Operational Security Issues on other Forums?

[X Royal]

On a fishing forum I'm a member of I can across a post which revealed OPSEC issues in my opinion. This included info on training for overseas deployment including people, places, times and training issues with pictures. The post was from someone who claims to be engaged in running the training and shows forces members in training.
Other than contacting the fishing boards staff(already done) and requesting removal of the thread and reasons for the request are there any other options open. Staff here will also be alerted in hopes they can help.

Best Wishes: Rick

 

[c_canuk]

I think reporting it to the MPs would be a good bet, they should know who to forward this info on to.

 

[Greymatters]

X Royal, PM sent...

 

[X Royal]

Greymatters: PM reply sent.

Rick

 

[Greymatters]

Now that X-Royal and I have let everyone know we have been playing secret message games, its time for a MOD answer:

1) Is it ethical to post the site in question on this forum?  What is Milnet policy?  The idea is not to start any inter-forum flame wars, or cause persons on other sites to defend themselves from comments on this site.

2) Is it within our rights to pass judgement on the contents of other sites in regards to OPSEC?  In this case, I don't see an OPSEC issue, but others might see one, or a valid case may occur (again) in the future.  As a private person I know who to call and talk to, but what is the site policy for this type of activity.  Again, trying to avoid making the site liable as a breeding ground for star chamber type accusations...

3) I think this was covered on another thread, but cant recall a title or find the right one in a search, but either way seems more appropriate to discuss here rather than revive an old thread...

 

[brihard]

Well, here's my two cents... I'll admit that my opinion has a pretty lousy exchange rate.

Posting the address of the site in question would only serve to disseminate any possible OPSEC breach. Army.ca is a very obvious target for people seeking information they shouldn't have; they may not realize the lack of success they'll probably find here, but they may well try anyway. Conversely, the chance of an enemy running across a particular OPSEC breach on a fishing website is far more slim.

With regards to OPSEC, dealing with any possible breaches under the table is probably best. Contact the site administrator and the poster of the suspected breach, ask each of them to remove the particular material, with an explanation why. Most people should be pretty reasonable about. If that has no success, contact the MPs and the internet service provider hosting the site or the member in question if you can get that information. It's easy to track down the owner of a domain name, and from there it's not much of a step to make contact with them through more official means.

We don't need milnet.ca members taking it upon themselves to go after OPSEC breaches if it has already been drawn to the attention of site staff or of proper authorities. I think that keeping ANY OPSEC breach as low profile as possible serves the best interest of the C.F. the vast majority are unintentional anyway.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Brihard, I couldn't have said it better myself... I completely agree with your assessment on all points.

 

[Greymatters]

Brihard, I couldn't have said it better myself... I completely agree with your assessment on all points.

And with that stamp of authority, that pretty much wraps up this thread...