# Is this legal?



## chevyguy1000 (22 Oct 2013)

http://www.rankmysarge.com

It came up in my news feed on Facebook.  Is it legal to disclose pictures and names of soldiers without consent?


----------



## Emilio (22 Oct 2013)

What in God's name is this?


----------



## Newt (22 Oct 2013)

I don't know about the legalities, but it's sure as hell unprofessional.

Taking the piss out of fellow soldiers is a normal army thing to do, but like a lot of perfectly normal army things shouldn't be put out for the public to see.


----------



## Emilio (22 Oct 2013)

Newt said:
			
		

> I don't know about the legalities, but it's sure as hell unprofessional.
> 
> Taking the piss out of fellow soldiers is a normal army thing to do, but like a lot of perfectly normal army things shouldn't be put out for the public to see.



And definitely beginning of a publicity nightmare for the CAF.


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> And definitely beginning of a publicity nightmare for the CAF.



Why?


----------



## Emilio (22 Oct 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Why?



Maybe nightmare was excessive, but some of the Canadian soldiers on the site are being portrayed pretty badly.


----------



## Dissident (22 Oct 2013)

Meh.

On a personal level I am not overly bothered. 

On a professional level I am not too keen on airing out dirty laundry in public.


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Oct 2013)

It's no different then "ratemyprof" or "thedirty" or any other site like that. We are not exempt from the court of public or peer opinion. Be that as it may, I don't agree with it, and would much rather my peers say things to my face, rather then hide behind a ridiculous website. I would argue the public opinion of any formed body drops as soon as anonymity and audience are applied in equal measure. 

Language warning to those who may be offended:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19


----------



## Strike (22 Oct 2013)

If this were happening to school-aged kids it would be considered cyber-bullying.


----------



## Emilio (22 Oct 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> It's no different then "ratemyprof" or "thedirty" or any other site like that. We are not exempt from the court of public or peer opinion. Be that as it may, I don't agree with it, and would much rather my peers say things to my face, rather then hide behind a ridiculous website. I would argue the public opinion of any formed body drops as soon as anonymity and audience are applied in equal measure.
> 
> Language warning to those who may be offended:
> 
> http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19



Exactly my point the website is too similar to "thedirty" or "ratemyprof", except the image of the soldiers shown on the website can become the image people see of the entire Military. While on the dirty those people are seen as individuals, and even then the website is frequently connected to bullying. The website needs to go down ASAP, or at least do more to hide the identity of the soldier.


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Oct 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> The website needs to go down ASAP, or at least do more to hide the identity of the soldier.



And again, I'll ask you why? Walk me through what it is that justifies it's removal. I see many more instances of good spirited joshing then bullying, though like any site, there are some instances of abuse.

Mods, I think this requires a move to Radio Chatter. 

Edit only to fix a grammatical error.


----------



## X Royal (22 Oct 2013)

Does it not seem funny that this subject is a choice for a first post on this forum, from a poster who has not filled out their profile? :


----------



## Emilio (22 Oct 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> And again, I'll ask you why? Walk me through what it is that justifies it's removal? I see many more instances of good spirited joshing then bullying, though like any site, there are some instances of abuse.
> 
> Mods, I think this requires a move to Radio Chatter.



I agree for the most part it is good spirited "joshing", but civilians should not see certain high ranking NCO's being called the thing they are in this site. 

The civilians who view this site will not see the the soldier as an individual, but a reflection of the entire CAF. And were just going to have to see,what happens when if the media gets a hold of this.


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Oct 2013)

:facepalm:

I am willing to bet the vast majority of these photos were obtained from Facebook, which is already accessible enough to the media as is. 



			
				Emilio said:
			
		

> but civilians should not see certain high ranking NCO's being called the thing they are in this site.



Why? What is the difference between them calling their boss something through anonymous means and ours calling ours something foul. Most of the members I saw were at the Cpl level, hardly a senior NCO. You're over-reacting. 

When a RSM goes to Tim Hortons, he stands in line like the rest of us, just like a CEO, just like a member of Parliament or cabinet minister. Long have civilians lived with the image of the crusty Sgt Major (an image we have perpetuated through jokes, joshing, anecdotes, etc) and I hardly think this site will break the public conception of our military or our Senior NCOs.


----------



## Strike (22 Oct 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> ...I see many more instances of good spirited joshing then bullying, though like any site, there are some instances of abuse.



I'm seeing the opposite - more bullying than other.

