# Troops' Internet postings pose security risk, warns military official



## Booked_Spice (9 Aug 2006)

I am conflicted with this article. I love seeing our Forces in Action however I don't want my ability to see these videos endangering our Troops overseas. I am very interested in seeing other peoples views on this article.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2006/08/09/1725827-sun.html


----------



## career_radio-checker (9 Aug 2006)

I don't know why officials are concerned with the tidbits of private footage on YouTube while you can find a picture perfect overhead map of any base using Google earth, and stats about our equipment on the internet. Heck, if you were to take their word seriously you could kiss the 'equipment' section of this forum good by. Now Tactics are another matter and should never be discussed.

I think DND is just affraid of more 'Somalia' type footage hitting the air.


----------



## techie (9 Aug 2006)

All photos or video taken while on duty must be cleared through your CoC before being released. While on tour, i would think you are always on duty.OPSEC, PERSEC must also be respected, that's why you go through your CoC. I love watching combat videos myself, but i dint want anyone to put themselves in the line of fire for doing this.

Also, i could see them wanting to prevent a video being released with say an offhand comment about "towel heads"(but worse), and that getting out, that would only fuel the fire for the anti-war groups. Politics would come into play after that, huge controversy, and who knows what would happen after that.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

I am going to wait on this for abit till i see what all the pers who will never ever be in a combat video ssay about this before i say anything! :threat:


----------



## GAP (9 Aug 2006)

Some of the video coming out of the Sandbox through the media is excellent, taken in context, with audio to explain what is happening. It is good for the mission, it is good for the troops. 

That said, I sure as hell would not have wanted a convenient video camera around on some of our operations. Young men, full of piss and vinegar, a lot of bravado, pumped up during and immediately after a firefight....uhhhh...can anybody spell PR disaster? 

A lot of things happen on the battlefield, and that's were they should stay. They are out of context, and out of order.


----------



## cplcaldwell (9 Aug 2006)

Nope sorry, if it was not cleared through chain of command and ended up in the public domain, then charge 'em.

It's not that a picture here or a picture there could compromise OPSEC it's that fifty or a hundred videos on youtube could provide the scraps, that when carefully put together, to form a powerful piece of intel.

It's not that a vid Billy and Bobby Canuck sitting in a fire position shooting the **** is bad, it's when a name is taken off a name tag, and a school bus blows up two months later in Little Red Neck SK and lo and behold Bobby's nephew is gone that's bad.

It's not that video of a Cdn pl in action compromises strategy but when six or eight such segments are studied in depth that a talented (En) IntOp could put together a very comprehensive picture of how any Cdn pl attacks and counter with moment by moment tactics that an attack turns into a blood bath. ('There see Omar, just after the grenade is fired they always wait a moment before coming over the fence/around the corner/through the door, it is at this time that we set off the IED in the yard/alley/hallway')

Nope, sorry, want to make a video of 'what you did in the war', burn it on a DVD, and show it to your grandkids in thirty years when they ask, other than that, 'Loose lips sink ships'.


----------



## CK (9 Aug 2006)

Force protection is a very big deal.  Every small peice of information adds to the the bigger intelligence picture [for the enemy], and video is a huge peice of that intelligence puzzle.  

I see the resolution of KAF on Google Earth has dropped considerably, and for very good reason.  I'm glad the powers that be a Google have realized the importance of Force Protection.  

There is a line between civil liberies/freedom of speech and keeping our troops safe, but when you are balancing your viewing pleasure with the lives of our soldiers, I am going to side with protecting our soldiers.  I'm sure everyone has seen the WWII poster of the soldier holding up the cup of coffee saying 'How about a nice cup of shut the #### up!"  The situation is not too different today, except most people dont realize that our society is at war, or the consequences or their actions, or for that matter losing.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Aug 2006)

As an aside; I'm beginning to hate the term "military official".  DND official, I could swallow, but military official conjures up a mental image of a middle management desk jockey spouting off about the company line.  I'd prefer something else.....

tangent ends, carry on...


