JHC Diktat bans personal cameras?

[Marly Lite]

Apparently there is a diktat about to be issued by JHC to ban the use of cameras on JHC ac unless on an approved trial.

Anyone got further gen?

If true, no more photos of yourselves enjoyng your careers, ok?

:mad:

[Cows getting bigger]

Cue lots of embarrassing (to JHC) photos.:)

[Courtney Mil]

Somebody's been on an American exchange or a staff visit to the US. TAC (as it was) prohibited the use of cameras by crew.

Perhaps they think the guys aren't professional enough to do their jobs without taking video of something bad happenning. Or maybe they know that everyone is so pissed off that they're worried that the vids might reveal some morale issues. Or perhaps the public might see that there isn't enough left to do the job. Or...

[Jimlad1]

Not being rude, but is this really something that should be discussed openly on the net?

[PTT]

Any reason why it shouldn't be?

[jamesdevice]

this really has an element of "welcome to the real world" about it.
I spend a fair amount of time in regional government offices - call centres / support centres and such like - and they are plastered with posters banning cameras or camera phones.
Information is sensitive, and with modern digital cameras its so easy to copy that information

But as Jimlad says - a forum like this is hardly a place to discuss security

[P6 Driver]

Could this lead to the trauma of people having their mobile phones declared off limits also?

[jamesdevice]

based on my experience of other government departments, and large companies, then yes

[high spirits]

.....whilst Rome is still burning.

[Jimlad1]

"
Any reason why it shouldn't be? "

To be clear, I have no connection at all to JHC or the security world. I am uncomfortable with this being discussed for the following reasons.

Firstly, its a rumour, which suggests someone has either a score to settle or is trying to force someones hand - personally I think its highly unprofessional to try and do something like this via the Internet, and not through established channels.

Secondly, if its on the verge of being released, and if this gets media attention, then the person drafting it may end up in a world of hurt and unwarranted attention, because people who aren't fully sighted on issues have chosen to have a rant about it, rather than pick up the phone and talk through the issue with the policy maker. Someones career may be about to have a very unpleasant period of unwelcome attention, because someone chose to post a duty rumour on the net.

Finally, I'm old fashioned in that I don't think its appropriate to use forums like this to post rumours on security related policies, which are often introduced for bloody good reasons, and not simply to give someone the excuse to whinge.

I'd like to think that if I had an issue with a policy which directly impacted on my day job (and not wider UK defence policy issues), I would be professional enough to raise my concerns within the established system, rather than on the whole internet.

[Yozzer]

...as I approach the end of my career; I am discovering that I didnt take enough photographs!!! The rose tinted spectacles of days gone by would be pleasant to view a photo album through. We take so much day to day stuff for granted until one day it is no longer there.

The cynic in me thinks this more to do with avoiding BofE evidence rather then a ban on nostalgia.

[xenolith]

I thought that photography on/from a military aircraft was forbidden anyway, it being a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act. If that's still the case it's common knowledge in the public domain, a none story/rumour and certainly no reason to get ones knickers in a twist as it was a rule that was comprehensively ignored by all!:zzz:

Nail on the head there Yoz

[Geehovah]

From a historical perspective this is sad. King Canute comes to mind.

I took my camera along on many sorties over the years and I hope to publish a book of Phantom images soon. It'll benefit military charities if I can persuade any of them to respond!

I know that OPSEC is important but, properly cleared, pictures taken on operations are part of history and we, clearly, don't need the media to dictate what is published.

[jamesdevice]

don't think on the lines of pictures
think on the lines of photocopies. and what damage you could do

as an example, just found this document online. I'm sure it shouldn't be there
http://info.publicintelligence.net/JFIIT-Handbook.pdf

relatively innocuous, but one gets the idea...

[Clearedtoroll]

So to summarise the main thrust of this thread so far: firstly, don't discuss rumours on the rumour network because it's only a rumour and someone might get in trouble for having a silly idea... Alternatively, it's not a silly idea but it is a security issue to discuss it because the photos that you haven't yet taken might reveal secrets. :}

[Geehovah]

LoL. I think we're all old and bold enough to know whats classified. Funnily enough, the biggest problem I've had is that I didn't take enough pictures of the cockpit when I was flying because it was classified. I had to go back to an aircraft in a museum to fix it.

