# What does OPSEC mean?



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2009)

Have some of you wondered what OPSEC means?

Well, here is an example:



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support
> _NY Times_, Feb. 22
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
> 
> ...






I guess they aren't secret anymore.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Feb 2009)

George Wallace: How about a little credit, eh  :rage:?
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/83699/post-814465.html#msg814465

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (23 Feb 2009)

It's an OPSEC breach to reveal a source  >


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Feb 2009)

Oooops  :-[!  For future  :-X.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zap (23 Feb 2009)

Thats jokes hahah


----------



## George Wallace (23 Feb 2009)

Zap said:
			
		

> Thats jokes hahah




 ???


English?


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Feb 2009)

If you are a Senator or the NYT OPSEC doesnt apply. :


----------



## PanaEng (25 Feb 2009)

There may be several reasons why that particular info was divulged: political (see, we are doing something to help Pak), preemptive (crap! that reporter got some info, we better clarify our support), no value (taliban already knows) or incompetence/ignorance (sadly the most common).
A lot of things that seem like juicy little tidbits may already have gone through a rigorous TRA review and decided to be released to keep the media hounds happy for a day or two.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Feb 2009)

redirection...

It's to cover the 5 brand new brigades we have sitting on the border...just waiting to march in...

Oops, I have said too much!! These are NOT the droids you're looking for.... 

/sweeps hand in Jedi mind trick fashion


----------



## Starlight31 (25 Feb 2009)

Ummm, 

Other People Sometimes Eavesdrop on Conversations??  To serve as a reminder, to ensure that people who have "Need to Know", know the information, and that Other people (Bad guys) are always trying to find the information out to have a tactical/information advantage.. Atleast that is what was explained to me, when I worked for NORAD!!


----------



## PanaEng (25 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> redirection...
> 
> It's to cover the 5 brand new brigades we have sitting on the border...just waiting to march in...
> 
> ...


right, forgot that one.

My MIB flashlight erased all memory of the reference you are making ;-)


----------



## Armymedic (25 Feb 2009)

The NYT or G&M divulging strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC.

Repeating what is posted in the NYT or G&M on this or any other website is not.


----------



## ICFY95 (25 Feb 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> The NYT or G&M divulging strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC.
> 
> Repeating what is posted in the NYT or G&M on this or any other website is not.



Telling a reporter of the NYT or G&M (or any other person not bound by the Official Secrets Act, and who does not have the 'need-to-know')  strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC;

The acts of the NYT or G&M in publishing these leaks is "Reporting".  
The media may not always act responsibly with leaked info, but it is the CF and governments' job to protect sensitive info - not private enterprise media outlets.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> The NYT or G&M divulging strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC.
> 
> Repeating what is posted in the NYT or G&M on this or any other website is not.



Right!

Two Wrongs make a Right.


----------



## Armymedic (25 Feb 2009)

ICFY95 said:
			
		

> Telling a reporter of the NYT or G&M (or any other person not bound by the Official Secrets Act, and who does not have the 'need-to-know')  strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC;





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Right!
> 
> Two Wrongs make a Right.



Actually, that would be 3 wrongs....but really, who's counting? The first person should not have breached OPSEC. Once its breached by one...


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Feb 2009)

Actually the point is that the _NY Times_ did not breach any real secrecty, it was in effect only updating what had been reported *four months before*:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/84224/post-814483.html#msg814483

Headlines are not truth--a real failing of the _Globe and Mail_:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/taliban-ciaims-i-prefer-original-ap.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-many-troops-are-needed-at-kandahar.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------

