Its the content within the article that substantiates the position, not the audience it was written to...

No. I posted a CBT that can be directly related to a recent change in policy. Your attempt to try and say a document created almost a year ago is serves the same function is more than a stretch. But you can think what you wish, and I'm sure we shall all be enlightened shortly on how we are wrong.

Where did I say it serves the same function?

Ahhhh I didnt. There you go again, lying about most everything.

Sorry you must be mistaking me for someone else. I don't lie nor ask to use someone else's classified system, when not already granted access.

You implied the document posted served the same function when you post the document directly after my CBT post stating I clearly hadn't read it.

It's not a leap to make the assumption you were trying to imply the AF had already "put out" such a document.

Note to self. Lifeline changes what he's argueing about and doesn't tell you. That way when you're wrong when you weren't talking about what he was.

I'd love to see you sit down face to face and debate somebody on a topic. I bet it's like talking to a 2 year old about the his favorite colors. His favorite color is ice cream. Ice cream is his favorite bedtime story. He loves hearing bed time stories when he's jumping on the moon.

edit: grammer

Its not my fault you two idiots make assumptions that arent there.



No, I didnt. Thats what you wanted it to be, without realizing it wasnt.

Fixed

For someone who claims to be so versed in the Internet, SNSs and IT in general you seem to lack even a basic understanding on communication via this medium.

The sequence of events:


-- You post a 26 page AF article about emerging IT technologies and their use

-- I post a CBT on SNSs regarding a recent DoD Policy. Alluding to the fact future commands may produce their own

-- You post solely the article, and when asked why you posted it again you state because I hadn't read it


When two people are attempting to engage in conversation and one person doesn't convey their full intention it is HUMAN nature to try and full in the "empty" parts not conveyed. It isn't because anyone on the board is an idiot, but rather you failing to convey your entire meaning or thoughts. We aren’t in your head when you post, not would anyone want to be. If people are constantly misinterpreting your posts the problem is on your end, not the reader.

The fallacy resides on you, not with anyone else.

Nope.

I was just posting resources.

Too bad, so sad. Go cry in another corner.

Twice? That's not why you said you posted it when I asked.

You're right, yet again. Why anyone ever questions your wisdom I'll never know.

Dr. Satan put it best as far as Lifeline goes. It's like he wants to make you rape him!

Did anybody else see the cyber threat bulletin? SNS's are staying blocked because: 1 too much malware; 2 too much spam; and social engineering. also some bases may not have the bandwidth to support everybody on facebook everyday. There was also a note in there about a concern that hackers will be able to find out who people are for some reason, i didnt have time to read it all, but that was the jist of it.

Edit: sorry commdude

LOL thats a joke.

That already exists on every site. And to block it for social engineering? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH wow what a bunch of tards

bandwidth is extremely minimal impact from facebook and twitter. cnn takes more bandwidth to load a page than either of those two.

Well go tell SECAF that, im sure hell listen. And im not sure whats wrong with blocking a site thats known for for having a huge social engineering side to it. I will agree somewhat with you on the bandwidth aspect of it, but im sure more people would go to facebook than go to the news outlets currently.

SECAF actually supports the social network move. (nm - this was in regard to repealing dadt)

Ive read the bulletin and malware and spam are the only points listed that are even relevant.

"Targeted attacks through employees" = employees sharing too much. This was already addressed by the directive, that the users will be trained in infosec and opsec and be required to exercise a higher level of awareness in what they post.

"Phishing" = bullsh*t - its nothing more than what you currently go through with email, random phone calls, letters, fake websites, etc.

"Human error, Leading to Leadked data" = LOL thats all been taken care of by the directive and also addressed in "Targeted attacks".

So it all boils down to 1. Malware, and 2. Spam. Thats going to exist regardless of what youre using on the internet.

These are all the same reasoning that were used to fight DoD using email. Its bullsh*t fear mongering, and whomever wrote the article not only has no clue what they are talking about, but they are clearly an idiot.

SNSs do scan activity for viruses and phishing scams. Someone needs to do a little more research before publishing an article.

They also forgot to mention the part in the directive that any ban on such sites must be temporary.

Good God...

*cough* fan scan *cough*

Im not sure were talking about the same thing, lifeline, the cyber threat bulletin is straight from the top. Well its basically a reitteration of what the big wigs say.

Whoever reiterized what the big wigs said is a certifiable retard, along with the respective big wig responsible for said content, provided it wasn't taken out of context and spun a different direction.

It's not really so much from the top either. It's only from the 624th OC.

So... what you're saying is that it might as well have come from an INOSC.

Let's look at that. The 624 OC CC reports to the 24 AF/CC, a 2 star, who reports directly to the AFSPC CC, a four star, who reports to the CSAF, who in turn reports to SECDEF. Admittedly, I am from Ky and my math is usually suspect but I am counting 3 levels between 624 CC and the SECDEF. I'd say that is pretty close to the top.
In addition, what the heck is someone attached to the INOSC, as you say you are, doing questioning the authority and wisdom of their bosses.... you know... the 624th.

still not enabled ;(

It was written by 624 OC, not the OC CC. Could have been written by anyone in the 624 OC org.

Im hired to question the wisdom of the people around me, as are the other civilians. Thats why we have a job.

Theyre obviously not too closely connected given the directive issued by SECDEF and the juvenile and technically deficient content in the bulletin. So lets apply your question again and ask why the 624 OC is questioning the authority and wisdom of THEIR bosses HHHhhmMMMMM?

Given that I personally know the commander I can safely say it wouldn't be released without his consent. They are not questioning the wisdom of their bosses -- they are talking about risk and advising as is their job/role. You pooh pahed the 624th and apparently didn't even know they tell the INOSCs what to do. Show some guts and call the SECDEF or the 624th CC and tell them how juvenile their unit is. Bet they will pull the bulletin ASAP.
You are hired to do what your bosses tell you and MOST IMPORTANTLY use your chain of command to relay any concerns. If you have done that it would seem your bosses didn't see your advice as worth passing up the chain. And I would bet even money that "question the wisdom of the people around you" is not in your job description.

It is for us NCO's ;) Also, just because a chain of command is in place, doesnt mean they effectively make correct decisions about issues forwarded up to them. I have seen this fail people many many times. People trying to make stratification moves, denied simply because a Col Select didnt want changes to his squadron prior to his change of command. Because it would look bad on him. Dick move.


they see me TROLLIN', they hatinnnn....

Mooom... I've asked you before not to put me on the spot with my innertubes buddies!