# Limiting Forum Visibility (Split from: Bedford man faces espionage charges)



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> Media is now mining internet forums for blurbs to put into stories.
> 
> I remind everyone again to watch what they say and who they PM with.
> 
> ...



Scott, I for one find myself contributing less and less to debates here for fear of the media boogyman coming by and taking my quotes and splashing it all over the news.

Is it at all possible for army.ca to (consider) setting something up where as all users need to register with the site before reading a single line where upon during registration they read a user agreement and it can state something along the lines that no comments on army.ca can be republished without the expressed consent of the author?


----------



## Jimmy_D (20 Jan 2012)

I'd like to second that motion.


----------



## Scott (20 Jan 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Scott, I for one find myself contributing less and less to debates here for fear of the media boogyman coming by and taking my quotes and splashing it all over the news.
> 
> Is it at all possible for army.ca to (consider) setting something up where as all users need to register with the site before reading a single line where upon during registration they read a user agreement and it can state something along the lines that no comments on army.ca can be republished without the expressed consent of the author?



Grimaldus,

Not my department but I will pass it along to the boss.

I don't think anyone need worry if they follow the established guidelines and report anything that is outside of those. We have been doing this a while but we have also had (somewhat of) a lull since the winding down in Afghanistan. Another difference is the completely understandable lack of commentary from DND on this, unlike incidents in Aghanistan.

I wouldn't feel muzzled or neutered as far as conversation goes. I would, however, have a read of our guidelines again and be crystal clear on what should and should not get posted.

For the very most part we get nothing but proactive cooperation from everyone and I do not foresee any issues...but I fell it prudent to issue the reminder given how much of a storm I think we'll see as this develops.


----------



## GAP (20 Jan 2012)

We post articles and the links from those articles under the copywrite act. This forum is a public entity, thus posts can be quoted, providing proper attrition is given. 

So...........yeah, I think Scott is right in forwarning everyone

my  :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2012)

Grimaldus:  As Scott said, your idea's been passed up.  Thanks for that.

I'm with Scott here - even when there's NOT a hot story on the go, one should think before hitting send anytime.  Think about what you're sharing, and think about the fact that, in this case, we have court proceedings in play.

Let's also remember that (and I may be naive in thinking this) the info we share here can, in the long run, help Canadians (and not just reporters) learn more about what the CF does.  I really hope folks continue to feel comfortable sharing SME info that can be shared in the public domain.


----------



## Scott (20 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Grimaldus:  As Scott said, your idea's been passed up.  Thanks for that.
> 
> I'm with Scott here - even when there's NOT a hot story on the go, one should think before hitting send anytime.  Think about what you're sharing, and think about the fact that, in this case, we have court proceedings in play.
> 
> Let's also remember that (and I may be naive in thinking this) the info we share here can, in the long run, help Canadians (and not just reporters) learn more about what the CF does.  I really hope folks continue to feel comfortable sharing SME info that can be shared in the public domain.



Bang on.

And think of it this way? How many stories did we see about the MND's office renos while we had a hell of a lot more going on in Afg?

So this story, at a time when they are filing ATI's in order to get the next story, literally out of left field has to be golden. And while I realize and accept that media has a job to do I also do not think we need to help them any by creating more news. I might have the tinfoil on to tight but I do think it was worthy of mention.

Also, a good healthy read of "Killing with Keyboards" should be requisite now more than ever, IMO.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> .... I realize and accept that media has a job to do *I also do not think we need to help them any by creating more news* ....


I think we're in violent agreement here.


			
				Scott said:
			
		

> .... I might have the tinfoil on to tight ....


I think others who've been burned by the few reporters out there quoting people out of context or incorrectly wouldn't think so.


----------



## ballz (20 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Let's also remember that (and I may be naive in thinking this) the info we share here can, in the long run, help Canadians (and not just reporters) learn more about what the CF does.  I really hope folks continue to feel comfortable sharing SME info that can be shared in the public domain.



