# OPSEC for spouses



## Lil_T (9 Apr 2009)

Are there OPSEC briefings held for spouses?  There should be if there isn't.  Some people really need to learn to shut their mouths/ not facebook/post some things.


----------



## TimBit (9 Apr 2009)

Lil_T said:
			
		

> Are there OPSEC briefings held for spouses?  There should be if there isn't.  Some people really need to learn to shut their mouths/ not facebook/post some things.



Well even INT personnel do not get proper OPSEC lectures on some topics... having had to invent one on a topic recently. So I wouldn't keep my hopes up, really...


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Apr 2009)

I think it's more the member's responsibility to brief his/her spouse on the implications of posting sensitive stuff on the net.


----------



## Franko (9 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think it's more the member's responsibility to brief his/her spouse on the implications of posting sensitive stuff on the net.



Or maybe it's just easier for the member to keep their mouth shut in the first place on sensitive information.       

Most times it's the member talking about things their spouses do not have "need to know" of, regardless of how badly they want to be included in the loop.

Regards


----------



## helpup (9 Apr 2009)

And from there it goes to the Wives (Guys) networks and PRESTO! we have the rhumour Mill going overtime and generally being exagerated beyond belief.


----------



## Lil_T (9 Apr 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think it's more the member's responsibility to brief his/her spouse on the implications of posting sensitive stuff on the net.


  That's exactly my point.  They should - but they don't.  Even something basic would be better than expecting Pte Bloggins to explain to the little wifey why she can't post XYZ on her facebook when he doesn't understand it himself.


----------



## beach_bum (9 Apr 2009)

Lil_T said:
			
		

> That's exactly my point.  They should - but they don't.  Even something basic would be better than expecing Pte Bloggins to explain to the little wifey why she can't post XYZ on her facebook when he doesn't understand it himself.



As previously stated, the husband shouldn't be telling the little wifey anything either.  :


----------



## Lil_T (9 Apr 2009)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> As previously stated, the husband shouldn't be telling the little wifey anything either.  :



I totally agree.  I just think the spouses should be let in on WHY they shouldn't be running their mouths if their husband/ wife does tell them stuff.  A lot of them just don't get it.


----------



## beach_bum (9 Apr 2009)

I think you have missed my point.  There is no lecture for spouses on OPSEC.  The soldiers receive this lecture.  If they are telling their wives things, they are breaking OPSEC.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Apr 2009)

A lot of them don't get it _even if they're told_.   :


----------



## Lil_T (9 Apr 2009)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> I think you have missed my point.  There is no lecture for spouses on OPSEC.  The soldiers receive this lecture.  *If they are telling their wives things, they are breaking OPSEC.*



I haven't missed your point.  I am aware of this. What I'm saying is that if the spouses aren't aware that they aren't supposed to know these things (and why) - it may be more likely that they would pump their partner for information.  Yes, the member should keep his/her mouth shut too, but we all know that doesn't happen 100% of the time.  I was seeing it as more of an information session about OPSEC, what it is and why it's important.  I think, it would help for them to hear it from "professionals" and not their spouses.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> A lot of them don't get it _even if they're told_.   :


  

I am totally aware of this too Moe.  *sigh*  I have taken it upon myself a few times to explain to people why  they can't post or say certain things.  The vast majority of the time, the response was surprise because they weren't aware.  Then went on to say, "oh, my husband might have mentioned something about that I'm not sure".  Which is my whole reasoning for giving spouses the OPSEC talk.   It seems they tend to not pay close attention to what their partner tells them with regard to this.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Apr 2009)

Well, I can lecture someone all day about the importance of insect discipline and they still don't use it.  If we can't get the military members to pay attention and/or utilize the info we give them, I don't see it working too well for the spouses either.  Some people really _are_ that thick.


----------



## mariomike (9 Apr 2009)

"Don't ask. Don't tell."


