Forum: F-16.net feedback

Quote:

AfterburnerDecalsScott: That's a good point; however, the other side of that coin is that, by saying (even to a moderator), "please take that down that's classified" or even "please take that down that looks like something that shouldn't be said," I'm validating that there really is something of value in that message. Does that make sense? It's hard to come up with a good example that's not classified itself (I actually am thinking of several threads but I can't name them...by doing so I'd admit that they are classified and I'd be no better than the poster). So anyone who recognizes material that shouldn't be there is left with a tough question: do I ask them to take it down and recognize that it's sensitive, or do I leave it up and hope it's passed over as conjecture and not fact? I guarantee that anything that's taken down nearly immediately was still recorded by whatever agencies use this site as one of their open-sources, and the fact that the info was immediately removed only strengthens their idea that it was good intel. I hope that makes sense. The ONLY good solution is for people to just bite their tongues...easier said than done I know. It's still a good point though, and the idea of my post, considering I generally spend very little time reading (policing) this site.

The report button is anonymous.......every post has a link at the lower R corner that says Report this post to a moderator for reporting it to a mod that only they see, and the material is reviewed and if its an issue or even close to an issue it just goes away, no muss no fuss.

Conversely, posts like this also alert those fishing for open source nuggets that there are nuggets to be found, do they not?

F-16.net Sponsor

Reading all these posts I can't help but to feel like it's Ground Hog Day with Bill Murray. Same argument over and over and over and over.

AfterburnerDecalsScott: You're absolutely right, raising a flag does admit that there are possibly "nuggets" to be [Link pending approval] all goes back to the dual-edged sword argument. I really think the only right answer is, just as I [Link pending approval] people to just bite their tongues. I'm happy to know that button won't be traced back to me, but I still don't see why it's so hard for people to not post something that's "on the edge" to begin with. And even if it's anonymous, as soon as something goes away via a report, it can be reasonably assumed that whatever went away is something worth knowing to those who don't wish us [Link pending approval] those same people guaranteed have the ability to see what exactly it was that was removed. So I guess the bottom line is, if for whatever reason someone let something slip, we need someone to immediately report [Link pending approval] that the damage hasn't already been done. But again, why say something like that to begin with? It doesn't make any sense to me.

tbolt2: I honestly can't say I've read another post where someone else has voiced my concerns, but really, doesn't the fact that I'm not the only one to say something tell you that something is wrong? How many times do we have to blow a whistle before someone listens? If I'm not the only one worried, and if, as someone pointed out earlier, OSI thinks there is enough of a security risk here to avidly read this [Link pending approval]'t you think that something is wrong? And as I can't seem to say [Link pending approval] can't people just use their heads and not post the questionable material to begin with? I'm not trying to incite anything and I'm not trying to blatantly point fingers, but the more I think about this the more frustrated I get, especially when I realize that others seem to realize there's a problem, but instead of trying to do something about it they just turn a deaf ear. Nothing against you in particular and I'm certainly not trying to pass any blame to you, but I just wish I could get a couple good answers to those questions
.

akruse21 wrote:

just_me wrote:

akruse21: In no way am I trying to be inflammatory, but I honestly think that you seem to be one of the people who like to have a "looser" tongue in order to seem more "in the know," so I'm truly not surprised at your response. But your words are sufficiently noted.

Sorry my loose tongue and incredible need to feel important requires me to say your opinion is noted and filed. Would be better if you could back up your statement with some proof.

Well said, I think the procedures established here work well and this post should end up in the circular file heading to the bit bucket of oblivion.

You lost me at, "the Israelis' job is to learn how to best kill me and my good friends.".

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

You can, at any time, report any post that you feel is not kosher, or needs to be altered or eliminated. The site mods do a stellar job at timely removal of think that get even close to the line not to mention over it.

If you are concerned and not reporting posts then you are not doing what needs to be done to satisfy your concerns. You will not be blown off, you will not be told "its open source, stuff it". They review the posts and err WAY on the side of caution all the time.

This is a light a match/curse the dark thing. There are specific procedures for accomplishing your goals here that work very well.

Well said Scott! That's exactly how it is.

You spot something on the forum which concerns you? Just report it via that link. As soon as we see it we will take the entire thread offline, review it and put the thread back after we went trough it.