Good point, but I also wonder if the provisions that Grimaldus has suggested would encourage journalists to join the site and be more transparent about who they are, and then have more two-way conversations with SMEs on what it is they are wondering about / seeking to report on.

I'm not a lawyer obviously, but I think the legal framework of what Grimaldus has suggested is possible. A discussion could be had on whether it's better or worse for the website, for Mr. Bobbit, and the members. I'd be interesting in hearing the pros and cons for sure.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Good point, but I also wonder if the provisions that Grimaldus has suggested would encourage journalists to join the site and be more transparent about who they are, and then have more two-way conversations with SMEs on what it is they are wondering about.


Under the current system, journalists _can_ have two-way conversations with SME's in the public fora, but I don't see it happening all that much now, so I don't think closing things off will make that more likely to happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2012)

Cool guys, thanks for passing it up.

Here is my feelings on the matter.

Currently anyone can view the army.ca message forum without registering.  One can argue that "forcing" someone to register may stop people from benefiting from this site- that could very well be the case.

I figured if we make wanna be reads register first we can have some level of accountability by adding a clause that, like I said above, comments within the site will not be reproduced sans the authors explicit consent.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that is or even if it is one, it's been under a handful of times something here has been said that's been brought to the news. I can think of maybe one or two examples which is pretty good considering some of the comments that self identified CF members have "gone on the record" to say- myself very much included.

I belong to a few message forms that require all members to get a simple account to access. There doesn't seem to be any problems because of it. Mind you I am like 99% of the population and just scroll through the user agreement and hit okay without reading it.

  I suggested the idea to maybe give some accountability or for all the legal stuff which i have no idea about.  I planted the bug now I'm jetting


----------



## ballz (20 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Under the current system, journalists _can_ have two-way conversations with SME's in the public fora, but I don't see it happening all that much now, so I don't think closing things off will make that more likely to happen.



What I meant was, since they would have to approach a member and ask for permission in order to use something that the member had said, it may create more two-way conversations out of necessity. As of now, they don't need to speak to anybody in order to do that, so there's less chance of a member actually expanding on what they said for the journalist or explaining the context of what they said, etc. 

Predicting the future is all a guessing game of course.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> What I meant was, since they would have to approach a member and ask for permission in order to use something that the member had said, it may create more two-way conversations out of necessity. As of now, they don't need to speak to anybody in order to do that, so there's less chance of a member actually expanding on what they said for the journalist or explaining the context of what they said, etc.


Seen - you seem to be thinking more one-on-one than over the forums?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Predicting the future is all a guessing game of course.


Indeed.


----------



## ballz (20 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Seen - you seem to be thinking more one-on-one than over the forums?



Yes, because they would PM them to ask for permission, and then that would progress... I guess we would have to remind members not to do any kind of interviews without following proper procedure as well, but ultimately that leaves more and more in the hands of the member and the CF as opposed to an anonymous journalist.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2012)

The downside is regardless of what you say or do, it is the journalist and the editorial staff who will decide what is published in the end.

Many posters have seen/heard/commented on this across multiple threads, the only thing I can think to add is that if we make it too hard for the journalist to get what they want, they will go to more accommodating sources (people who's names we well know since they are on the air as "experts" commenting on military matters).

So while I can applaude the intent, I suspect the execution will backfire as journalists won't seek out the knowledge of real Subject Matter Experts but the 30 second quote. The "Sensational 30 second quote" is the holy grail of modern journalism, so you know who they are going to first anyway, right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The downside is regardless of what you say or do, it is the journalist and the editorial staff who will decide what is published in the end.



Can they do that if they sign an acknowledgement upon registering stating they will not reproduce anything from the website without permission?


----------



## larry Strong (21 Jan 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Can they do that if they sign an acknowledgement upon registering stating they will not reproduce anything from the website without permission?



Can that be truly enforced?