Any bullying is bad, especially when it's done anonymously.  Imagine finding out that you are on this site and people have been laughing about you behind your back.  If the people posting were NOT anonymous and they were discovered to be serving, you can bet that charges would probably be made.

Simple measure to determine if this is wrong or not - do you think people would post even half this stuff if they had to identify themselves?


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Oct 2013)

The OP question wasn't a question of ethics, it was a question of legality. Often the two don't run as parallel as everyone likes to think. If they did, all of the "rate" sites would long have been removed from the internet, especially "thedirty".

I would hope it is obvious, but in case it isn't, I don't care for bullying of any sort. I have investigated both physical and cyber bullying. I think it's cowardly to hide behind anonymity to slag someone else, and yes I agree charges would be forthcoming. We always trumpet the "we are a reflection of Canadian Society" line. The above mentioned site is our reflection, warts and all.

This site is getting what it wants out of this topic, traffic. Traffic generates ad-revenue, and ad revenue keeps the lights on. The OP question has probably been debated to death.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> What is the difference between them calling their boss something through anonymous means and ours calling ours something foul. Most of the members I saw were at the Cpl level, hardly a senior NCO. You're over-reacting.


It's all goofiness and typical online idiocy until the wrong person gets piled on publicly and repeatedly, and then hurts themselves or others.  THEN the "cyberbully" headlines come out.

No, we shouldn't censor/edit these things based on the worst-case scenario.  That said, if it ever _does_ happen, we shouldn't be surprised at the public and media response.


----------



## Shamrock (22 Oct 2013)

Is any of this improper conduct that is directed at and offensive to a member of the CF or civilian employee, in the workplace, that the poster reasonably ought to have known would cause offence?

Is any of this insulting language to a superior?

Do any of these comments, if seen or heard by any member of the public, possibly reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members?

Is any of this prejudicial to good order?


----------



## Remius (22 Oct 2013)

Given some legal actions taken against some sites and this one included, could one of those profiles on there not attempt to sue the site owners and posters for defamation depending on what is posted?  I think someone could prove that their reputation has been sullied and could seek damages from the site owners and posters.

While I'm sure from an NDA perspective nothing could really be done but civil litigation is certainly an option.


----------



## EFCFrost (30 Oct 2013)

I found myself on the site the other day. Some not very nice things about my wife were said so I'm not too pleased.

Looking again today it looks like the site has been taken down. It shows as not found.

Thank the gods


----------



## Lightguns (30 Oct 2013)

One of the individuals in question received emails from about 100 people letting him know he was on there in an unflattering way.  Glad it is gone, hoping all participants are tracked down and summarily tried.


----------



## Dissident (30 Oct 2013)

EFCFrost said:
			
		

> I found myself on the site the other day. Some not very nice things about my wife were said so I'm not too pleased.
> 
> Looking again today it looks like the site has been taken down. It shows as not found.
> 
> Thank the gods



Still browsable through google cache. A bit tedious and not really worth it for what was on there.

I also would be more upset about something said about my wife then about me, but all in all you have to be able to laugh at yourself. I'm a bit disapointed that my platoon has an entry but none of us made it on there.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> It's no different then "ratemyprof" or "thedirty" or any other site like that.


Incorrect:



> CANFORGEN 136-6 - Guidance on Blogs and Other Internet Communications – CAF Operations and Activities: “CAF members are to consult with their chain of command before publishing CAF-related information and imagery to the internet, regardless of how innocuous the information may seem. The chain of command has access to expert advisors, such as public affairs and intelligence staffs, who will ensure that such published information is not ultimately prejudicial to CAF operations and personnel.”



And:



> QR&O 19.14 - Improper Comments: "No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that: if seen of heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Armed Forces or on any of its members."


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Oct 2013)

TV is correct.  Just received this email from Army COS Ops and G1 4 Cdn Div:



> Subject:	Inappropriate website postings  ---> contravenes various regulations and requirements including: QR&O 19.14  & CANFORGEN 136-6
> 
> All,
> 
> ...



(Edited by poster to remove names, email addresses and link to website)


----------



## armyvern (2 Nov 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> I am willing to bet the vast majority of these photos were obtained from Facebook, which is already accessible enough to the media as is.
> 
> ...



Do MPs still acquaint themselves with QR&Os, CFAOs and DAODs on their QL3s??  You posts have left me wondering.  Alas, I see other have posted the applicable refs for you in the course of distributing the recent email about this site and regs.

I charged someone in theatre under these regs because they chose to publish an off comment about one of their superiors onto their facebook
 -- let alone a site dedicated to such unprofessional nonsense.  Over-reacting not required; it's a no-no.


