New MOD Online Engagement Guidelines - PPRUNE views sought

[defenceheadquarters]

Service and MOD personnel are being encouraged to talk about themselves and their work online within new guidelines which give advice on how they can protect their security, reputation and privacy.

New "Online Engagement Guidelines", published by the MOD today, 6 August 2009, make clear that Forces and MOD personnel can make full use of websites such as Facebook and YouTube as long as they: follow the same high standards of conduct and behaviour online as would be expected elsewhere; always maintain personal information and operational security and be careful about the information they share online; and, get authorisation from their chain of command when appropriate.

Under the new Guidelines, Armed Forces and MOD staff can talk about their work online without prior authorisation from their chain of command, as long as they stay within the advice. This is an important change over earlier rules, under which personnel always needed to seek authorisation before publishing any work-related material.

Service and MOD staff are also being asked to volunteer to operate social media presences as part of their official duties, to help explain their work to the public.

Read the new MOD Online Engagement Guidelines at:
www.mod.uk/DefenceInte...elines.htm (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/MediaandPublicCommunicationPublications/OnlineEngagementGuidelines.htm)

The new guidelines are aimed primarily at Commanding Officers and Line Managers, but will be incrementally worked into the various training for all Forces and MOD personnel.

The existing MOD rules on contact with the media and communicating in public (2008DIN03-020) will be updated to reflect the new Guidelines.

MOD is actively seeking feedback on how the new Guidelines can be improved. If you have a comment or suggestion concerning the MOD's Online Engagement Guidelines, please feel free to leave a comment below, or on the Defence News Blog, or send a message via the MOD website.

Thanks,

Robin Riley
DMC-PR Asst Hd (Internal and Online)

This was posted by the Ministry of Defence. You can find a copy at www.blogs.mod.uk (http://www.blogs.mod.uk/)

[Ewan Whosearmy]

The key line from the second paragraph is this one:

You don't need permission from your boss, provided that the post relates to
"uncontroversial non-operational matters".

So, MoD wants people to talk about what, exactly? What they had for dinner?

[Vox Populi]

Nice try, but Pprune is a product of the free Internet; it works because the MOD and other authorities have no influence over it.

Pprune is a place where service personnel (and others) can post views, anonymously if they want, about any subject they want. Common sense dictates that sensitive operational information will not be published (it is actually self policed quite well - see this thread for example: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/383869-gr4-op-update.html)

However information that might by some to be considered embarrassing to the MOD is also welcome here and the MOD has no business trying to influence that. Send your Code of Conduct to the editor of RAF News.

An enlightened MOD would look to Pprune as a place where the unexpigated views of the troops are aired and use it to get a feel for what people are really thinking. But then, do we have an enlightened MOD?

[sunshine band]

So, can we now upload photos and film from Ops onto Youtube?

SB

[Tappers Dad]

I see paragraph 2 says
Service and MOD civilian personnel do not need to seek clearance when talking online about factual, unclassified, uncontroversial non-operational matters or relates to controversial, sensitive or political matters.

Does that mean you can't say "there is a rumour going round that ..." when posting on this rumour network? Given the last part controversial, sensitive or political matters you can all stop posting on this Military Aircrew Forum. The MOD have you tied you up in red tape so tight yer eyes will be bulging

[Gainesy]

What a load of Cock, Robin.

[NutLoose]

I always thought Robin was a Reliant not a Riley, that's a more substantial vehicle.

Wonder what his reception will be on Arrse, BumRation and Egoat :p

[L J R]

So the helicopter threads are banned then?

[EdSett100]

The message from MOD refers to attributed contributions in the public domain. We have never been allowed to go on TV or even write to a newspaper, for whatever reason, in our own name, without getting permission. If you wanted to advertise your charity raising event in the local rag, you had to have permission. Now you don't. Its a (small) step in the right direction

Very few messages on PPRuNe are attributable, so the MOD announcement cannot possibly affect this forum. He simply chose PPRUNe to advertise the new policy, and perhaps indicate to some of us, who might want to discuss matters that are not sensitive, that they may now do so without anonymity.

Regards
ES

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I agree with Edsett here. I don't think that Robin was looking to PPRuNe contributers to remove their anonimity on this forum; he was simply pointing out that the rules have changed and seeking support (or otherwise) from a wider audience. It is a vastly different tack from the b0ll0cking I got for advertising a Sqn re-union on PPRuNe!

Duncs:ok:

[Tiger_mate]

What perfect timing :E
Wonder if I will still be in the :mad: on monday.
Common sense prevails at last. :D

....or is it that if you cannot police it you may as well accept it?

[Al R]

"Line managers"? :yuk:

"A flexibly employed line manager dynamically supervises a locally identified need"
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00206/afghan_206562d.jpg

Service and MOD civilian personnel do not need to seek clearance when talking online about factual, unclassified, uncontroversial non-operational matters but should seek authorisation from their chain of command before publishing any wider information relating to their work which:
• Relates to operations or deployments;
• Offers opinions on wider Defence and Armed Forces activity, or on third parties without their permission; or
• Attempts to speak, or could be interpreted as speaking, on behalf of your Service or the MOD; or,
• Relates to controversial, sensitive or political matters.


Well, that should leave plenty of time to tell everyone an adoring public how we all walked arm in arm to the dance with local nurses having screwed up our shots playing pool in the black and white Naafi over a pint of nutty frothy ale and a tasty current bun for 2/6 because we were all far too busy looking at everything through rose tinted spectacles.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/Pix/SOC/21/10428621_T.JPG

Little wonder it needed to wait until Richard Dannatt was out of the way before signing out a set of bollocks in order to announce this tripe. If the MoD decided that it wanted its employees to live by the corporate rules, it should remember that commitment is a two way street. If it did want to control what people communicated out of their married quarters, wouldn’t it be an idea to ensure that the married quarter itself is first habitable?

The US military went down this blokey route just long enough to justify getting back in its comfort zone lets not forget - at least their shiny arses were quicker off the mark. Groupthink (Pprune is fast becoming a good example) still believes that it can dictate how people think and act. They're right in one respect - people will just migrate to places where they feel comfortable.

http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN0458-09.aspx (http://www.marines.mil/news/messages/Pages/MARADMIN0458-09.aspx)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/04/pentagon.social.media.review/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/04/pentagon.social.media.review/index.html)

[Data-Lynx]

Al R. Enjoyed the pic and I have a similar suspicion about corporate 'ollocks. I do think however that you are slightly off target about why the MoD have had to do this.

Take a look at the mass of young military in dusty porta-cabins and tents on the 'welfare' internet. You will find that many of them are using Facebook and various 'Tubes. Good or Bad, this is a large part of their link to reality. While MoD has disabled Facebook, the 'Tubes and now internet banking on the future Defence Information Infrastructure (DII/F) for "security" reasons, it has not yet messed up the package to Theatre.

Personally, I am relieved that the Mgmt has recognised this and is trying to deliver some kind of policy, especially as the internet is part of the Operational Welfare Package (OWP), much trumpeted by the Govt. Perhaps some help would be more useful than that:
out of touch look that you get when you 've just spent the week on an anger management course?

[Data-Lynx]

Dear Robin Riley. I owe you an apology.

I assumed that you were a brave, if somewhat mis-guided, bloke to actually sign the MoD request for help. There are real pitfalls in doing that in a forum. A quick Google suggests in fact that you might be one of the female co-authors of Feminism and War: Confronting U.S. Imperialism - isbn: 1848130198

A whole new slant on Online Engagement?