Guest viper76 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I was recently looking at an article about a unit in MN flying a Homeland Defense Mission in Hawaii (Hawaii Newspaper). The picture clearly showed a F-16 pilot standing in front of what I assume was his aircraft with his name in the caption(actually they put the wrong officers name in the first time but corrected it the next day). Is this an OPSEC violation? If I was a bad guy downrange who had been on the business end of ordanance from one of these jets he (and his family) would be high on MY target list. I wouldn't think it was smart but that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 From JP 3-54... OPSEC is a process of identifying critical information and subsequently analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: a. Identify those actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; b. Determine what indicators hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries; and c. Select and execute measures that eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. Yet USAF/PA does it all the time. For a while after 9/11, it was "Major Tom" (rank and first names, but no last names); but lately it seems the USAF has backed off on protecting its members...such as this article on the 355 FS deploying to Afghanistan. However, on this site we (the forum owner and us mods) are more sensitive to operational information. See this thread. And if you have any questions about OPSEC, the AU site has a lot of good sources of information. And I agree that it isn't the smartest idea. And as we have seen lately with the lady that lied about her husband dying in Iraq to win tickets to a Hannah Montana concert or all the posers being called out lying on other forums, it is quite easy to find information on people via the Internet. Some days I am glad I live in a cave! Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Damon Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 What about this guy? http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index...43&hl=Cosmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 What about this guy? http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index...43&hl=Cosmo Douchebag idiots are exempt from OPSEC protection. We're actually hoping the Taliban picks that guy off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck17 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Douchebag idiots are exempt from OPSEC protection. We're actually hoping the Taliban picks that guy off. Well played. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest viper76 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 From JP 3-54... Yet USAF/PA does it all the time. For a while after 9/11, it was "Major Tom" (rank and first names, but no last names); but lately it seems the USAF has backed off on protecting its members...such as this article on the 355 FS deploying to Afghanistan. However, on this site we (the forum owner and us mods) are more sensitive to operational information. See this thread. And if you have any questions about OPSEC, the AU site has a lot of good sources of information. And I agree that it isn't the smartest idea. And as we have seen lately with the lady that lied about her husband dying in Iraq to win tickets to a Hannah Montana concert or all the posers being called out lying on other forums, it is quite easy to find information on people via the Internet. Some days I am glad I live in a cave! Cheers! M2 I was amazed at the amount of information that was included in the article. You would think that someone of his rank and position (both in the article) would know better. I'd be suprised his chain of command back in Minnesota hasn't said something. You're also right about the internet making finding people an easy task. I'll admit he seemed very proud of himself in the photograph. I guess that's a fighter pilot for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I was amazed at the amount of information that was included in the article. You would think that someone of his rank and position (both in the article) would know better. I'd be suprised his chain of command back in Minnesota hasn't said something. You're also right about the internet making finding people an easy task. I'll admit he seemed very proud of himself in the photograph. I guess that's a fighter pilot for you I don't really understand what it is that you are taking issue with, or what it is that is so 'amazing'. Neither article gave more than the pilot's name and rank, with the unit being obvious. And if he were shot down, his name and rank are two of the things that he is allowed to reveal to his captors! As for retaliation by 'bad guys down range', I can only assume that if the Air Force thought that was even remotely likely, it would enforce a greater level of protection for the identities of these men and women. Of course, if Rainman were here he'd simply say, 'Never talk to the media'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 From JP 3-54... but lately it seems the USAF has backed off on protecting its members... Cheers! M2 STS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest viper76 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I don't really understand what it is that you are taking issue with, or what it is that is so 'amazing'. Neither article gave more than the pilot's name and rank, with the unit being obvious. And if he were shot down, his name and rank are two of the things that he is allowed to reveal to his captors! As for retaliation by 'bad guys down range', I can only assume that if the Air Force thought that was even remotely likely, it would enforce a greater level of protection for the identities of these men and women. Of course, if Rainman were here he'd simply say, 'Never talk to the media'. I see your point about the name and rank. Unfortunately most of our adversaries down range don't follow the Geneva Convention. A recurring theme in all my threat briefs both stateside and in theater was don't give out any personal identifying information not just to protect the servicemember but the family as well. As has been pointed out the internet has made it easy to find someone with little more than a name. So far we haven't seen (at least to my knowledge) attacks in the states by terrorists against specific members or their families but as the thwarted attack at Ft Dix reminds us the bad guys are out there and it's just not possible for the Air Force to protect us against every threat. We have to protect ourselves most of the time. Unfortunately Ft Dix or something like it could still happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) Remember the minivan explosion of the USN cruiser skipper who took down the Iranian airliner in the 80s? The shipdriver wasn't at the wheel, his wife was. The F-111 Libya raid guys are still hinky about talking publicly; many wouldn't for a story I did. The ones who did wouldn't allow full names. In my GCI drug ops days, we had a radar tech who was deployed 'down South' get an anonymous letter with current daily life photos of his wife and kid. There are bad guys out there who don't play by the rules........ Edited January 5, 2008 by brickhistory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest viper76 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Remember the minivan explosion of the USN cruiser skipper who took down the Iranian airliner in the 80s? The shipdriver wasn't at the wheel, his wife was. The F-111 Libya raid guys are still hinky about talking publicly; many wouldn't for a story I did. The ones who did wouldn't allow full names. In my GCI drug ops days, we had a radar tech who was deployed 'down South' get an anonymous letter with current daily life photos of his wife and kid. There are bad guys out there who don't play by the rules........ Forgot all about that one brickhistory. Thanks. As I recall she got lucky and escaped. I seem to remember she lost her job though as a teacher afterward because they were afraid of her continuing to be a target. I think we all agree that we fear less for our own personal safety than we do for our family. We as servicmembers are better able to protect ourselves. Our families are on their own in many respects especially while we are TDY or deployed. We can't maintain complete anonymity in our lives but I wouldn't seek out exposure by posing for a picture in the national media. Really nothing is gained by the exposure. I've heard the quote "Stupid Can Hurt" many times. We can't be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now