----------



## JesseWZ (2 Nov 2013)

We do, and it seems some crow-eating is in order for myself.  I wasn't even thinking about the NDA when I made those posts, only the criminal code, which in hindsight was an error in judgement.


----------



## Shamrock (3 Nov 2013)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> We do, and it seems some crow-eating is in order for myself.  I wasn't even thinking about the NDA when I made those posts, only the criminal code, which in hindsight was an error in judgement.



You have no idea how aggravating it is to be a presiding officer and ask the accused if he or she knew, at the time of the commission, that his or her actions were an offence under [the relevant section] and receive a response of, "No."  And *poof* everything disappears.

Do judges have this same issue?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2013)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> You have no idea how aggravating it is to be a presiding officer and ask the accused if he or she knew, at the time of the commission, that his or her actions were an offence under [the relevant section] and receive a response of, "No."  And *poof* everything disappears.
> 
> Do judges have this same issue?



You are doing it wrong. 

 PM me if you would like an explanation.


----------



## armyvern (3 Nov 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You are doing it wrong.
> ...



My thoughts were, "WTF!? - He can not have meant what he typed."   :-X


----------



## Shamrock (3 Nov 2013)

Wait.

Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is _not_ a defence?


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Nov 2013)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Wait.
> 
> Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is _not_ a defence?



They're not the only ones.  

Are you saying that you, as a presiding officer, dismissed charges laid under the CSD because the accused 'admitted' that they didn't know the applicable part of the NDA?

If so, you were wrong.

Ignorance is NOT a defence.

[added] Your DJA would or should have advised you that such ignorance might be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing, but it is not a valid point in determination of guilt.


----------



## Shamrock (3 Nov 2013)

Oh my goodness.

Next you're going to tell me that every offence under the Criminal Code of Canada is also an offence under the NDA.

Ok.  I think I can adjust my reality a little.  It's not like there's any regulation or order requiring me to familiarize myself with the NDA as an officer or NCM in the Canadian Forces.


----------



## CombatDoc (3 Nov 2013)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Wait.
> 
> Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is _not_ a defence?


Good one, people seem to be missing the sarcasm with your taunt!   ;D

What's next, "you mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries?"


----------



## George Wallace (3 Nov 2013)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Wait.
> 
> Are you two suggesting that ignorance of the law is _not_ a defence?



Actually it is not a defence.  It is an excuse.  An excuse does not render a person innocent of a wrongdoing.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Nov 2013)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Good one, people seem to be missing the sarcasm with your taunt!   ;D
> 
> What's next, "you mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries?"



No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! 

That would be more appropriate to this thread....


----------



## jeffb (3 Nov 2013)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Ok.  I think I can adjust my reality a little.  It's not like there's any regulation or order requiring me to familiarize myself with the NDA as an officer or NCM in the Canadian Forces.



The NDA specifically states ignorance is not a defence in S.150. 



> 150. The fact that a person is ignorant of the provisions of this Act, or of any regulations or of any order or instruction duly notified under this Act, is no excuse for any offence committed by the person.



http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-46.html#docCont


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Nov 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> The NDA specifically states ignorance is not a defence in S.150.
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-46.html#docCont



But if you were unaware of this, how are you to know? QED...  8)


----------



## jeffb (3 Nov 2013)

I'd be willing to be that it is taught somewhere on BMQ/BMOQ. Either way, it's no defence. I think someone would have a hard time arguing that they are ignorant of the existence of the NDA....


----------



## Emilio (3 Nov 2013)

Just throwing out there but it seems the site is down, at least for now.

I'm guessing the owner pissed off the wrong people. 

Some *special* people.


----------



## donaldk (3 Nov 2013)

Emilio said:
			
		

> Just throwing out there but it seems the site is down, at least for now.
> 
> I'm guessing the owner pissed off the wrong people.
> 
> Some *special* people.



Good... and it can stay down


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'd be willing to be that it is taught somewhere on BMQ/BMOQ. Either way, it's no defence. I think someone would have a hard time arguing that they are ignorant of the existence of the NDA....



I remember being taught this on CLC in '93.  We were taught MilLaw by a Sgt-Major back then...not sure about PLQ now.  The old DCE 002 OPME was a good start point for learning when it was avail to NCMs.

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 5, Art 5.01 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS [special attention to Art 5.01(a)(iv)].  See Vol 1, Ch 4 for D & R for Officers.

QR & O, Vol II, Ch 103, Art 103.02 - IGNORANCE OF LAW NO EXCUSE


----------