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

On that note:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060731%2fafghan_video_soldiers_060809&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True

Forces probe video airing of Canadians in battle 
09/08/2006 9:48:47 AM  
The Canadian military has launched an investigation after video of Canadians engaged in battle in Afghanistan was aired on U.S. television stations last week.

The video was allegedly taken by American freelance photojournalist Scott Kesterson, and was also posted on a popular Internet website. 

However, it is Canadian military policy that all video from the war zone be cleared by military brass. The military fears unauthorized video could compromise their position. 

The video clips in question shows Canadian soldiers engaged in battle with enemy forces, including an ambush on July 15th and a dawn raid on a Taliban compound two days earlier.


----------



## career_radio-checker (9 Aug 2006)

In the near future...

"I have no live rounds, spent cassings, pyrotechnics or video photography in my possesion, Sir!"


----------



## North Star (9 Aug 2006)

From my occupational perspective: never post anything online of an operational nature. Never film anything operational unless it's to keep you out of trouble. 

In the UK, a soldier who won a bravery decoration in Iraq was the intended victim of an alleged Islamic Jihadist's murder plot. The accused supposedly cobbled together details for his plan using the internet, media reports, and the like. The same could probably happen here, and given that The Maple Leaf often posts clear photos of troops with captions identifying the soldier and where they live, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Opsec gains new importance with the kind of enemy we're now facing. So watch those loose lips (they do sink ships) and avoid posting "cool" vids...


----------



## Devlin (9 Aug 2006)

+1 for me

Keep the cameras video and otherwise out of the field period.


----------



## cplcaldwell (9 Aug 2006)

It isn't really important if they are playing 'three downs' and we are playing 'four downs'. 

It isn't really important if they are playing on a 110 meter long field and we are playing on a 100 yard long field. 

It's* real important * to remember that they _are_ playing with a 35 yard deep end zone. We should remember that in case we set up our wives [sic] and kids (or anyone's for that matter) on the field of play because we misconstrued where the end zone stopped and the tail gate party began.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (9 Aug 2006)

If you really look into this it makes no sence unless it is giving away maps and other details. The News have shown battles less then 24hrs after they have happened on the news. Now it states this troop was already home off tour. These things are a thing of the past. So unless they gave away new targets, map and or other details of new missions I cant understand the problem. I guess youhave to see the whole problem first!!!


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

What are you talking about?


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

I agree with Bobby, i seen the videos, my freinds from my Coy are in the video and i see nothing wrong with it. There was no OPSEC issues at all. I guess jealousy has reared its ugly head again!


----------



## cplcaldwell (9 Aug 2006)

Bobby Oreo, WADR, I think your post is incorrect in its substance, here's why. 



> The News have shown battles less then 24hrs after they have happened on the news.



Yes, After the PaffO said "Okay, it's harmless release it". The devil is in the details. 



> Now it states this troop was already home off tour. These things are a thing of the past.



Not unless the enemy can turn them into the future. 



> I guess you have to see the whole problem first!!!



Yup, that's why I leave it to people like North Star, who seems to know that end of the business to tell me what to do.

IMHO. There are times when FIGMO is a perfectly acceptable way to do one's job.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2006)

silentbutdeadly! said:
			
		

> I guess jealousy has reared its ugly head again!



Congratulations, you were in Afghanistan....now get over yourself


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

silentbutdeadly! said:
			
		

> I agree with Bobby, i seen the videos, my freinds from my Coy are in the video and i see nothing wrong with it. There was no OPSEC issues at all. I guess jealousy has reared its ugly head again!



I surprised at your comments.  You, yourself, felt the affects of OPSEC and PERSEC on your Tour.  How quickly you forget.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

Yeah like on the ground fighting! risking my life , and if there's videos out that might educate future Infantry soldiers and show them how it is on the ground. Oh and i am far from over myself champ!


