring the Internet may construe an individual’s
“chat” as an official statement or news release. Limiting details is an easily applied countermeasure
that can decrease vulnerabilities while still conveying essential information. Follow these additional
steps to eliminate improper postings: verify official need for posting, apply the OPSEC process (identify
critical information, analyze threats and vulnerabilities, assess risks, and apply countermeasures),
use the required clearance process, protect information according to its sensitivity, and provide training.

This is stating the obvious. Granted if it is never stated it can't be enforced. But again, nothing is forbidden that doesn't violate OPSEC regulations.

This is all good information, but it isn't something brand new. Why state is as a new change in policy? Did something change recently?

One thing every serviceman needs to understand is what they can't say in public (including on the internet). And they REALLY better understand that yes, people are checking.

Even off duty going to public affairs is a change I was just made aware of surrounding any type of military information now being reviewed on line, I knew it existed of course but now (based on what I was told) being watched like a hawk....like it or not. All bases were asked to re-post that cation so something must not be as happy or above board as you seem to think, as a civilian, you have no say so in USAF policy anyway, so relax.

If your active duty, it could get sticky...don't get your nickers in a twist over it, do the right thing and you don't have an issue...guys like you whine all the time but if the rules are broken, folks state...I didn't know, well now you all do (in case you did not) simple really, isn;t it.

In your case, if you know them fine, if not...read and heed, simple request unless you make a case out of it. Why you always so damn argumentative? You got nothing better to do or what. National Security is extremely high recently, I know you understand that, if not...you should reevaluate your motives and responses.

I for one will pay attention to the cautions, I hope you do too, if not..I would love to be there if and when (if that ever happens) they lock your a$$ up.

So chill out will ya, read and heed, a simple process. Cool your heels or make a fuss, I could care less, but I do care about the young Airmen trying to just talk and go overboard (possibly)...you should get my drift, least I hope you do, if not....life goes on.

Amen...brother Tom! Evil or Very Mad

Thanks for your support, as you know, its not my rule but I do agree with it, even if many don't.

See ya - it is for our collective good, even if some don't realize that.

Actually guys this is good info to post. The disclosure thing has always been the same, but the wording wasn't real good for today's internet savvy person. The Air Force in particular is cracking down on cyberspace. The point of the thread I think was to let everyone know, in case they thought otherwise. It's real simple no matter what medium you use...if its classified, sensitive or its release would harm the US, don't discuss it. Plain and simple...thanks for the reminder Meat!

-Check

You betcha sixx ....Thumbs!

So does that mean that USAF people monitor the site and the forums closely ? If so....Hello guys/gals Very Happy

Not being sarcastic, I think it's good to be polite with everyone ! I also imagine they must be a bit troubled or Rolling Eyes

about the "How to make a nuclear bomb...Exactly !" threads we get here.

That would also bring me a question in mind. Take as an example this:

Fuselage of BAF F-16A block 10 #FA-28 after being dismantled at Rocourt on June 21st, 2005.

This falls into the "open panels pics" category we discussed in another thread - and to which some debate came up as to how and if it was legal to post such pics. Here we have a fine example, I believe. Now the question: It seems to me like a fact, that people who are put to check out on us see these pics don't ask the owners of the site to remove them since that pic is still there. Does that constitute a form of authorization - as discussed in the other thread - to post pics of such material ? Or is this an ill reason to keep them on ?

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Seat dreamer: The "how to make a nuke" is usually a poke in the ribs response to someone who (usually right after creating an account) asks for sensitive information. Like, "While you're at it, can you tell me how to make a nuke with dish detergent and some twine?" Very Happy

Simple answer for ya...it should be accompanied by a signed statement from USAF Public Affairs Office stating it (photo or article) is releasable (as in many articles posted on this site).

Anything else is really Not Cleared Officially... that is the truth, just have the statement provided by USAF Public Affairs and then the person and photo is covered, if not the posters risks an investigation by the USAF (as in many pictures posted about Iraq operations now) ...it is being investigated now.

That is not meant to be a scare tactic but just a fact supported and directed by SAF/IA and the USAF (OSI) for its folks and USAF weapons systems operated by that (our) government.

All other governments are obligated to police (per say) their own countries information, that is not the USA's place but since they purchased our weapons system, they too signed an agreement to treat the information like it was still belonging to the USA and to protect it. That does not appear to happen too often on this site (my opinion) just look around at the discussions taking place, pictures, dates, times, modification being outlined (not cleared)...it happens often.

Anytime an American posts an article not cleared by the PA Office of the USAF, it falls into the category of Not Authorized and that too is covered in the National Disclosure Policy Board of the USA and the USAF Foreign Disclosure Council and local Foreign Disclosure Officers...like myself.

This whole discussion is meant to educate and inform (maybe to warn too) but many feel they have the right to fight it, US citizens don't (they can complain but the law is the law), both civilians and military...it is a caution to help protect American assets and her citizens..simple really.

Only for USA, a Caution to be safe instead of 'sorry'...just trying to help educate and ask folks that post here to pay attention to what they post and that there is a legal method of doing so. If not, don't be surprised if you get a knock on the down someday.....it happens often, more then you know.

peace brother......just trying to keep USA clean and jail free....

Forum: F-16.net feedback

New USAF Directive and Instructions for US Folks (updated)