OpSec issues from Ukraine War
 

As somebody has already said - why don't you idiot spotters stop posting information of value to a hostile regime?

Salute!

Thank you, Beagle. Guess I won't post the practice flight paths of the Ukranian attack on the Crimea sea ports, huh?

Gums sends...

Oh ya. I forgot. The Russians don’t have access to the super secret FR24.

It doesn’t take more than a few brain cells to realise that the fact that they are broadcasting means they WANT to be noticed.

Agree damn there are some dumb asses here. Like the 4 Pegasus that flew from Wichita to Morona Airbase south east of Sevil about 12 hours ago( about 1 hour separation between them). If it was top secret why were they broadcasting ADSB from take off to landing

If the vitriol regarding FR24 is aimed at my post #3424, then I am rather surprised. As others have pointed out, the website and all the information it contains is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The latest Fr24 blog update has an entry highlighting NATO airborne activity in eastern Europe with examples of some of the aircraft types involved.

BTW, if the comments were aimed at my post I should add that I am not a 'spotter', but having said that, why the denigration of a hobby/pastime enjoyed by many?

I am ex-RAF (the 'ex' bit occurring a long time ago), have an on-going mild interest in aviation related activities including (obviously) that of the military persuasion.

The question I posed in all innocence was regarding overflights or otherwise of a fellow NATO member. Seemed a fair question to me.

Congratulations on being a ****ty human being. I would use a much stronger australianism against you but pretty sure that would get at least modded but probably banned

If you dont like people talking about open source info then get the **** off the internet

The problem is not FR24. As has been pointed out, sometimes the aircraft want to be seen, and sometimes they don't.

The problem is with the many "enthusiast" groups sharing and broadcasting additional information.

Ie " just seen 3 typhoons leave xyz, " or " i see the b52s are starting up". I am sure they would post up the pilots name and address if they thought it would garner a few extra FB likes.

If you don't understand that every little additional snippet "could" be useful to someone somewhere, then you need to have a rethink.

Oh come on, are you serious?!
It's 2022 - not 1942 - information of all sorts is incredibly widely available.
That horse hasn't just bolted and in the next paddock - it's on another racetrack entirely!
If Air Forces truly want to preserve iron clad OPSEC these days, they stage and launch well away from prying eyes, or gas up and divert in flight to the real target and/or they fight at night.
And we find out about it later.... multiple examples in the past, and I'm sure they're happening even as we speak.
They wouldn't be so dopey as to put themselves in a situation where being visually observed or exposed by sharing of online data would compromise an operation.
Lyneham Lad and others have done nothing wrong.
Unless of course you're the VVS, in which case you probably don't give a rats... BearNet broadcasting in the clear on shortwave for all and sundry to listen to.

I am serious. And no you dont need to go back to 1942 either.

Remember the BBC during the Falklands?
Additional information that did not need to be published not only told the Argentinians their bombs were not exploding, but went on to give them the bloody solution.

Images posted of US patriot sites shared online within hours of deployment, not hard to get a grid on that.

Yes, i accept that we live in a digital information age and stuff is "out there" but don't hand it over on a plate!
Like I said, some folk need to rethink the "potentially" useful information they share willy-nilly from the comfort of their man-caves.

I agree fully. There is so much OS available, it may well be that the pertinent information is missed by those who would use it against us. It does not need signposting by those who think they are being clever. That post with info on it may be the last link in the chain, or the last piece of the jigsaw the hostile int gatherers need.
The 1942 adages of 'loose talk costs lives' and 'walls have ears' still hold good today. Just because YOU know the information to be correct and relevant does not mean the enemy does.
Think carefully before posting.

Thank you, someone who understands.


If you have additional information, you have two choices; share it or keep it to yourself.

Sharing it carries a potential unintended consequence.
Keeping mute does not. So why take that risk, no matter how slight it may be?

It really is that simple.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c118e0f00f.jpg
and then there's this . . .

The BBC told the world because somebody at MOD told the whole press coups in the UK about it in an MOD Press Briefing.

Careless talk costs lives! Just because the MOD did it in 1982 to a press gathering does not mean it was correct! Because of that failure of Opsec, the Argentinian Airforce adjusted the fusing of their bombs so they would work and cost British lives. Just because the info comes from a reliable source does not mean the releasing of the, now intelligence, is right. Speculation is one thing, spreading information you know to be correct to prove a point is another. Satcos Whipping Boy and Beagle have it in a nutshell. Just think to yourself, " if I were a hostile Intelligence gatherer, would this information be useful to me?" and the answer is yes, DON'T POST IT!

How about if we share misinformation?

Thank you and sorry for my rants, unfortunately, once the offending post is there it is too late - it will be seen. Keeping the cat in the bag is much easier than trying to put it back in - pointing out the folly of posting such info, or indeed misinformation, which may also be useful as negative information can prove to be positive, is very much in keeping with the topic of the thread. I will now withdraw stumps.

Your link's not working Sue.
Satco - I think your Polish Patriot example is a bit of a reach if that's what you're referring to?
If I remember correctly - right next to the perimeter fence on a major airbase in clear view of a road... if they didn't want that disclosed or were relying on the general public to remember that loose lips sink ships... then they're very naive.
We live in an age when organisations like Bellingcat do an extraordinary job of mining open source, geolocation you name it.
As you well know, Maxar and other satellite operators have resolution so good that the military use them to supplement their own IMINT.
And with respect - your Falklands example was over 40 years ago - hard to believe - but I remember it well.
It was pre Internet and pre widespread use of mobile phones; the information environment back then was profoundly different.
Seen in that context, Whitehall was quite right to be outraged about the disclosure of the fuzing failures, as was H Jones who threatened to sue the BBC Governors for revealing the Goose Green objective.
Guess we'll just have to disagree.
My view is that anyone who complains about OSINT compromising operational security these days needs to get real.
And I regret to say - I think that includes VSOs who from time to time complain about retired military pundits theorising on strategy and tactics.
The media just ignore the complainers... having worked for the despised BBC I can vouch for the editorial reaction if you tried to argue that open source information shouldn't be shared or that retired VSOs shouldn't be asked, "what might happen next?"
Now - sharing genuinely classified information - execrable and fully worth the 30 years in the slammer.
But material that's already there in plain light of day?
Sorry folks - I think once it's been seen and it becomes digital it's open season, on the plate and garnished.
And any operational planner should factor that into their decision making - it's just the reality we live in.

Mods, my question was genuine.
There is concern among some here that posting information could be harmful to friendly forces.
My question may have appeared flippant, however, if genuine intelligence can be gathered here, is it also possible to misinform unfriendly forces in the same way?

Well there you go - I don't remember that from the time.
If the MOD did indeed discuss fusing details of Argentine bombs at a press briefing - then that's just laughably incompetent.
Does anyone have a source for that - open source, mind. ;)
I'm not trying to be some sort of smart arse here - I can imagine how utterly galling it must be to see something sensitive inadvertently exposed.
Seriously, what I'm trying to point out is that you can't blame the public these days - it's an Opsec issue.
The velocity of information is such now that I wonder about the utility of D notices.
By the time someone's drafted the damn thing, called a broadcaster and served it - the whole world probably already knows.

In the Falklands case it seems MOD announced those details in a press conference - the plain implication being that MOD was good for these details to be made public.

Really this was a MOD INFOSEC error. Beyond death and taxes, the only certainty is that the press will immediately broadcast whatever is told them. The responsibility for assessing whether certain information can be safely released rests with the military authorities.
​​