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

My problem is then is no OPSEC over there and everyone there will tell you that. Thats what i think people don't understand , so complaining about on here is just funny, ask many person on here ie Jay4th and others.


----------



## c1984ml (9 Aug 2006)

> Oh and i am far from over myself champ


  We noticed.  :


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

And the reason i used the word jealousy is that some people see that stuff and feel its something wrong, but most combat arms see it as educational ie lessons learned


----------



## George Wallace (9 Aug 2006)

The matter in discussion is OPSEC and PERSEC.  The videos that were released by Scott Kesterson are probably going to clear any investigation, but what about the other photos, videos, emails coming out of Theatre?  Just look back to Somalia.  Look what a couple of posed photos did there.  It is too easy for any of these 'media' releases, no matter how innocent they may seem at the time, to fall into the wrong hands and be manipulated.  Look at what is happening in the Press in Lebanon.  

The whole idea is to think of OPSEC and PERSEC first before you release any media.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

i agree George! photos are a bigger problem over there the videos. The guys are looking at OPSEC and the videos have been edited for PERSEC reasons.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

Maybe i am alittle bias due to the fact my buddy's are in those videos.


----------



## cplcaldwell (9 Aug 2006)

silentbutdeadly!: I had to hold back after the use of the word 'jealousy'. If it meant one thing, well, I just wasn't going to go there. 

But you've made it clear what you meant, thanks (it _did not_ mean the one thing I was thinking about). 

I understand what you are saying, but don't we have a training system and a whole 'Lessons Learned' mob who exist for that sort of thing? 

Even so, when you say _"but most combat arms see it as educational ie lessons learned"_ I understand what you say and I agree, these images are good and a good NCO will use them to train at the appropriate level. 

But not to put to fine a point on it, is YouTube.com the place to post them?

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to start a p****ing match here, just some thoughts.


----------



## probum non poenitet (9 Aug 2006)

I think a big part of the unease is that many Canadians are uncomfortable with the idea of us fighting, it's THE political issue of the day, and the more graphic the video, the more it stirs the pot.

My mind isn't made up yet on how graphic is too graphic.

Does it honour or exploit the soldiers to show what they are going through?

If a soldier is wounded, do you show a picture of the medics working on him?
It would be horrible for the family.
But is it better in the long run, so that everyone knows what soldiers are going through? So that nobody thinks war is easy?

OPSEC or not, that question remains. How much combat should the public see?
I am still making up my mind on that one.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Aug 2006)

I wish we did have a better Lesson learned cell over there compared to the Americans per say, but we are so behind. We were the Lesson Learned cell over there. Its getting better. I was interviewed by a Capt over there from Kingston about changes to our trainning for future mission, so yeah i seen someone but the turn around rate is very slow. These videos are the only thing we have to true combat  seen by our troops back home. I just think that Paff O out of Edmonton who said this is wrong maybe is mad he didn't get to release it because it is  a pretty cool video.


----------



## cplcaldwell (9 Aug 2006)

Okay, thanks.


----------



## North Star (9 Aug 2006)

As a former combat arms guy (infantry), I do see some values in recording attacks using the SAM system in the LAVs (when turning it on doesn't kill the radios!) or even in mounting a camera helmet. They can provide valuable lessons. But those lessons are the business of the CF's alone given its professional status and not that of the general public, some of whom have had their perceptions "prepped" by the psyops of our adversaries.

You have to think of this issue from an int perspective. If all I do all day is troll the internet for pams, dissect video footage (PAff approved or not), chat casually with military guys, etc, I can start to build a picture of how a unit operates. I can then use that info to modify my TTPs to counter yours. Int cells do this all the time, collecting SIGINT, IMINT, HUMINT and then fusing it into products we then give to combat arms people. The Taliban aren't dumb, and do the exact same thing. So by posting a video on the net that may seem harmless, but it could add a little bit to a picture the Taliban are building of us that can then be used to their advantage. 

