R+R is a legitimate air force interest. I emailed my Army JAG friend, I'm waiting on a response. However, from my own experiences in both Army and USAF computer facilities in Iraq and other middle east countries, we're all arguing about a complete non-issue. Here's the rub: The military, ALL branches of the military, regularly set up and authorize the use of computer labs and stations for off-duty browsing. The navy has them installed on their ships. The Air Force sets them up at air bases, and the army comes in and mooches off of them until we get our own. These facilities are at the discretion of the installation commander and he can always take them back and shut them down. But in practice, that never happens. Did you know there is an MOS in the air force for internet help desk? That means there are people who's entire job in the airforce is getting sent to kuwait and answering phone calls from junior officers about why flash videos of a dog humping a cat are loading slowly.
This is all really much ado about nothing.
-Dan On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Nathan wrote:
"Commanders may authorize incidental use which:...serves a legitimate Air Force interest"
Have to include the context.
On Jan 3, 2008 5:21 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/3/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems that in all that the key statement is "COMMANDERS MAY AUTHORIZE INCIDENTAL USE." How can anyone say that he knows about an offence if he is not on the same base, and knows nothing about the orders by the commander of the putative offender's base?
Good point. Furthermore, is there a specific obligation to go out of ones way to "fish" for compromising information on a wikipedia user, I.E. Isn't there anything like our AGF in the best practises of the armed servises?
Even if there were an affirmative obligation to pass on any information that would lead to the apprehension of somebody misusing resources, wouldn't such an affirmative obligation only apply to positive knowledge. That is, how should anyone be affirmatively obliged to inform upon a *possible* infraction?
If that were the case, wouldn't that mean that those folk should be running around frenetically informing their higher-ups about every suscpicion they might have about their brothers in arms... ?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l