Let's be adult about this. There's a well trodden path to clear stuff for publication. There's also a system to make sure that stuff that shouldn't be published on the net is closed down. That leaves the people who push stuff out on You Tube who shouldn't.

[500N]

"The cynic in me thinks this more to do with avoiding BofE evidence rather then a ban on nostalgia."

Looking at the today's on line version of the Daily Mail with the cockpit video, that is probably spot on.

Related ?

[jamesdevice]

"all old and bold enough to know whats classified."
but some people are bold in other directions
Thiink Bradley Manning

[P6 Driver]

I'm not sure about this, and perhaps someone could put me right, but if a rumour being discussed on a rumour network is unsuitable, would the Mods step in to lock the thread or just let it run?

[thunderbird7]

I think it may be related to not taking photographs when overflying the Acropolis.



(Check the Air Pilot thingy - old GSU question :8 )

[orca]

Is this not just another case of weak leadership and an unwillingness to face up to military discipline? In which case rules are brilliant.

I have taken countless photographs of aeroplanes, landscape and sunset whilst flying Her Majesty's aircraft. (And would continue to do so if we still had the ones I drove) I don't think any would constitute a security risk.

On the other hand, if I were to be that stupid that I took a picture of a radar scanner, SF mate or weapon event I would expect to be keel hauled.

Is there a security issue with cameras? If so who caused it? Court martial the guy and no-one else will do it.

Or are we just in a world where we have to have a rule 'just in case' - like the ability to be vicariously offended..in that you weren't offended but thought someone might be; so you deemed what was said 'offensive'. There was no security risk, but there was a chance that someone could think there was, so we mitigated the possibility (of a chance) with a brand new rule. And a six month 'not carrying cameras' currency. Those out of currency will have to carry cameras for a dual and a solo before recommencing no camera ops. By day.

Perchance we are simply further into the turgid world of a rule for everything.

[dkh51250]

Does anyone else recall those days of yore when all cameras had to be registered with the Station Security Officer?

[BEagle]

It was only because I happened to have my private Olympus Pen-FT with me that we were able to send some photos of Soviet Bears to the int folk....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/D.jpg

They were extremely grateful, to the extent that the squadron was given 4 x Canon cameras with telephoto lenses for future occasions.

I wonder what happened to them in subsequent years.....??

[Tiger_mate]

the squadron was given 4 x Canon cameras with telephoto lenses for future occasions

....because then 'Copyright' belongs to HM Govt, whereas copyright of images taken with your own camera belongs to you. A thorny issue to some.

[Pontius Navigator]

BEagle, which brings to mind one story, I forget the details to protect the guilty b*st*rds.

After a number of photographs were submitted up the line (official camera or not I cannot recall) we received two responses.

Predicatably one was a bollocking for a clear and proven breach of the rules.

From another department a letter thanking us for some excellent Int and asking for more.

Of more recent times I seem to recall that it was personal cameras bought duty free in theatre that provided many GW1 media released imagery as there had been no thought to combat photography.

To the isue of trying to force someone to change their mind, this is not new. I seem to remember a wg cdr informing a politician of the state of the RAF. More recently the RAF Club bar was a well known conduit of both fact and rumour with Teddy Donaldson the often unwitting dupe. Or the Daily Express being the 'must-read' journal for the facts.

There was much in the OSA 1911 about sketching etc that I think most people would be aware of what is right or wrong. Indeed digital photography is more 'secure' as it remains in the hands of the originator whereas wet film was usually processed out on the High Street.

Unauthorised photography is prohibited but who best to know whether authorisation should be given except those in the front line? OC Plod is competent to say No but incompetent to say Yes. Matey in his chopper knows what is classified and what is not. If in doubt they can refer to the sqninto.

