E-3D Storm Damage
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Rules may be rules but you can never put the genie back in the bottle.
The Official Secret's Act of 1911 made great play of the offence of sketching military facilities etc. Mainly, I imagine, because a sketch was a more covert means of gathering intelligence than a photograph and did not need bulky equipment.
Furthermore naval officers had been instructed in the skills of sketching and drawing as the only viable way of securing intelligence.
Clearly new technologies can reduce the need for sketches etc hence the need to widen the scope of the Act. But the speed technology and the affordability of image capture devices far outstrips the ability of the plods to police it.
As thrashed out earlier on the DIN Photography ban, you can capture an image, transmit it, and delete the evidence such that it cannot be proved locally who did it.
When you find the camera, telephone, webcam, CCTV or whatever you still have to prove who captured the image.
"Not me Gov, I always leave my . . . in my desk."
The Official Secret's Act of 1911 made great play of the offence of sketching military facilities etc. Mainly, I imagine, because a sketch was a more covert means of gathering intelligence than a photograph and did not need bulky equipment.
Furthermore naval officers had been instructed in the skills of sketching and drawing as the only viable way of securing intelligence.
Clearly new technologies can reduce the need for sketches etc hence the need to widen the scope of the Act. But the speed technology and the affordability of image capture devices far outstrips the ability of the plods to police it.
As thrashed out earlier on the DIN Photography ban, you can capture an image, transmit it, and delete the evidence such that it cannot be proved locally who did it.
When you find the camera, telephone, webcam, CCTV or whatever you still have to prove who captured the image.
"Not me Gov, I always leave my . . . in my desk."
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see the speculation about how much effort may be expended tracking down the photman - will anyone put any time into finding out which group of monkeys were responsible for the damage in the first place? Obviously we can add 'effects of wind' to 'effects of snowfall' - in the list of natural phenomena that catch us out very time they occur! It's not as if we had no idea it was going to blow a hooley that day? Just as well we have a huge budget to pay for all these c*ck-ups...doh
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius,
I remember being taught at school that the train was a form of communication. In other words, it enabled people to take information from one place to another.
All that is happening now is an extension of the mode of communication.
If you put the tools of communication within reach of the communicator, then despite DIN, this will happen wether it is liked or not.
With the advent of the digital camera and the mobile phone, which usually now are equipped with a digital camera, is it not correct to say that such a method of communication will preside over more "normal" methods?
I agree with what you say. Have you seen the reports about the withdrawal from Google earth's sensitive coverage? I hope so.
In my own opinion,
The event has not breached any security issue other than the fact it has put only one aircraft out of action. Apart from a few tell tales, who knows where the aircraft is from or operates from apart from this thread.
Lessons can be learned and so they should,UNDER OPEN REPORTING PROTOCOLS, although that will not be open to debate (and should not,)here on this site.
The event could have happened to any aircraft at any airbase or airport worldwide.
So let us stop the witch hunt now.
Has someone shouted "Beadwindow" ?
No they haven't and there is no need to.
TW
I remember being taught at school that the train was a form of communication. In other words, it enabled people to take information from one place to another.
All that is happening now is an extension of the mode of communication.
If you put the tools of communication within reach of the communicator, then despite DIN, this will happen wether it is liked or not.
With the advent of the digital camera and the mobile phone, which usually now are equipped with a digital camera, is it not correct to say that such a method of communication will preside over more "normal" methods?
I agree with what you say. Have you seen the reports about the withdrawal from Google earth's sensitive coverage? I hope so.
In my own opinion,
The event has not breached any security issue other than the fact it has put only one aircraft out of action. Apart from a few tell tales, who knows where the aircraft is from or operates from apart from this thread.
Lessons can be learned and so they should,UNDER OPEN REPORTING PROTOCOLS, although that will not be open to debate (and should not,)here on this site.
The event could have happened to any aircraft at any airbase or airport worldwide.
So let us stop the witch hunt now.
Has someone shouted "Beadwindow" ?
No they haven't and there is no need to.
TW
Last edited by Talk Wrench; 20th Jan 2007 at 17:49.
If someone learns something about securing ground equipment in windy conditions the photos will have been well worth showing.
I remember reading lots of articles about the conflicts in the first gulf conflict. How everyone overcome the 'problems' and managed to get the job done. The trouble was nobody would say what the problems were, so how was anyone to learn? After gulf war 2 I read similar about similar problems...