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Apr 2009)

The only thing my now Ex knew was my departure timings, and she did not know that until a matter of days. She knew this info was sensitive.

I never told her the exact time I was coming home until required, but hinted around certain important personal dates/timings.

No actual dates were mentioned via phone or emails.  I have seen on here on some occasions with some spouses spilling unnecessary tour info, and this has always been well very policed by vigilant members and moderators.

There is no other mission specific details which spouses should know anyways.

OWDU


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> And from there it goes to the Wives (Guys) networks and PRESTO! we have the rhumour Mill going overtime and generally being exagerated beyond belief.



Sometimes the rumours passed around by members are no better than what the spouses are saying...


----------



## Another Mom (10 Apr 2009)

Personally, I think OPSEC for families is a great idea. I don't know the details of  the Facebook incident and I would never publicise anything but I have a  million questions about the army. Are e-mails back and forth to KAF screened? Is the mail? Are the phones tapped? Can the bad guys read the e-mails? Can the good guys?  I don't know any details of what happens over there and I don't ask.  But I could envisage a situation where a guy might want to unload a little emotionally, if there is no one else to talk to. It would be a great service to families if we knew how to deal with this from an OPSEC point of view. If a soldier starts to tell a family member something, we would be in a great position if we could say "Honey, don't tell me that, let's talk about  ______ instead" and to know what we can know and what we shouldn't know.  I know the time and the weather of KAF and what I read in the news. That's it.  What can I pass on to  my son from here in  terms of the news? Britney was here last night or more relevant stuff  about the politics of Afghanistan? Do the bad guys know if I forward him an link to  newspaper articles?  Is it ok for me to ask if I can donate stuff to the kids or schools there? Can the bad guys read this? Knowledge is power.


----------



## helpup (10 Apr 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Sometimes the rumours passed around by members are no better than what the spouses are saying...



no arguments there.  My wife and I both had to deal with being high up on the contact list for stuff happening oversea's and on more then one occassion serving people were trying to pump us for info.  Sorry but that is a no go from the get go. 

I understand the need people have for info but I dont agree they should have it.  A OPSEC brief for spouses is a good idea along with a point of contact that they can call or look at that will give out information that could be shared.  But since I grew up with my dad in the Navy and Sub's especially I got use to ( along with my Mom) not knowing.  You learn to deal with it.  I dont when deployed keep people in the dark though.  There is alot that can be said to those at home that does not break OPSEC however most people do not have that ability or inclination.  Generally once they are on the ground thier mind is on the job not on sharing with those back at home.  And trust me you want thier minds in the here and now not woolley gathering about sharing.  


(arrrg spell check is still not working on my work computer)


----------



## Lil_T (10 Apr 2009)

All great questions, generally speaking, if the information is common knowledge (in the news etc) then it is safe to talk about.  

The things that aren't, generally, are specific dates, times, places of missions - units taking part etc.  Things the general public can't find out from a newspaper.  If you can think to yourself _"this is something I shouldn't know"_ then don't say it/ write it/ post it anywhere.

I know I'm over-simplifying, I just don't feel like going into a long drawn out spiel today.

eta: awesome points made as well by helpup!


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Apr 2009)

Perhaps the members should decide what to tell their spouses.  

No need to go into details that the spouse doesn't need to know.

Gone on this date, home on that date...


----------



## helpup (10 Apr 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Perhaps the members should decide what to tell their spouses.
> 
> No need to go into details that the spouse doesn't need to know.
> 
> Gone on this date, home on that date...



That is Funny!!!
My own rule is the only confirmed date of being somewhere is when my boots are actually there.  Anything else is just a guide.


----------



## Franko (10 Apr 2009)

You can say anything that you want in letters, emails or over the phone. The member cannot.

The problem arises when the troops start talking about stuff they shouldn't which results in poor ol' auntie or grandma send it to others in the family and someone puts it in a blog.

The only thing a family member needs to know is when the soldier is getting off the bus and where.