----------



## ballz (21 Jan 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Can that be truly enforced?



*Again, not a lawyer here, but my understanding is*

If it's set up that you need "expressed permission" to use an individual's comments, but you didn't get that permission, then the individual would have to file a claim in a small claims court... So yes, it could be enforced... although it depends on the member whether they would or not (I'm not sure the small financial gain would be very much worth the hassle...). The possibility of that happening is the deterrent.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2012)

I think we are barking up the wrong tree. Rather than trying to restrict what others can do with what we say it would be better if we thought a bit before posting. If what you say is likely to be used or even misused in a way that reflects poorly on you, this site or the CF then, I suggest you ought not to have said it in the first place.

Most journalsist come here looking for insights ... ideas about what we think so that they can make their stories better and more interesting. For better or worse they read what we say and they draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Hurricane (21 Jan 2012)

I am reminded of this:

CANFORGEN 136/06 CDS 050/06 011318Z SEP 06
GUIDANCE ON BLOGS AND OTHER INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS - CF OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES
UNCLASSIFIED

in the Admin section.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2012)

Besides, Mike doesn't have the means to take on a news agency and it's battery of lawyers. Small claims or any other court.

What Edward said.


----------



## Spooks (24 Jan 2012)

On a slightly different angle to what Grim's talking about:

How would you even 'register'? Say I am Jimmy No-clue, and I register saying I am a Secret Squirrel JTF Sniper Ghost. How will registering prevent that? Take another twist on it and I am Timmy Taliban or Karl KGB registering as a lowly corporal reservist from Toronto. What prevents that?

So say you register stating that you must register with a DWAN account. Cool. Now you eliminate all non-CF members and force a sort of elitism upon the forums. So you open it up to all emails and iamnotaspy@hootmail.com registers. There ends up being a sort of cyclical pattern to this. How does one enable security while keeping a casual and open forum for aspiring CF members to participate on? The answer is simple:

WATCH WHAT YOU SAY

Every member and aspiring member of the CF should know that in or out of the uniform, you are always 100% responsible for what you say and thussly 100% accountable. If I am in my shorts at the beach on leave smack-talking the PM and someone figures out I am a military member, then that will adversely affect their opinion of all CF members. That person could be a reporter, a spy, or be a friend/spouse to one of those and share your rant over dinner ("Oh, you know dear, there was this army guy at the beach bragging about how his unit bought gold-plated kickplates for the doors. Isn't the military trying to save money?").

There are my two rubles. You can make all this technical work or registration, safeguarding, etc or you can simply be mindful of your commentary.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

As a "free speecher", I would say that limiting forum visibility would end up being counter productive in the long run.

The people who we hope will see and be influenced by Army.ca will become a very limited audience, while the mass of misinformation will not be changed outside of these walls. If we hope that the public, potential members,  journalists and editors will become educated on military matters and how service members think, then we must let them in to view the site (and remember to behave accordingly).

Like I said before, ultimately the journalist and the editors determine what will go on the air/print regardless of what we do, we can only influence the debate is the journalist and editors can also choose to see and report on us directly, otherwise, they will ONLY repeat what is available through their small pool of media "experts" (many of whom are neither experts nor unbiased), without even the theoretical ability to provide a counterpoint. If they choose to ignore the SME's, then so be it. There is that old saying about leading horses to water....

As for providing fodder for "Journolists" who are promoting their own agenda, they will also publish what they will regardless of our efforts, and once again, the best defence against _bad_ speech is _better_ speech; make your own posts thoughtful, accurate and informative.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a "free speecher", I would say that limiting forum visibility would end up being counter productive in the long run.



I didn't mean that we would exclude anyone from army.ca, only that to see the actual content one would have to take 2 minutes and sign up first. After that it's the same as always.
I figured putting a clause in the user-agreement stating members could not take quotes from this site and use it elsewhere (ie media) may serve as a deterrent.