A few months ago, someone posted a link to a video called "Baghdad Sniper". While it pissed me off, I watched it with a view to learning something about the insurgency. I quickly noticed a pattern. When soldier's heads were protected, he'd shoot for the neck. If the neck was blocked, he'd go for the thigh. While his organization doubtless posted this crap for a psyop campaign, it presented a picture as to how this particular sniper operated. A lesson can be drawn from it that perhaps we should focus R+D on upper leg protection, as he seems to go for the femoral artery in the absence of a head-shot. They do the exact same thing on their end, making deductions from information and using them. 

It may seem a bit anal to harp on OPSEC when nothing ever seems to come of it. However, One Sergeant Major told me something that stuck. As a junior platoon commander I once questioned why the staff evaluating the platoon demanded that my soldiers have to dig in after each attack. Afterall, it was only a training environment. The CSM turned to me and said "Sure, it's a pain now, but it's not a huge discomfort when death is falling from the sky". The OPSEC issues arising from the unauthorized public posting of photos and videos is the same way. It may seem like trivial horsesh-t when nothing comes of it, but when it something does, you'll wish you had practiced it earlier.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Aug 2006)

+1


----------



## paracowboy (9 Aug 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> It may seem a bit anal to harp on OPSEC when nothing ever seems to come of it. However, One Sergeant Major told me something that stuck. As a junior platoon commander I once questioned why the staff evaluating the platoon demanded that my soldiers have to dig in after each attack. Afterall, it was only a training environment. The CSM turned to me and said "Sure, it's a pain now, but it's not a huge discomfort when death is falling from the sky". The OPSEC issues arising from the unauthorized public posting of photos and videos is the same way. It may seem like trivial horsesh-t when nothing comes of it, but when it something does, you'll wish you had practiced it earlier.


this is why I wish the Basic Cbt Int crse was run with every PCF cycle.


----------



## CK (9 Aug 2006)

Very well said North Star.  

I agree, the cbt int course is very valuable.  It definitely gives you an appreciation for what others dont see, i.e. thinking that a video of CDN troops in cbt is benign if it doesnt show any locations, pers ident etc.  I'm not going to reiterate North Stars comments though.  I wouldnt be able to articulate it as well.  Bu I want to add that if cbt troops are 'learning' from it, then so are the bad guys.  However you perceive it as edcational, always look at it from the perspective of the bad guy viewing it.  He's not looking at it saying, 'wow those guys are really doing a dangerous job', or 'oh so thats how they do it for real in Afghanistan', he's saying 'so that is how they do things, well this is how we can defeat it'  

As for the Lessons Learned, that is everyones responsibility.  If you have something substantial to contribute, then you need to be proactive and get it to the right people to get it published in a Journal or Dispatches.  If you rely on anyone else to diseminate the information, it wont happen.  And the interenet is not the proper medium to diseminate Lessons Learned, i.e. YouTube.  The Army Lessons Learned Center is.  They are very accomidating from my experience, and I thank them for providing me the opportunity to write a Dispatches.  

There are proper channels to do things, like releasing videos, and they are done that way for reasons that is sometimes beyond the rationalization of those not in the big picture.  Sometimes big picture SA is a need to know, and as a soldier that is something that you have to accept.


----------



## Spartan (9 Aug 2006)

I raise this question more as an observation - how do you control the embedded media? I understand that they have limitations on what they can air (obviously) but I've seen some pretty good footage on the news, as I'm sure you have as well.
Another thing that is being promoted by members (who should be in the know) on this site alone have me wondering (ie video blogs, personal photos (not talking about the hero shots, or the ones with buddies). 