Try to remember: the bad guys have access to the internet and get fed information from back in North America as well. Don't think they do? Take a look at this link:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85116/post-832725.html#new

We read their stuff, they read our stuff.

If you want to know some of the finer details, do it when your loved one gets home and have a coffee with them. Even then, OPSEC must be observed.

Regards


----------



## NL_engineer (10 Apr 2009)

Another Mom said:
			
		

> Are e-mails back and forth to KAF screened?



That depends on how it is sent; if sent from a DND account, it is recorded, and can be read.  

If sent from a personal laptop using a web based mail server with secure log ins [https://]  (ex gmail, yahoo mail) it is unlikely due to the fact that you have to be logged into a secure site to send that email, and it is also encoded (yes the emails can be gotten from said sites, but they require a warrant).   



			
				Another Mom said:
			
		

> Can the bad guys read the e-mails?



for bad guys, if they have a good enough hacker (better then say the ones Google pays top dollar too) they could, but it would be time consuming sorting through the billions of emails sent through that mail server.

If the emails are sent trough say Hotmail, (not using a HTTPS protocol) it is easier to do.


Hoped that answered your questions


****All information used is from open sources****


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2009)

Another Mom said:
			
		

> Personally, I think OPSEC for families is a great idea.



This is NOT going to happen.

OWDU


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> > Personally, I think OPSEC for families is a great idea.
> 
> 
> This is NOT going to happen.



Oh, go on, live it up; throw in a comma after that sentence and _explain_.......why, or why not


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2009)

Just what are you insinuating?

My response is plain and simple. Topics involving OPSEC issues will not be devulged to the public, including familiies of deployed members.  You know that.

Just remember JM, we're on the same side.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Just what are you insinuating?
> 
> My response is plain and simple. Topics involving OPSEC issues will not be devulged to the public, including familiies of deployed members.
> 
> I am not a fool.



I'm insinuating nothing whatsoever. The thread, based on its initial questioner, is whether there is, or should be, OPSEC briefings for the spouses of deployed personnel. Simple topic.  Nowhere did anyone suggest that specific OPSEC issues be discussed, only that it be explained to the spouses _why_ OPSEC is a concern.

You, however, weighed in with an authoritative "this is NOT going to happen" -- as though you had any insight into the thinking of those organizing pre-deployment training. 

I asked only that you explain your statement.


Whether or not you are a fool (a discussion point that no one but you raised), is not the issue here.


Edit: Ah, I see you've changed your post from "I'm not a fool" to "we're on the same side" -- two separate issues.   :


----------



## Lil_T (11 Apr 2009)

Holy Jeez....  

I'm not saying give them in-depth briefings that will make their eyes glaze over.  I'm saying *a little time at the MFRC, maybe a leaflet with their pre-deployment packet that they get anyway.*  To explain what OPSEC is, and why it's important to not talk about said sensitive information.  Yes, their spouses shouldn't say anything but it is an inevitability.  In my opinion, it is important for spouses to at least know why they shouldn't publicize the things their partner tells them.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2009)

I don't even know you, but you've got 'issues' with my posting style, kindly PM me. 

At first your response to my post had me wondering what point you were trying to make, perhaps making me look like a fool by the wording of your response. I since edited that. Kind of wierd that you were not even on this thread when I edited that, which was immediately after I posted.

Its common sense not to pass on any OPSEC issues to anyone not authorised to recieve them. I am sure this is a point we both agree on, as we've both worn the green skin all our adult lives. 

The woman's post quote "Personally, I think OPSEC for families is a great idea." is what I responded to, and nothing more. Mbrs should and do inform their families that they will not discuss any OPSEC issues, nor should they pass on any dates/info they may have inadvertantly come into the know about. I think good common sense covers that.

The rolling eyes is a tad unncessary, but I fully read your intent/message you have sent loud and clear, remember I am not a fool.


