Restrictions on military contributions to the Interweb
 

For those who have access, see DIN 2007DIN03-006. Para 15 refers.

For those who don't have access you don't need to know ;)

I'm not doing this then



SA

So if the wife says "How did it go at work today", I have to seek permission of DGMC to answer the question. She is a member of the public and if I answered the question I would be talking about defence.

What rubbish!

What can you do with a captured sailor, What can you do with a captured sailor... Oopps that's banned as well, It upsets the fishheads.

I think this broadbrush, all encompassing approach will be counterproductive. It made me sign up to pprune anyway!

So they are effectively banning all current serving personnel from contributing to PPRuNE, ARRSE, RumRation et al without having first gained permission to do so? (unless of course you limit your contributions to non-military issues...yeah, right)

In this day and age of ubiquitous internet connectivity, how on earth do intend to stop it? Smacks of a policy with little actual grounding in reality, methinks....

SBG

Got a link for that? :}

Can't see the DIN but if this is as post 5 says, a ban on Web forums - what cost free speech?. That said, some contributors do push the lines of OPSEC too far. Or is someone high up worrying about power through coordination, eg the Ashtead success?

As regards "power through co-ordination", Top Right, the words bolt and stable-door come to mind, do they not? There is literally an Army (and Air Force and Navy) out here of BOFS, like me, who have been turned at a stroke from assorted "ex-service men and women" into "veterans" (and have a badge to prove it!). We have found a joint voice to rail against civilian nimbyism aimed at service families and Government lack of even-handedness in the treatment of the "Bravest of the Brave". No doubt there will be many more good causes yet. It is just the latest irony in the affairs of this "Open Government" that they created us, one more link in their chain of unforeseen consequences! This one will crank up the PVR rate one more notch more I predict. Muppets!

It'll be some jobsworth in the RAFP justifying his existence. We'll soon see No 1 Username Decyphering Wg with ARRSE, PPRuNe and E-Goat Sqns.

I can imagine the charges: Conduct to the prejudice of good order and RAF discipline contrary to s.69 AFA 1955 in that he:

On 1 August 2007 did type: "Find a bl**dy shop??!! You were meant to bring the lemon for the gin & tonic!!" in a caption competition on an internet bulletin board accessible to the public and Her Majesty's enemies.

Insubordination contrary to s.XX AFA 1955 in that he:

On 2 August 2007 did type "BINGO!" after quoting excerpts from the MOD Overarching Equality & Diversity Strategy on an internet bulletin board accessible to the public and Her Majesty's enemies.

the discussion on ARRSE is interesting.

The restrictions IMO are only to cover one group of a8ses - the media/press offices.
Most large orgainsations have these sort of restrictions "for commercial puposes"

Nope :confused:








:E

Communicating with the public

Members of the Armed Forces and MOD Civil Servants must seek prior permission from DGMC if they wish to communicate about defence via books, articles or academic papers; self-publish via a blog, podcast or other shared text, audio or video; take part in external questionnaires, polls, surveys or research projects, speak at conferences, private engagements or other events where the public or media may be present; or contribute to any online community or share information such as a bulletin board, wiki, online social network, or multi-player game.

All contact with the news media on any topic relating to official Defence matters must be referred to the appropriate D News staff. This includes letters to newspapers, contributing to online debates, taking part in radio or TV programmes, or contact with the media at outside events such as conferences. The responsibility to comply with the Official Secrets Act lies with the individual.

:E

Well, that covers just about everybody then.....

This new rule hasn't been instigated for a laugh but purely so that they can hang you should you decide to put someting on the internet that shouldn't be there.

Do they mean youtube as well ? Search Youtube for :

Royal Navy = 1940 videos
British Army = 14,300 videos
Royal Air Force = 1510 videos
Red Arrows = 1350

Best we all take our videos off youtube then eh?


Whilst I'm at it.....who or what is DGMC ??? Where are they? Who is in charge of them?

You'd (in the main) make mincemeat of anyone trying to pin an official secrets rap on you based upon the contents of pprune posts, methinks.
Pprune ain't exactly the Clive Ponting Affair, is it.
I dare one of you (serving bods) to open a Number 10 Petition, "That DIN xyz be withdrawn in the interests of free speech and good banter".
CG
"The practice of referring to Falkland Islanders as 'Bennies' is to cease forthwith". That worked too. Didn't it?

Yes, they were immediately known as "Stills" :ok:

Correct me if im wrong but didnt you all sign contracts when you joined. If you want freedom of speech ...leave. You're in the military not a PR consultant or civvy whistle blower. As long as you take the shilling do as your asked , or in your cases told. Give up the shilling then yell from the rooftops.
SIMPLE.
It wasnt like this at Dunkirk.:mad:

.... would be even more impressive if they knew what "RFCA" really meant .....

it's Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations actually chaps......

... and I love the bit about "cadets etc etc when on duty" ... so they can only post in their own time...... rright....:D

I suggest we all apply in writing to DGMC for each post we make and see how bored they get of replying?

Slave to the pension I'm afraid, but thereafter I agree and am doing.
I don't know what you do bushbolox, but if you were in the military nowadays you would realise that our previously agreed silence under the terms of the OSA is utilised by our employers increasingly for political reasons - in particular embarrassing deficiencies caused by underfunding. I do intend to yell all sorts from the rooftops when I am released, but would argue in the mean time that those who are knowingly silent are complicit in harming our country by allowing - or even worse, denying - the existence of fundamental defence problems. We are in serious trouble and gagging those who say so is the worse thing 'they' can do and, as usual, a superficial papering of critical cracks.