MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Dean_the_Young wrote...If OPSEC were the concern, I'd (privately) call you out for OPSEC- it's not like you're claiming to be military intelligence and posting your picture across the internet or anything.
That in itself is of course not a violation. No names, ranks, dates, or sensitive information of anytime has been revealed. I can say I'm MI. That's not a problem. And my images hold none of the above, so there's nothing wrong with them.
Unless you didn't screen your image for metadata, or already admitted that your image is already put in open-source media that anyone can search and do comparison photos. Especially in a military publication or , in which unit information and even names are routine.
Openly announcing an intelligence occupation, on the other hand, is
never a wise idea on the internet, where anyone can be listening and anyone could approach you, openly or not, for collection.
I mean, just from this thread alone I can identify gender, ethnicity, hair color, relative age, rank, occupation(s), training history, deployment history, a year range of possible deployment based off your uniform and unit patch, and other identifiers such as vision issues and quite an extensive travel history. I have photos of you that I can run through comparison software off of google and open source media (which you have helpfully narrowed), and I know where you lurk on the internet, and what times you get on and off on a daily basis.
How many many soldiers of the 173rd ABN now serving as 1LTs in College ROTC do you think meet all those criteria, and how hard do you really think it would be for a well connected group to dig even further?
That would be a stupid security violation. I'm challenging you on how you're conducting yourself, which amounted to a 'hey here's proof I'm better than you'll ever be, neenerneener.'
I never said 'hey, I'll be better than you'll ever be.' My point was actually more to defend myself than boast. As he says, he's a science major. That's a separate field from Military Leadership. They're rather incomparable in most aspects.
LT, you were boasting. You weren't in a context in which you needed to defend yourself, and posting hoorah images that we only have your word on that they are you isn't a necessary part of any professional rhetorical defense.
Your credibility wasn't insulted, and even if it was your service history is irrelevant. You were executing an argument from authority fallacy, and boorishly at that.
An argument from authority fallacy to a guy claiming the military doesn't work in the way that it works (As we both know) from people who are authorities on the military (having both served, and with myself holding a position of authority in the military (note, I'm not using this browbeat you or anyone. I'm simply stating that I hold a position some authority as a 1st Lieutenant.)
And if another 1LT, or higher, or lower, tells you you're doing it wrong?
You being an authority in the military doesn't make the argument you present any stronger, or any weaker. There are civilians outside the military who understand your field every bit as well as you, and there are soldiers who talk as if they are experts of fields they aren't specialized in... like SF.
Your point that being special forces isn't a trivial matter is sound. Every argument that you know better because you are an officer, is not.
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 08 novembre 2013 - 06:00 .