Regards,

OWDU

EDITed for clarity


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2009)

a) PM inbound

b) it's hard to respond to what you say here, if you keep editing your posts and changing your statements -- that's why there's those fancy "preview" and "spell check" thingees; 
figure out what you'd like to say _before_ hitting <send>

 :


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2009)

PM read and responded to. You've got mail.


----------



## the 48th regulator (11 Apr 2009)

Wes,

I am going to go on a limb, but I believe Another Mom intended to say OPSEC training for families is a good thing.

I just don't see her pushing to have a long bench, like the ones we used to have in the Gym or auditorium, set up in the next O group for family members to sit on when they attend....

My guess is JM caught that, and well was playin' fun with your misunderstanding of her intent.

But then again, I would love to see that scenario played out....Something akin to an episode of Mama's family comes to mind.

dileas

tess


----------



## Another Mom (11 Apr 2009)

I assumed it was fairly obvious that I  was not pushing for families to receive any sensitive information. It would be useful for families to know what is sensitive and what is not. For example,  medical families know that confidentiality precludes talking about anything that reveals a patient's identity, but is ok to talk in generalities.  Teachers should not reveal students names in public, but it is ok to talk about the funny thing that happened today. People talk. It would be good to get guidelines  from the forces about what is ok to talk about or that it NOT ok to talk about anything.  But then, does that apply later, as well, when the soldier is home? I really think this issue is more complicated than asking a service person never to say anything  about anything forever. Knowing the boundaries would be useful. And believe it or not, not all mothers are like Momma's family.  Some of us are professionals with careers that may cross boundaries with what our adult children are doing and it would be great to have some guidelines about what it is ok to talk about, if anything.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2009)

AM, thanks for your clarification. I will sum up by saying common sense prevails overall for families. 

This includes many factors, but the golden rule 'if in doubt' don't ask, and besides your spouse would ensure you knew before hand the do's and don'ts, thats how it works here.

This can also be backed up by support cells for families at meetings where Q&A can be answered, along with an open UNCLAS brief on whats been happening overall. These UNCLAS briefs on my tour were in a open monthly newsletter from us overseas. This included small articles, pics and light jokes/humour that all ages could enjoy. It was well recieved, and I still have all of our newsletters.

As for your query 'can the bad guys read this?', if its an open forum like this, yes they sure can. The US Army has its members register their Blogs with their USO, and these are all monitered for OPSEC issues.

Remember common sense prevails.

Regards from the tropics.

OWDU


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Apr 2009)

Well, I'm glad we have a collection of people here who share virtually nothing with their spouses.  I'm not going to tell my wife stuff like "We Attack Normandy at Dawn", but I DO tell her stuff that I need to share.  I mean, she's my wife, for crying out loud, and I brief her on what we can and cannot share outside of the bond of our marriage.  If I can't talk about my experiences with her, then with whom can I?  She's a good egg, and she realises the implications of OPSEC.  We discuss nothing sensitive via email, telephone, etc, but only one on one (and then, sometimes, under the cone of silence.   )
So, should their be briefings on OPSEC for spouses?  I say yes.  And I think it's up to the members to brief their spouses (eg: accept a bit of personal responsibility, for Christ's sake: stop relying on "them" to do everything for you.)


----------



## Another Mom (11 Apr 2009)

I still have a question that has gone unanswered  by the 4 agencies I have asked and I  would like to know if the topic is within the realm of OPSEC. Can I send supplies to a local school through my son? Maybe no one is answering because no one knows. My son is not sure if  it is ok and asked me to get in touch with Teachers Without Borders. No answer.  He is only there 6 months and time is awasting. If I want to get a project going through my local children's hospital, it will take some time. Please can  someone give me some guidance, here , who has been on the ground over there? Maybe it is totally ok, maybe it is totally forbidden or something in-between.  If I send stuff over directly through him, there is less chance it will "fall off the truck".