Things like the lessons learned, and after action reports/ stories are excellent training tools and reading materials to learn from if widely dissemenated to the lower levels.
I understand someone up way higher than me takes care of the AEL and the various other means - goes through what is sensitive, what isn't - but when I see the wealth of information readily available through it - it makes me go hmmm. I take a gander through it for my own self interest - I wonder what someone really looking for something could find - through government sites alone, not counting the many various forums readily available on the 'Net


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Aug 2006)

Watching the news, when it came up that CF is concerned about a series of videos posted on youtube, that were not approved by dnd could comprimise the troops.  I have seen the vids they are talking about (not going to post links, since they may have violated OPSEC) and they are pretty interesting to say the least.  Anyways here are some news articles discussing this, reproduced fair dealings yadda yadda

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155161413920&call_pageid=968332188492



> Combat clips raise alarm
> Unauthorized Web videos of soldiers
> Liberal critic: `They could pose a danger'
> Aug. 10, 2006. 06:54 AM
> ...


 Note I removed references that would make it easier to find said videos

Just to note, these aren't the videos that have already been posted here, and I will leave it to the mods to decide whether or not the article above should be un-edited.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

> Note I removed references that would make it easier to find said videos
> 
> Just to note, these aren't the videos that have already been posted here, and I will leave it to the mods to decide whether or not the article above should be un-edited.


You are a little late with the Videos being posted. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48341/post-422236.html#msg422236

Edited to add: Why would you edit the article in the first place?


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Aug 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> You are a little late with the Videos being posted.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48341/post-422236.html#msg422236
> 
> Edited to add: Why would you edit the article in the first place?



That maybe so, but in light of the fact that senior DND officials are trying to determine if the creator of these videos violated our OPSEC, they should be taken down.  And I edited the article to err on the side of caution WRT to this sites guidelines on things dealing with OPSEC.  Why make it any easier to find these videos.


----------



## Blakey (10 Aug 2006)

If you didn't want to "make it easier" to find the videos, you shouldn't have even posted the story, nor the link to it. 
That's where I'll leave that at, I believe there is a seven or eight page thread somewhere here discussing the pros's and con's of posting such videos.
Edit: Found it http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48635.0.html


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Aug 2006)

PB&J said:
			
		

> If you didn't want to "make it easier" to find the videos, you shouldn't have even posted the story, nor the link to it.
> That's where I'll leave that at, I believe there is a seven or eight page thread somewhere here discussing the pros's and con's of posting such videos.
> Edit: Found it http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48635.0.html



It actually three pages, and I guess this can be merged.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2006)

It is rather interesting that many of you are complaining about videos shot by an American, inbedded with American Troops, who happened to film Canadians in action.  His videos, were processed through the American System and distributed by his Television Station back in the US of A.  Totally outside of any control by Canadian Censorship.  It does put a different twist on OPSEC and PERSEC.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Aug 2006)

Exactly, George.



> Dosanjh called on the Canadian Forces to investigate the source of the videos to ensure the troops' safety isn't in danger.



Well, here's the source for all to see...

http://www.beloblog.com/KGW_Blogs/afghanistan/

The videos were taken by a reporter for KGW News, a station in Oregon.  This took all of two seconds to find on Google.  Indeed, the source link was posted here on Army.ca a few days ago.  The reporter's name - Scott Kesterson - appears at the beginning of each video. 

People, including our esteemed defence critic, need to suck back and reload. Tempest in a teapot... :


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2006)

silentbutdeadly! said:
			
		

> Yeah like on the ground fighting! risking my life , and if there's videos out that might educate future Infantry soldiers and show them how it is on the ground.


and if those videos are available on the internet, then both sides can get all training value from them.  If we need training aids, would we not be better served by combat videos designated for official use only (ie: kept within the CF and shown at units & schools)?


----------



## Petard (10 Aug 2006)

I have to agree with Teddy's comments.

I think its very disingenuous for these critics and reporters saying how concerned they are for the troops safety, and then post links on their newspapers site to easily get to it. As for the liberal critics, I have some suspicions about their motivations too, if they were all that worried shouldn't they have addressed this in private to the military instead of blabbing in public and drawing more attention to the source?