It's funny how all serious requests always came to us from people who never even mentioned the word OPSEC in this forum. I guess you have those who do and those who just talk.

Just_me

AfterburnerDecals Scott has given you a good hint as to what you should do with posts you find questionable.
The moderators have responded to these kind of concerns in the past, have reliable sources to check wether a questionable post shold be deleted or not, and NO-ONE makes any statements as to what post or topic has been deleted. It is simply gone!

I suggest that you refrain yourself from airing your concerns at all. You are actually telling everybody that this is a MAJOR site to source intel of all kinds! See where you are ending up - throwing bricks in a glas house?

Also remember that at the bottom of every post, there is a direct link stating REPORT THIS POST TO A MODERATOR
It gives you a hint about the seriousness of the moderators and that they DO take this seriously!

Guys, some words of caution, this guy "Just_me" has PM'd me asking some very leading questions - I expect that I am not the only one. I think I hear Betty warbling Caution Caution in my ear.

Yes, I did ask him what his job was. I actually asked most of the posters to this thread. I apologize if I offended anyone, but I explained my reasoning for asking in the message.

[Link pending approval] you for your post and I've taken it to heart. As I've said [Link pending approval] wish we could get to the point where no posts would ever HAVE to be reported. Hopefully one day.

[Link pending approval] honestly can't tell if you're accusing me of "just talking"...but honestly I spend no where near enough time reading this site to competently "police" the posts. [Link pending approval] have the questionable posts to begin with? Once someone hits the post [Link pending approval] damage is done.

I want to make one quick point. There's a difference between "unclassified" and "not-sensitive" information. For example, the -1 is unclass but you'd still be thrown in jail for sending it over to China or Iran. Information from sources that are unclass can still be sensitive, especially when pieced together. The truly classified documents are the tactics manuals and the very sensitive [Link pending approval] the radar, RWR, etc. Please remember [Link pending approval] can be unclass and still very hurtful to US interests.

Finally, I want to throw out an olive branch of sorts. I as well hope this thread sort of drifts off into [Link pending approval] because I think all that's been said has been said. If I came across as disrespectful to anyone, I [Link pending approval] I do have my beliefs, I don't mean to degrade yours.

I'm sure more than one person will be glad to see me say I'm going to dump this site from my memory and get on with my [Link pending approval]'ve tried my best, and I don't read this site nearly enough to go through enough posts to "police" everything. So I hope that the avid users of this site will use their heads and realize it's ok to talk about who was a Juvat and who has found a great new [Link pending approval] maybe we don't need to talk about troop movements and deployments and track every tail number and discuss capabilities of US systems that flirt with the classified line.

But thanks for [Link pending approval]

Salute!

First of all, Happy New Year to all!!!!!!!

To the chase .....

The Janitors and I have worked on two or three suspicious poster-dudes over the years, and we had big time help from the alphabet agencies.

We have also had numerous folks asking for some of us not to post "sensitive" material.

We have also had great debates, as this thread is illustrating, regarding how much we should say.

So let me tell you - publishing truly "classified" stuff will be found within minutes by "somebody". And the poor dweeb that let something sensitive loose will be dealt with. The OPSEC area is also "sensitive", but less so than outright technical details, specific capabilities of various aircraft systems, etc.

That being said, some observations from this old fart........

- Never forget that some stuff here might be "disinformation". So look at some of my posts about our "death rays" and nuke-u-lar CBU weapons, and the "glue bomb", etc. Those were made in jest, but who knows when some of the other stuff I and others post may sound plausible, but is pure B.S.

- The Janitors yank some stuff so quickly, that you may never read it. God bless them, as they must be checking all the posts several times a day.

- The Janitors are extremely sensitive to OPSEC and outright security violations. They don't want the premier aviation website to be banned. And they sure as hell don't want to have legal problems with ANY COUNTRY.

- Occasional reminders to all of us here are appropriate, but let's be judicious when throwing the "foul" flag, huh?

- The frequent posters here who actually "know" sensitive stuff use the "PM" feature to get things squared away before going to the Janitors or publishing "flames" on the forums. I am one, Snake 1 and Snake deuce (the nugget), and others will agree with me. Fer chrissakes, do we want a bad guy to know our best moves? Or what our radar can really do? or ........ BEAM ME UP!