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2009)

The problem is that you are running into the conflict between people who know there is limited shipping capacity while at the same time don't want to be the one saying "no".  The biggest problem with such initiatives is that they quickly grow from small well-meaning projects to an overwhelming size (for the space available).  We've then seen people who have collected large quantities of donated material get media and/or politicians involved when they feel offended at being told it can't be shipped right away (or at all).  This can end up with the wrong emphasis being placed on getting the stuff overseas while delaying needed equipment and/or personal mail for other soldiers.  That is why the suggestions direct you to agencies outside the CF, that will use transportation capability that is not the CF's.  

Alternatively, finding a way to provide financial support to an agency already doing such projects in the country means that money and energy aren't expended shipping stuff that could be provided locally if the funding was made available. A 12-cent pencil isn't much of a donation if it costs another dollar in direct expenditure (or CF budget) to get it half-way around the world.  Meanwhile, a pencil manufacturer in that part of the world is still trying to feed his kids too.


----------



## Greymatters (11 Apr 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> I'm not going to tell my wife stuff like "We Attack Normandy at Dawn", but I DO tell her stuff that I need to share.



All based on the ability to know what is and is not OPSEC in the first place...


----------



## Another Mom (11 Apr 2009)

Thank you Michael, that is what I thought, too. (Our local Children's hospital does 3rd world  work  but all  materials are acquired locally). But it is so hard to find local information from here and my son is too busy there.  And I am concerned about the corruption.  And the big agencies never make it into the remote villages.  So I wondered if I could send over a small box of  things to a school that apparently has nothing. Not totally altruistic: If  the locals like the Canadian soldiers, maybe they will be a tiny bit safer.  COIN is not my field, but isn't development a factor? Not that a box of pencils will make a big difference, but... "a single candle..." and all that. But that is a different issue and not OPSEC, right?


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2009)

I would suggest that sending your son the occasional small box of pencils, etc., that he can hand out when opportunity allows (or pass to someone with such opportunities) would not be a problem.  The issue crops up when a well-meaning school or service group gets involved and suddenly it's a thousand pounds of pencils and other stuff that people want to see delivered so that they feel good about giving it.

As for the corruption, to a certain extent that is also a functioning part of the local economy, at least until the local government is strong enough to counter every aspect of such things.  Still, using my figures above (which, admittedly, may be way off) a twelve-cent pencil shipped at a total cost of $1 (direct and indirect costs) provides one pencil.  $1.12 sent to a local agency, even if it loses half its value to corrupt influences, still buys a lot more than one pencil and also supports local businesses (manufacturing and/or shipping and/pr retail).


----------



## Tunny (24 Apr 2009)

Interesting topic.  Why should any military wife have to be told what they can and cannot post on facebook or tell aunt sally.  The answer is - NOTHING THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN SAID TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (ie in the news.)  I have been married to the military for the past 24 years (same husband) and have never divulged anything my husband has told me and never asked anything I know he should not be telling me - period.


----------



## Lil_T (25 Apr 2009)

That is fine and dandy.  However, your situation does not seem to be the norm among some newer military spouses.  I can only speak for what I have seen - I am very careful to not repeat anything my husband has shared with me unless a. I am speaking face to face with a person, and that person is usually already aware to an extent of the topic at hand. or b. it's common knowledge.  I have seen, personally, wives/ girlfriends posting things they shouldn't.  Locations, travel dates, mission info etc.

So while you, and perhaps wives of your generation "know better".  Some newer wives (and their husbands) seem to have missed the memo on keeping mum.


----------



## mariomike (25 Apr 2009)

Tunny said:
			
		

> Interesting topic.  Why should any military wife have to be told what they can and cannot post on facebook or tell aunt sally.  The answer is - NOTHING THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN SAID TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (ie in the news.)  I have been married to the military for the past 24 years (same husband) and have never divulged anything my husband has told me and never asked anything I know he should not be telling me - period.



Well said.


----------