One last comment though to those who believe the only source for Int should be the ALLC, there's problems with that and if you want to know my story drop by my office, (check my profile, I'm sure you'll be able to figure out where it is), I'll gladly give anyone who wants to sing the praises of the ALLC an ear full. Bring your ear defenders.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Aug 2006)

The Lessons Learned process is, perhaps, slower than we'd like but it has changed recently.  Its been my job to collect observations over here for the last six months (I'm that Captain), and all ranks have been very open.  I try and get the info from the field.  A lot of info has gone back to Canada on a range of topics (IEDs, training, tactics, weapons, kit, etc).  Much of it is classified, so you won't see all of it in a snazzy booklet but it may well begin to influence change in the army.  Rotos getting ready see it, so they do have access to what has gone on in theatre.  

I forgot my ear defenders, but if anybody has suggestions go ahead and PM me if you like.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Aug 2006)

You also have to balance Opsec with educating the public with what is happening. To be blunt Canadians need to see our guys fight and win, it will help remove the perception that all they do is hand out candy and build wells. Keeping completely quiet allows the opposition (both internal and external) to fill the void. Canadians need to see our guys doing both the rebuilding stuff and the combat to ensure that they maintain support for the mission, otherwise the Bad guys will be able to dominate the PR battle and destroy support at home which is their intent. 

As much as I understand the need for OpSec on a personal level it sucks to be on the outside not be able to follow the discussions and lessons learned.


----------



## GAP (17 Aug 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You also have to balance Opsec with educating the public with what is happening. To be blunt Canadians need to see our guys fight and win, it will help remove the perception that all they do is hand out candy and build wells. Keeping completely quiet allows the opposition (both internal and external) to fill the void. Canadians need to see our guys doing both the rebuilding stuff and the combat to ensure that they maintain support for the mission, otherwise the Bad guys will be able to dominate the PR battle and destroy support at home which is their intent.
> 
> As much as I understand the need for OpSec on a personal level it sucks to be on the outside not be able to follow the discussions and lessons learned.



+ 10
It is frustrating to know a little of what is going on, and then turning around and seeing the public with "no clue".  There has to be a proactive effort made to inform the public over and over again, and what's coming out now isn't cutting it.


----------



## North Star (17 Aug 2006)

I agree with the last two posts. To be blunt, PAff is failing in its job in getting the point across to Canadians while balancing that message with OPSEC. However, that should not be taken as carte blanche to begin spilling potentially damaging data and information on to public media. 

Honestly, I'm surprised at the seeming lack of effort in producing PAff products outlining the ideology of the Taliban/HIG, Canada's role, and how that role ultimately makes the world a safer place. If I had my way, I'd have so many pictures of burned schools/atrocities pushed to the media that the mere mention of the word "Taliban" would conjure up images of arson, ignorance, and criminality.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Aug 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm surprised at the seeming lack of effort in producing PAff products outlining the ideology of the Taliban/HIG, Canada's role, and how that role ultimately makes the world a safer place. If I had my way, I'd have so many pictures of burned schools/atrocities pushed to the media that the mere mention of the word "Taliban" would conjure up images of arson, ignorance, and criminality.



The most important Information Operations campaign is, in fact, the internal one - and the that includes the "home front".


----------



## GAP (17 Aug 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The most important Information Operations campaign is, in fact, the internal one - and the that includes the "home front".



I disagree. If the CF as an organization, is not prepared to make its' case to the people, then it should not complain when it needs the personnel and equipment. It has an obligation to inform the public about its' mission and needs, and that has not been happening. 

The squeaky wheel DOES get the grease, but then it has to do the job.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> If the CF as an organization, is not prepared to make its' case to the people, then it should not complain when it needs the personnel and equipment. It has an obligation to inform the public about its' mission and needs, and that has not been happening.


that's what he's saying.