So let's all take a deep breath, think about what we say and get back to war stories, rumors, innuendo, wannabe capabilities, and such.

out,

Gums, thanks for the high cover. I close with this note from the competition:

Great video......Thanks

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

At the risk of sounding like a worn-out record stuck in a groove.

If you see a post that is security sensitive, report it. or question whether people should talk about it, or contact the people in question.

I think the people to here do a very good job at censoring themselves and deleting threads and posts that have secrecy issues.

I'm surprised at lot of the stuff I see posted here, but then again I'm an old fuddy duddy and many the things that I thought was secret I see on the national news and on documentaries and all through out the net.

My general rule is that if I haven't seen something in a major public venue from my own nation I dont talk, even then sometimes I try not to talk about it. Sometimes I even bite my lip, as to try not to verify leaks or guesses.

There was an old World War II propaganda security film that I thought was pretty good. It was about some fictional pilots that were shot down after aborting a mission before reaching their target due to weather condition, and each of them revealed some apparently trivial unrelated information. But the Germans were asking questions in a apparently friendly innocent way, however it was very well-planned and intended. It was little things they let slip like there was a replacement crew member because the other had a slight head cold, and they aborted because of weather. The Germans were able to figure out it was a high-altitude mission and eliminate all the targets that had bad weather, and that let them narrow down possible targets. Eventually from all the questions they asked, they were able to figure out the intended target, so they were planning to concentrate their defenses because they knew the allies would try again.

Quote:

Many of FMPU's best films were little dramas which made their points by involving the audience in a story. One such example was "Resisting Enemy Interrogation", often cited as the best educational film to come out of the war.

The film featured a group of downed flyers who are captured by the Germans and brought to a chateau. They are separated from each other and are eventually tricked to reveal Air Force secrets. The film was so accurate and involving that a group of flyers, who had seen the film and were in fact later shot down and captured, revealed that life had imitated art. They too were brought to a chateau and when the Germans began their interrogation, it so resembled the film version, the airmen burst out laughing. The Germans' interrogation attempts proved unsuccessful.

Lieven wrote:

It's funny how all serious requests always came to us from people who never even mentioned the word OPSEC in this forum. I guess you have those who do and those who just talk.

Meathook wrote:

I saw it today, it was posted by our folks that look into these matters.

I would NOT want to be this guy or in his shoes now, they are all over it - silly and stupid thing to do from what I saw.

I am sure we will NOT be hearing from him again supporting this subject, hell, they might keep him from posting again in uniform....powers that be are all over it already (as they should be)...this guy is in deep sh*t and he deserves to be...foolish pride and a big mouth - classic case of being stupid and blasting information that should not be, what a dumbass he is.

I have seen the PP presentation and offer you a couple of observations:

1) The PP conveniently forgets to mention that the AF has quite happily used this officer as a poster boy and recruiting tool for more than a decade. The photograph, some of the personal information, and other little details were all released by SAFPA (or their release was organised and approved by SAFPA). But, hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of the witch hunt

2) None of the information he posted was classified. Certainly, he might have been ill-advised to post some of it *in that forum*, but he gave away no more information than the Air Force was already releasing about the F-22A in PA sanctioned interviews with the defence and aviation press. But again, let's not let the facts get in the way of the public lynching

3) Because whoever in OSI wrote the PP presentation is clearly clueless, it's unremarkable that they didn't look at the existing literature to see what information the Air Force had already released. To do so would have involved more than spending an hour browsing a forum and typing a name into Google, so it's to be expected I suppose. But, had s/he done so, s/he would have found that such things as numbers, lots, radar and s/w upgrades, annual flying hours, local area checkouts, 'the purpose of doors and flaps' et al and the other bulleted items were already in the public domain *because the DoD or SAFPA had released them*

You may well think that he made a mistake, and you are entitled to your opinion. However, he is a fine officer who has placed himself in harm's way for your nation and spent many years at the pointy end of the spear. He made an error of judgement, and if he requires disciplining then I am sure that will happen, but I would suggest you keep the personal insults and name calling to yourself. Embarassed

Forum: F-16.net feedback

OPSEC - Similar concerns?