[mmitch]

I suppose the ban would apply to mobile phones too?
Most can take photos and they don't look like cameras.
mmitch

[Tankertrashnav]

Beagle - Ive got a couple like that in the back of my logbook as a souvenir of the many dragonfly sorties I flew on over the years. Mine were courtesy of a Lightning Mate - we tankers stayed back a respectful distance! They werent even classified Restricted at the time, and from time to time similar piccies appeared in the press.

As for the rumour argument - I'm all for rumour being discussed on here, it's the whole point, isn't it? As for the security aspect, can anyone point out any breach of security on the thread?

All smacks of the attitude of that Met inspector wally who tried to stop that kid taking photos of a military parade, which ended up with the Met (ie the taxpayer) handing over damages and legal costs to the kid because of the inspector's illegal interference.

[Backwards PLT]

In GW2 an F3 nav took a nice piccy, with his personal camera, of an Iraqi airfield that had been attacked. After landing the Squinto got the picture off him as he thought it may be useful for BDA etc. The next day it appeared in a US brief marked SECRET NOFORN (because of the super secret asset that had taken the picture, obviously :D).

[P6 Driver]

On the question of copyright and who retains it, if a private photo is submitted and used for official purposes (BOI or Int, for example), would the copyright be with the individual who took the image or with the MOD?

Different situation altogether, but if anyone submits an image to the annual RAF Photographic Competition it used to be the case that you signed over copyright to the MOD as a condition of entry. This was the reason I didn't enter one year when I was advised by the Stn Photo Section that I had a worthy photo.

[Pontius Navigator]

P6, I believe, but stand to be corrected, that any picture taken in the course of one's duty is automatically Crown Copyright. Clearly a photograph taken in the air of a target of interest ought to be CC but when it is simply taken on base then . . .

[Marly Lite]

I started the thread because the whole thing smacks to me of rules to avoid any embarrassment to JHC.

I have always been aware that photographs taken on HM ac are Crown copyright and that is why my photos remain in my possession and not on the internet. In any case, there is absolutely nothing embarrassing or sensitive in them apart for some of my cheesy yellow-teethed grins. However, some of the photos I have taken on the ground in various locations would be a little sensitive (at the time).

Surely we need a rule about public disclosure, not restrictions on an area that brings everyone so much personal pleasure, especially as they look back with the rose-tinteds on.

The only thing I regret about my time in the cockpit was not having taken enough photo's. What a missed opportunity.

[Pontius Navigator]

Marly, quite. I still have my photo from the cockpit of the first T* to land at Mount Pleasant. Now had I released it to the press as soon as I could it would have been acutely embarrassing to the VSOs that were on the first official T* flight to open the airfield as I think that was the flight after ours.

[Tiger_mate]

any picture taken in the course of one's duty is automatically Crown Copyright.

That may well be the case if you are a military photographer, or photography is within your terms of service ie in the days when an AEOp would photograph vessels from the beam window. The rule of thumb remains: Who owns the camera? ..for he who owns the camera owns the image.

If you use your own camera and you do not have a remit to take photographs formally, the copyright is yours regardless of subject matter. This does not provide protection from the Official Secrets Act and could still get you a visit to your AOC. ....and I should know :E

To encourage photography with 'Photograph of the Year' competitions and then discipline you for taking photographs is clearly a case of mixed signals or conflict of interest. There is not a plane in the sky that has not been photographed by someone with a fortunes worth of long lens; Area 51 may prove me wrong, but you get the drift. However a short camera phone video of impending doom is a little embarassing especially when on youtube: Que "Ye have little faith" said the Apache pilot, seconds before "Mayday..."!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Cameras and helicopters, boy did that combination get me into a world of trouble at Bitburg :E:E:E

[Tiger_mate]

Mate the word is infamy!! ....and in discussion very recently about that very subject, [email protected] sends his regards.

[ShyTorque]

Bitburg... during a summer Tiger Meet (1981 I think) a certain Puma pilot colleague (DB) gave me his SLR with a zoom lens, with a directive to take some photos while he was shooting a 12 bore in the skeet competition. The firing point was up a ten foot high earth bank. The earth bank was populated by many spectators, some of whom were attractive, female and wearing mini dresses and other skimpy oufits .

