Useful

**AlabamaHotPocketer** · 08-01-2010, 18:34

First of all, units need to educate their soldiers and officers about what they can and can't discuss or place on the internet.

In terms of promulgating information, there shouldn't be any difficulties with the current method of sending out joining instructions well in advance of weekends. Its obviously better if people know about the weekend beforehand or are anticipating some mail from their unit.

As for facebook and other social networking websites, there is no harm and it is completely acceptable for soldiers (TA or otherwise) to have online profiles, although its not so clear for a unit to have an unofficial presence on the web and nothing official can be passed over facebook (especially not SJARs). Soldiers can identify themselves as soldiers on the internet but its up to their own unit to remind them of the risks of compromised identities.

**Bravo_Bravo** · 08-01-2010, 19:11

Somebody had an horrid Christmas.

**polar** · 08-01-2010, 23:32

Originally Posted by AlabamaHotPocketer

No. PROTECT isn't even a proper Protective Marking. Not sure who has made it up but they've made that so they can e-mail it (information) about. Unless you get some proper guidance with a JSP 440 definition of PROTECT, I wouldn't post anything about your unit, training or colleagues on unofficial means.

After reseting my password several times:

https://wss.armynet.mod.uk/sites/akx...%20PROTECT.pdf

**putteesinmyhands** · 09-01-2010, 00:31

Curious. My interpretation of that is that RESTRICTED documents could be sent to any URL within sensible reason that begins https and ends in .uk, subject to content limitations.

Without going into inappropriate detail and without quoting or closely paraphrasing formal documents, can anybody confirm or deny my interpretation? (i.e. couched in terms that anybody who hasn't access to ArmyNet wouldn't have a clue what we're on about).

**AlabamaHotPocketer** · 09-01-2010, 02:30

Originally Posted by putteesinmyhands

Curious. My interpretation of that is that RESTRICTED documents could be sent to any URL within sensible reason that begins https and ends in .uk, subject to content limitations.

Without going into inappropriate detail and without quoting or closely paraphrasing formal documents, can anybody confirm or deny my interpretation? (i.e. couched in terms that anybody who hasn't access to ArmyNet wouldn't have a clue what we're on about).

You cannot send anything with a Protective Marking (From RESTRICTED to TOP SECRET) over the civvy internet. It is an easy rule. This is backed up in JSP440 and LANDSO 2007. Speak to your USO and ITSO for further clarification.

I would love to know what you heard or read to understand that you could do otherwise, for my own information.

**putteesinmyhands** · 09-01-2010, 02:35

Originally Posted by AlabamaHotPocketer

I would love to know what you heard or read to understand that you could do otherwise, for my own information.

The document that Polar linked to.

It seems substantially less restrictive than what I'd been led to be the case. Perhaps I misunderstand what https: infers?

**AlabamaHotPocketer** · 09-01-2010, 02:38

Polar, after reading through that DIN (thanks btw) I can say now that it is out of date and its direction pretty much applies for RESTRICTED. I personally wouldn't use PROTECT, its a bad idea to assign that as a PM on documents and then start promulgating it.

Bravo-Bravo, I would've had an awful Christmas but I find the idea of a culturally and religiously exclusive festival nauseating therefore I performed a non-cultural specific, seasonally appropriate recognition of interfaith representation of the Winter solstice in a way that was inclusive to all racial, religious, socio-economic, homosexual, gender and differently abled individuals. Can I poke you on face book? Thanx.

**polar** · 09-01-2010, 07:16

Probably is out of date. Pity in a way, the balance between exploiting the internet or policing the internet always seems to come down on the policing side. Sort of a slow moving tortoise which is constantly hiding in its shell, the 'facebook' hare goes on running and running - I can't see the tortoise ever catching up (soz MSR, too early to post anything other than an anology)

**Bravo_Bravo** · 09-01-2010, 19:29

Originally Posted by AlabamaHotPocketer

Bravo-Bravo, I would've had an awful Christmas but I find the idea of a culturally and religiously exclusive festival nauseating therefore I performed a non-cultural specific, seasonally appropriate recognition of interfaith representation of the Winter solstice in a way that was inclusive to all racial, religious, socio-economic, homosexual, gender and differently abled individuals.

I thought so.

Can I poke you on face book? Thanx.

You can poke me anywhere, biG Boy...