Like Recceguy said Mike doesn't have the financial means to take on some big company, though he does appear to have a few _thousand _loyal followers who all conveniently have balaclava's   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

Perhaps I am not being clear (a comon fault)

Grim, the people we want to influence are the ones who won't take the two minutes to sign onto a site or read the agreement. I would rather have journalist Blogins have the opportunity to skim the thread on "event of the moment" and see what SME's have to say, rather than simply get Steven Staples take on "event of the day" because Steve is always open for business and quick off the mark with a quote. 

No offense to Steven, or any of the other media talking heads who make their living doing that, but there are other points of view, and if the media or public are locked out, they won't take the time or effort to see it.

Unless someone on the thread has a sensational way with words, I suspect any media types wil only paraphrase what they see (and probably without attribution; i.e. the mood of CF members seems to be.....) rather than quote mine Army.ca.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Grim, the people we want to influence are the ones who won't take the two minutes to sign onto a site



Gotchya. See I have absolutely no time for those people but I understand different people have different views on what army.ca is about.

With regards to the types you mentioned it makes sense if one wants to have their 2 minute visits to be productive then not to make them bother with a registration.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (18 Feb 2012)

Good discussion, as always. I'll jump in late to the game with some additional thoughts.

I think primarily Edward's "Think before you post" message is the key. As long as we are conducting ourselves reasonably, we shouldn't have too much to fear.

Closing off the forums would have the detrimental effect of shutting out all those folks who find us exactly because the information they're looking for is open and public. To put some numbers behind that, in January we had 126,585 visitors as a result of search engine hits (26,399 keywords and 61,110 phrases were used to find us). Furthermore, 1,302,643 hits came to us via external links from other sites - typically cross discussions linking relevant topics here. Going private would shut these folks out. While the overwhelming majority probably come here, harvest their info and quietly leave again, I would propose that a small percentage register, stay and contribute.

I also fear that closing our doors would give people the false impression they can post without consequence. We have enough trouble policing things now without fighting the "but nobody else can see it" argument.

And lastly, for those who are compelled to have 'internal only' discussions, we do have the Subscriber's area which is private and closed. 


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Spooks (21 Feb 2012)

Just to play Devil's advocate, Mike, does your last post mean that if I am a subscriber, I can post what I want and not worry since "nobody else can see it"?

IMHO, as a uniformed person, it is your obligation to watch what you say anywhere you go IRT OpSec/PersSec/EtcSec. Just because your aunt/uncle/nephew/inlaw aren't evil jihadist communists of the Third Reich, doesn't mean that they still won't take what you say as the 'doctrine and creed' of the CF to further go on and tell others. Then those others tell others and the game of telephone ensues. When you originally said 'I had a child die in my arms after a TIC' may soon come back as 'The CF kill children'.

Just as an example of the media mining for information I'll share a story. When I was overseas (Archer Roto0) I kept a blog online. My last overseas entry was about a weird (mefloquine) dream I had of the world ending. The next day I was involved in an SVBIED and the media went to town. Soon they were reporting that I had a premonition of my accident (brilliant jounalistic deduction there). When they wanted more information, they contacted EVERYONE I knew be it my old boss, my pastor back home and every relative I knew. If I told something innocent (but sensitive/politically-incorrect) to them, they wouldn't have a clue not to share that with the reporter.

You and the directing staff of army.ca can only influence what happens here and the policies herein, but the members of the CF here have to be mindful of their actions too and not just on the forums.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2012)

Thanks GofJ for the anecdote/reminder re:  how some will hunt for information.

Another cynical way of putting it might also be:  Since we (the users/members/contributors) have no control what outsiders of _any_ kind will see/read/remember/share from here, then the only thing we CAN control is what we put here.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Feb 2012)

Good point, and that was not my intended message. To be clear, the rules are applied consistently even in the closed Subscriber area. A more realistic response might be that if someone wants to share something (that doesn't breach the rules) with a small audience of registered users vs. the larger public, this might be a good approach.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Spooks (22 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...Another cynical way of putting it might also be:  Since we (the users/members/contributors) have no control what outsiders of _any_ kind will see/read/remember/share from here, then the only thing we CAN control is what we put here.



MilNews +1


----------