I took lots of photos from below the earth bank :E . I even took one of DB firing a gun. I handed the camera back to him without a word. He later sent his wife to fetch the developed photos. Boy, was he in trouble over those photos ...... :ok:

[Rigga]

Well at least this only hits the pilot classes who seem to be the most keen to record their efforts so acurately.

I left the mob several years ago and I'm actually envious of those who have/had so blatantly swerved the photography rules for so long - using unregistered cameras as they saw fit.

Camera registration is still a mandatory MOD requirement, by the way - on all MOD establishments and on many civil contracted operations.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Well at least this only hits the pilot classes who seem to be the most keen to record their efforts so acurately.


Not quite sure what your beef is but in 20 odd years of flying as rear crew on rotary and fixed wing I have seen more Pax cameras taking picture on flight decks jump seats etc than crews have ever done :confused:

[Geehovah]

As I said earlier I snapped happily for many years and glad I did. The pictures were not intended for gain, nor did I plan to publish. I just hope service charities can eventually benefit from my efforts in addition to recording some images which would otherwise now be lost. I knew what I could photograph because I briefed many visitors to the squadron about the "rights and wrongs". I avoided the subjects to be avoided and also helped out with some snaps to assist "the authorities". And I do know the "no photographs on base" rule but the UK is not Greece thank goodness.

I still say that photographs are the lifeblood of an organisation. In this day and age, a system which tries to roll back the waves will wither.

Lets be sensible. Enforce OPSEC but encourage public relations.

[Courtney Mil]

Couldn't agree more Geehovah. As a young fg off on my first tour on F4s I used to take my camera with me. Even I knew what I could and couldn't photograph.

Even so, I wish I'd taken more at the time.

[Warmtoast]

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/RAF%20Thornhill/Harvard2.jpg

First flying photo taken in 1951.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc3Medium.jpg

..and last in 1980.

As a keen and enthusiastic photographer I took hundreds in between, with no problems at all.

One knew what was allowed and what wasn't - it was just a matter of keeping one's nose clean.

[Courtney Mil]

One instictively knows when something is right...

[sycamore]

Ahaaa,you mean big round engines with propellers...!

[Courtney Mil]

Hmm, I walked into that! You won't believe me now, but I meant one instinctively knows what to photograph and what not in your own aircraft. But your line is better!!!!

[500N]

"Hmm, I walked into that! "

Jesus Courtney, I though you were a bit more switched on than that:O:ok:


You better take some more meds or stand in the queue behind Mach Two, Jamesdevice and a few others.

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, caught me at an off moment. Will try harder! No, will have another glass of wine and get over it!!!:ok:

Interesting that I think the vast majority on this thread are in agreement. Looks like, "take the pictures, avoid classified stuff and be careful what you do with it".

[500N]

Have another Glass of wine sounds good.:ok:

[biddedout]

I have a large number of old photos of Soviet, UK and NATO ships, Nuclear Submarines and planes all stamped with Restricted and all handed out willingly to crews by the Int department. Those in charge clearly understood that they would be taken off base and shown to families and friends because why else would people need them and why would they be so happy to hand them out? Did they think we all had secure combination cabinets in out houses and locked them away for 30 years? At the same time, I think most people realised that they shouldn't send them to the press or display them on the local village hall notice board (1980's internet).

Common sense semed to be the order of the day but it doesn't seem to be enough these days.

I do remember a mission being delayed for several hours though when a Co-pilot was arested and questioned by the Norwegian Police for taking pictures on a very dull P3 base hundreds of miles from anywhere. :eek:

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

as an example, just found this document online. I'm sure it shouldn't be there
http://info.publicintelligence.net/JFIIT-Handbook.pdf (http://info.publicintelligence.net/JFIIT-Handbook.pdf)

relatively innocuous, but one gets the idea...


Innocuous and also a tad out of date. It refers to something called a Nimrod and also a GR-7/9 Harrier...