----------



## GAP (17 Aug 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> that's what he's saying.



oops....sorry


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Aug 2006)

From what I have seen Combat Camera is capable of producing some nice stuff, but not good at getting it out there. the Military needs to make itself known to the public and supported the way a fire department does. It also needs to get a presence in the cities where there are no large bases.


----------



## Centurian1985 (17 Aug 2006)

My 2 cents:

I am all for the rights of soldiers to be proud of their jobs, show what they are doing, provide insight to the rest of the country, show the 'I was there photos'...  we shouldnt be afraid of showing what the job is about.  

I will disagree with the comments on OPSEC over tactics depicted in videos.  Canadians have been observed for months and years by the enemy forces, and 'observers' are present at every Canadian base area.  Anyone who thinks the 'enemy' is going to learn anything new from a video on 'youtube' is foolish (unless it is a video of an ops briefing or int office, of course that would be new, definately a non-no).

I will agree with comments about PERSEC.  Not everyone in your picture frame is a 'buddy'.  Someone walking in the background could be involved in sensitive work and would not appreciate your paparazzi efforts.   

Finally I will agree and emphasize that releasing film and images taken during duty is the complete right of the DND when that operation is still in progress and Canadian soldiers are still working in that area.  Approval of CoC is there for two very important reasons.  

1) Not all young soldiers who fight are going to use common sense when combining field work and imagery devices. Eventually someone is going to do or say something really stupid on tape or in an image, and let it get posted on the internet. This includes fighting engagements when emotions are high and the 4-letter count is at its maximum.   
Example: In an unspecified year, a young Private I knew was charged for punching out an officer.  Reason unimportant, result unimportant.  What was important was that the Private in question had a friend of his take pictures of him while he did it!!  Quote: "Are you ready? Are you ready?"  Pow! Flash!  Pictures of him beating an officer.  Im sorry, but how stupid is that? I asked him "Why would you take pictures of yourself doing that?" he said "I dont know, it seemed like a good idea at the time!"  Fortunately, at that time there was no internet access, so worldwide coverage wasnt a concern.  Point proven, case closed.  It is only a matter of time until something stupid gets done and released. 

2) The entire deployment is dependent on political support from the Canadian people and your government.  They want to ensure that if they  are paying for your services that you will represent them in the manner that they determine best.  Also known as 'loyalty to your employer'.  It is not up to the individual soldier to decide how best to depict the Canadian military, it is the governments decision. The soldier can be released and move on with his life if he does something stupid, but the rest of the military will have to live with the results of that one persons actions. 

Of course, not everyone will agree with these ideas, so five recommendations for future posters:
1) Think twice before hitting the 'upload' button.  Would I be proud of this picture if it were on the front page of a newspaper?  Would my parents be proud? 
2) Has everyone in that photo or film clip agreed to let you publish that picture/clip?  If not, it shouldnt be published on the internet. 
3) Is there any sensitive material, or action in this image?  Do you have the skill and knowledge to actually judge that there isnt any?
4) Never publish 'voice'!!  Audio clips can be manipulated for propoganda purposes to an unbelievable level and takes forensic invetigation to prove "hey, thats not what I said!"
5) Ask yourself, "Why am I publishing this?" Is it really to 'inform the public and other soldiers" or for the "look at how cool I am" factor?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Aug 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> oops....sorry



Ahem - can I buy you a scotch Para...and one for GAP?


----------



## Petard (19 Aug 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> The Lessons Learned process is, perhaps, slower than we'd like but it has changed recently...  Much of it is classified, so you won't see all of it in a snazzy booklet but it may well begin to influence change in the army.  Rotos getting ready see it, so they do have access to what has gone on in theatre.
> 
> I forgot my ear defenders, but if anybody has suggestions go ahead and PM me if you like.



Ack'd to 2B
There were some specific incidents which my comments applly to, I'm currently on leave but will PM you later with my work e-mail so I can contact you WRT the specifics.

