Closing down non-MOD websites

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Dr_Evil, Apr 19, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. What's this frikkin business with DCI 67-04?

    Am wondering whether my Nigerian phishing scams are affected. Some 19% of my revenues come from them, so I am a little worried that completion of my second (summer) volcano lair might be put off for a few months. Those Lithuanian builders are screwing me.

    Can anyone quote me the DCI chapter and verse?

    The Green Howards site says "all websites containing information relating to regiments of the British Army must be run on the MOD servers" but this must be inaccurate, as it would include (for example) www.regiments.org, which is run by some American fella from a rather nice metal-lined mountain lair in Colorado. He has this 20m diameter stainless steel blast door which is so precisely hung that you can open and close it with your little finger. Tried to get similar for summer lair but some Iranians had bought up all the stock.

    I digress ...

    If chapter and/or verse not available, can someone answer me this: does the DCI edict apply to personal and/or "enthusiast" sites (such as www.ex-greenhowards.com)? I don't see how it could but would be grateful for enlightenment.
     
  2. From what I gather, it only effects military units, that use a generic URL such as (just an example) www.royalirish.co.uk, as there host, and not an mod URL, such as (just an example) www.royalirish.mod.uk. Any official BA sites that are hosted on generic .co.uk URLs have to be changed over to .mod.uk URLs. However you can still keep your existing URL as long as it forwards you on to the .mod.uk site. I think it's just so there's some form of control on content for OPSEC.

    Again not an expert, but from what I read, that's the general jist I got, so please correct me if I'm wrong, which I quite possibly am.
     
  3. I think that the impetus behind this one is the rather unfortunate consequence of someone forgetting to renew the URL of that Int Corps site which was then acquired by a disgruntled ex-member.

    The long and the short of it is that if the site is the officially sanctioned online presence of a current unit or organisation, then it must go inside the wire. It's a shame because there will be obvious technical limitations but perhaps a sensible move.

     
  4. If the rule applied only to "official" regimental websites and were compelling them to migrate to .mod.uk then fine. That would make sense.

    But I would still like to see how the edict was actually phrased. There are still loads of regimental sites up on the net (will not grass any of them up by listing them here) and am wondering on what basis they survive.

    It is obvious that the clever people at the Green Howards site were trying to think creatively to avoid the new rule -

    - and, again, it would be useful to know why they were not allowed to carve out an "unofficial" site for themselves.

    The thing is, the official MOD regimental sites are so lifeless and dreary. Life is made that little bit poorer by that damned DCI.

    Just had a look at www.intelligencecorps.co.uk, though, and now see where the MOD are coming from on this!
     
  5. Disgruntled ex-member ?. Might this be the Arrser with multiple identities who kept posting about how disgruntled he was at Blandford ?.
     
  6. daz

    daz LE


    Speaking as a RSA branch webmaster who had been lent on to move the Branches website onto the MoD’s server, I found a quick email along the lines of piss off, we’re not moving, worked every time. :lol:

    While they might like every regiment/regimental association to be hosted on their servers (and vet the content) they cannot really stop anyone hosting a site elsewhere, unless they of course are funding it.(and the RSA are tight gits and dont provide a penny)

    Daz
     
  7. So what are they going to do to me as a ex STABy civvie if I set up the Royal Blankshire Online?
     
  8. Presumably this is really about OFFICIAL regimental websites sponsored by RHQs or units.
     
  9. A guy in my unit has been told to close his site down, but he's paid for the domain name and hosting. I believe he was willing to shut the site down, aslong as he was recompensed for the money he'd spent.
     
  10. All that has to be done is the site is administered by either a civvie or the Association.

    The MoD seems to be getting more like the KGB every day!
     
  11. So if you don't maintain a site when employed as casual labour by the Army (TA) your fine?
     
  12. On reflection, it would seem that the problem is not that the site is hosted outside the wire but that any privately acquired URL can be compromised in the same way as the Int Corps.

    Maybe what they should have done -- if indeed this hijacking is the real reason behind the DCI -- is to insist that everyone continue as normal but work under an mod.uk URL that can't be allowed to lapse. Then it would be academic where the site was hosted.

    Looks more and more like an 'I don't understand it so I must therefore throttle it' reaction or worse, censorship.
     
  13. No.2 has consulted our lawyers - Sueit, Billem and Runn - on this. They advise that the MOD can do nothing to you, provided that -

    (a) you don't breach the Official Secrets Act, which still applies to you after you leave the TA;
    (b) you don't breach copyright; and
    (c) you don't defame them on your site by pretending to be an official site and then saying silly things.

    Even if you breach copyright, unless you are making money out of the website then there is little they can do except get a court order compelling you to stop that breach (in other words, forcing you to take down some nice photo you pinched from the MOD website and replace it with a cheeky one of your own). If you defame specific individuals then you may be in trouble - but you're very stupid and deserve all you get.

    And it would look very Mugabe if the MOD sought to close down privately-run and inoffensive sites, so they may hold back from doing so if the PR consequences were made clear to them by the person running the site.

    Messrs Sueit, Billem and Runn have drafted what that they say is correct response from a private person no longer in the chain of command to a shouty letter or email from the MOD, provided that (a) (b) and (c) all apply:

     
  14. Thank you my learned friend
     
  15. If you do want your existing website to be 'official' and part of www.army.mod.uk there is a one-day course at Blandford that you need to attend. Nothing too brain taxing, just what you can and can't publish and you get a username and password to access the admin side of things. Probably more stuff covered but not been on it myself yet, am booked in for next month.