I guess my point was even though the way they put FOUO may be ridiculous, if its on there, and you use it in a non-official way, are you not violating a law? Obviously this is not directly related to this guys arrest, but when you look at DCS guides posted all over the net, they have FOUO images and charts all through them. Could those individuals not be prosecuted also some how if the government really decided to? Kind of like getting pulled over for a license plate light out.
1 Like
As long as no heads come off in the process⊠
2 Likes
Sayâs the guy obviously building a guillotine⊠
4 Likes
I guess my timing was a bit off, when posting that picâŠ
4 Likes
Can we change Trollâs title to âMudspikeâs Robespierreâ ?
1 Like
I cannot speak for the operational or R&D side of things. In intelligence, classification of materials is a tried and true process.
First there is derivative classification. If you produce a report that s classified SECRET, then any mention of the report in a product I produce is at a maximum, classified SECRET. This is where paragraph classifications come in. If that SECRET report of your includes a paragraph classified CONFIDENTIAL and I use info from just that paragraph, then that section of my work is no higher than CONFIDENTIAL. If I cite several portions of your report at different classification levels the highest level is used. Many times, at that point it is usually best to default to the highest overall classification of the report.
Next there are standard classifications for various intelligence sources. If everything produced by a certain intelligence system is classified SECRET, then any use of that intelligence in a report I write up is also classified SECRET. (Again, paragraph marking come into play, this time with the paragraphs I write.)
Finally there is is information that I generate from scratch. There is a guide that tells me what my classification level should be, depending on the subject, the scope of the project, etc. This hardly ever happens since when do you ever just generate something that is not based on other info? In 29 years I never have. But if you do, there is a pretty straight forward guide for that.
Amen brother!. 
This has been the bane of proper classification for years. FOUO (For Official Use Only) is NOT a security classification and is only applied to material marked or considered Unclassified. Items like a base phone directory, a commandâs recall list, the Plan of the Day (POD) are all FOUO. Why? Well they are unclassified. However, you donât want a phone solicitor to get the base phone directory or your commandâs recall list. That makes sense. So, if one sells such a directory or list to a salesman, they would not be breaching national security, but would be breaking regulations and could be punished accordingly.
Likewise, a commandâs plans for they day are normally not classified (well, I guess the SEALâs 11 May 2011 POD may have been classifiedâŠ0800 Morning colors, 0900 Firing Range Practice, 1100 Lunch, 0100 Kill Usama bin Laden, etc.) but contains info that is really nobody else businessâŠevolutions, tests, formations, meetings, etc.
6 Likes
Iâve only got my own experience from the Army signal side of the house, but in general I found that many folks (especially high level folks) were very bad at properly classifying materials and information. For example, a VTC done on the unclass side where they discussed troop movements, deployment schedules, etc. â big no-no. Tried to cover their butts by saying it was âFOUO.â The flip side was doing a bunch of stuff that was unclass on the high side, which was equally stupid. This was typically compounded by these same people trying to bring stuff like cell phones into a classified area, then waving their hands about âthey trust meâ as to why they can do that. Haha, NO.
On the practical side of things like manuals and materials this results in stuff like UH-1 manuals being considered restricted, FOUO for no reason other than someone doesnât want to bother cleaning it out properly. If the material isnât going to damage the USA if released, clean that â â â â out. This, of course, isnât done, and you end up with stuff being thrown out that is technically still restricted, though for dubious reasons.
2 Likes
Yep - total BS. If troop movements are like ship movements, they are classified - not FOUO. They should have been honesty and reported their security violation. I have self reported about 8 times for accidentally bringing my cell phone somewhere it is not supposed to have been. âtheyâ, whoever they are certainly do not trust anybody. I have reported more security violations than I care to remember - didnât win any friends but thatâs not really the point.
In fairness, we had several people catch division G-2 dump a bunch of hard drives with the big red âSECRETâ label all over them right into a dumpster next to our building. Not all A/J/S/G/N-2s are staffed equally.
1 Like
Oh Iâve seen stuff like that and worse. Fortunately thatâs the easy stuff - pretty clear what happened and what to do - call NCIS, do the investigation, issue the appropriate repremands, document it, hold training.
It the higher ranks that fell they are beyond the rules where it gets âdifficultâ - which is why they invented the âMemorandum for the recordâ - so good folklike you can rain the issue and when nothing happens, record it so they cannot come back and try to blame it on you.
1 Like
As much as we want to believe the uniformed services are, well, uniform, we have to remember itâs still a cross-section of the population as a whole. I met a lot of great people at all levels, just the same as I met a lot of bad ones. There is no one size fits all approach, so letâs try and not generalize.
3 Likes
So yeah. We donât need that here thanks. Lets keep it civil.
4 Likes
Always Fridge! Thanks.
1 Like
I hope at the very least it can give some idea to those outside of the know what a lot of this stuff can be like, especially when it comes to grey areas. It was something that was in the back of my mind when we did the AH-64 project, even though that was quite far from anything close to in-depth. Stuff on the face of it that might not seem like a big deal can actually turn into a convoluted mess, even if the intent is far from nefarious.
This goes double for those outside of the USA who may be unable to get a full grasp of the ramifications due to language, culture, or other misunderstandings.
3 Likes
I agree with you on this. You may recall the we were discussing ECM stuff that I proposed just skipping anything technical adjust use some probability stuff like shooting an AIM-7 in jamming = 25% hit but shooting an AIM-120 in jamming = 75% hit. Why get the F-16 maintenance manual? Its not like we actually do maintenance on the jets, we just tell the ground crew to âfix itâ and then wait a couple of minutes. Engine reliability over time/use? Just give it a % failure that goes up the longer you use the same aircraft in a campaign.
I hope things get sorted out and that this does not impact ED in a significant way.
That said, if it gets us an F-4 any fasterâŠwellâŠlet me rethink this. 
2 Likes
Itâs actually a conundrum Iâve had with ED/DCS for a while, in that you donât need every last piece of data to do an adequate simulation of a particular aiframe, weapon, ship, etc. By nature, youâre only going to get close enough, and certain approximations work out in the long run. Goes double when, for example, the AI doesnât have to follow any limitations on radar locks and their missiles just INS their way right to you, regardless of radar lock state. Focus on the front end and youâll be 90% of the way there without ever needing any restricted information. Itâs been done before and it can be done again â all weâre doing is streamlining the experience.
I think itâs just hard for ED to let go of this dogma due to various cultural reasons, though I do think theyâve made strides toward improving themselves. They have a ways to go yet, but I do hope they get there eventually.
4 Likes