I should clarify my comments so they can be put in context, and 2B has indirectly alluded to one of the problems, ie those preparing for the mission  have access to the information, but those who work in a Centre Of Excellence (COE) responsible for updating the TTP's often have more limited access, if any.
The main point I was getting at was that it was implied in this subject thread, and some others, that the main source of information should only be the Army Lesson's Learned Centre. I suppose it is also implied in that there would be better control of information and compromising information would not be so vulnerable. While in genreal I agree with that, the problem at my level is that while the issues identified in some of ALLC's documents are vital and usually timely, they are very sparse in details, which are obviously needed in order to flush out the applicable procedures/drills to be changed. I don't expect the ALLC to be able to "get down in the weeds" for every COE, I don't expect they have the staff, the time or expertise to do that, which means other sources of information must be sought, in trying to do that some of us have had difficulty in getting any information from theatre, this is especially frustrating in developing training for new technologies for a unit pre-deployment. But people are resourcefull and manage to find ways to get the information, which unfortunately does sometimes leak out as shared e-mails and, while they can be entertaining, do present a problem if someone were to think they should act on the limited information these isolated pieces of information provide. This entire matter of sharing information has been recognized and is being addressed by those of a much higher pay grade than me.

2B I'm not trying to slam the ALLC, but those who want to say it is "the be all to end all" or the only approved source for any theatre int are grossly under-estimating the nature of the solutions required for the problems/changes needed identified in ALLC's research.
Cheers


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Aug 2006)

Fire Support was actually the first report I generated here.  I don't get into the details of gun drills, which is perhaps frustrating to some.  I do get into employment and tactics.  My role here is to be a sensor.  I alert others to issues which can then be studied in more detail.

There is quite a bit from the recent battles that is coming through the pipe.  Most of it is classified.  That will slow things down, but the schools and CMTC will certainly have access, not to mention the units.  I'll be back at work fairly soon.  I'm gonna regret this, but if you are an Ops O or Trg O and you can't find something you're looking for you, can find me in about a month on the DIN. 

Cheers,

2B


----------



## JasonH (20 Aug 2006)

As many of you know with my experiance in makeing Military video's this is a very double edged sword of topic for me.  When it comes to pictures and video's I feel a great deal of hope they keep coming but at the same time in no way put the troops at risk.  I've seen the video's in question and really find it foolish in some parts to note where they were attacking and how but otherwise find no real reason why they should have a problem with it.  Except the embarresing way the Afghan military fights.


----------



## boondocksaint (28 Aug 2006)

hello, 1st post here, a friend told me our footage was 'making waves', interesting comments about footage being released, the combat camera guy we had with us for the first few TIC's had his released fast obviously......army PR blah blah and all that

now the other video's.....filmed by an american freelancer, who did everything by the book and to the letter AND stayed with us for about 10 days of fighting, while the combat camera guy stayed very briefly, HE (the yank) cared more about OPSEC then anyone BECAUSE Americans GET IT,

those 3 short vid's from YOUTUBE are stolen from KGW.com where his stuff is hosted, and they are heavily edited for OPSEC sake, and of course his own copyright interests, bottom line he had permission to be there, and his film is his own, and unlike most journalists he wasn't out to fry us, just tell a story, odd i know

release the footage, let Canadians soak it up, i've read alot of reasons here as to why we shouldnt release it.....well Canadians, civies and military need to see what combat looks like, its messy- chaotic- fast- loud- scary- exhilirating -bonding-life altering-defining and oh by the way CANADIANS HAPPEN TO BE GOOD AT IT, so embrace it, we aint peace keeping anymore mom, the yanks loved us, the brits wanna adopt us,  

flame away


----------



## Jay4th (28 Aug 2006)

Well  said Bndkst.  I am anxiously awaiting the release on the rest of his footage.  RED DEVILS


----------



## dirtyMurph (15 Sep 2006)

If anything comes out of these video clips at all it will be an increase at the recruiting centers.


----------

