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

[Mike Bobbitt]

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

[GhostofJacK]

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.

[milnews.ca]

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]

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

[GhostofJacK]

...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