If we supress our mistakes they will be made again by someone else. Lets at least take something positive out of this unfortunate incident.
I remember reading lots of articles about the conflicts in the first gulf conflict. How everyone overcome the 'problems' and managed to get the job done. The trouble was nobody would say what the problems were, so how was anyone to learn? After gulf war 2 I read similar about similar problems...
If we supress our mistakes they will be made again by someone else. Lets at least take something positive out of this unfortunate incident.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under milk wood
Age: 64
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Important Aircrew
There were actually two aircraft damaged! Still, it won't make any impact on current Ops as the E3-D don't do Ops; only exercises. They are, however, still very, very important so they keep telling us (especially those ground trades in a temporary flying role who think they are aircrew).
OOOOH Avtur, Harsh words. That will upset them, especially the ones who've gone and bought real aircrew flying jackets aswell!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.
Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.
If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.
If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Sanctimonious twaddle!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having browsed his photo collection and knowing the real photographer of some of the images therein, can I suggest that he may not be the photographer at all, and that he has borrowed them from elsewhere. In which case he is only guilty of providing a link here.
His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?
His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A recent BOI for an aircraft lost in theatre saw most of the pics used as evidence leaked onto the net. Not aware of any action taken against anyone despite the sensitivity of the subject so whoever posted these pics should be safe.
I saw the RAFP unable to make charges stick to one of our techies who launched an unprovoked attack on a colleague at a station function in front of several hundred witnesses; so, even if they go after this guy, I would still say he's safe.
By the way, if you've seen this, should you report it to avoid being an accomplice?
N Joe
I saw the RAFP unable to make charges stick to one of our techies who launched an unprovoked attack on a colleague at a station function in front of several hundred witnesses; so, even if they go after this guy, I would still say he's safe.
By the way, if you've seen this, should you report it to avoid being an accomplice?
N Joe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having browsed his photo collection and knowing the real photographer of some of the images therein, can I suggest that he may not be the photographer at all, and that he has borrowed them from elsewhere. In which case he is only guilty of providing a link here.
His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?
His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.
Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.
If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.
If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comment related to the fact that from my source, peeps 'close' to the incident were told in no uncertain terms that if piccies did appear, it would be 'goodnight Vienna' for the culprit. I didn't mention the second damaged frame though I knew of it before Avtur's post. That the pics have dissapeared from the other forum could indicate that the threat is being taken seriously!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are fools and for guidance of the wise are they not?
They certainly are and I hope I have been wise in following them.
Sanctimonious twaddle!
Certainly not,its fact.
That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!
Certainly not,same subject happened to be on another forum that I am a member of Mr.P.You have done the same on occasion albeit under a different pseudonym.
Whats a scuffer???
I just get a bit peeved when I am told I can no longer bring my camera into work to take pics, although I have followed the rules over the years and had everything I have taken on base vetted prior to release.A DIN gets issued and I get told my photo permit is no longer any good regardless of my rule abiding.I ask why and am told its because of images appearing in the public domain without MOD approval or security clearance,such as the examples at the start of this thread. All I'm trying to say is that rule breaking by some,regardless of how petty some may think it is,screws it up for others.
They certainly are and I hope I have been wise in following them.
Sanctimonious twaddle!
Certainly not,its fact.
That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!
Certainly not,same subject happened to be on another forum that I am a member of Mr.P.You have done the same on occasion albeit under a different pseudonym.
Whats a scuffer???
I just get a bit peeved when I am told I can no longer bring my camera into work to take pics, although I have followed the rules over the years and had everything I have taken on base vetted prior to release.A DIN gets issued and I get told my photo permit is no longer any good regardless of my rule abiding.I ask why and am told its because of images appearing in the public domain without MOD approval or security clearance,such as the examples at the start of this thread. All I'm trying to say is that rule breaking by some,regardless of how petty some may think it is,screws it up for others.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gander
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then Ranger;
Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.
You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!
Hope they guy responsible for this accident (for it seems to be) gets reminded of his area of responsibilty in an appropiate and measured way. Aircraft can be fixed...just takes unnecessary time, manpower & money..
Later;
MOG
Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.
You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!
Hope they guy responsible for this accident (for it seems to be) gets reminded of his area of responsibilty in an appropiate and measured way. Aircraft can be fixed...just takes unnecessary time, manpower & money..
Later;
MOG
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then Ranger;
Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.
You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!
Later;
MOG
Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.
You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!
Later;
MOG
