DoD Official Policy on New/Social Media

[nmap]

The problem isn't just the information posted to such sites; rather, the information acquired at such sites provides a gateway to many other things. Even if one is fastidious about OPSEC/PERSEC on the specific site (facebook/myspace), the sites provide key information.

For example - let us suppose that the admiral mentioned above provides nothing but his city and state, along with his name and a picture. In at least some locales - mine, for example - one can use the name to search the public information at the property tax office and the country clerk's office. In most instances, this provides the name, physical address, and other useful information.

One can then put the name into Google and get further information. Subscription based databases (publicdata.com, Knowx.com) provide further depth for a cost that ranges from negligible to modest.

In addition, if one "friends" those at such sites, one generally gets access to their other friends. It is not unusual for people to automatically approve "friend" requests. That provides quite a lot of information to someone who one may not really know.

No doubt this is mostly old information to some here.

[Masochist]

Makes you wonder how the DoD's new policy will jive with the ability to obtain security clearances.

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

Dont have a link for it, as it was sent to me by my S2.

Something to think about nonetheless......

Commentary: Social sites risk security clearance
By GREG RINCKEY
November 02, 2009

If you hold a security clearance or if you ever want to apply for one, be mindful of your postings and contacts online, particularly on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. These sites pose risks to gaining and keeping a security clearance.

Question 14 of the National Agency Questionnaire (SF-86) asks for names of your relatives and associates. The term “associate” is defined as any foreign national that you or your spouse “are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact.”

Continuing contact with a foreign national used to include a clear exchange between both parties — visits outside the country, mail, phone calls or e-mails. Social networking sites bring a gray area into the definition of an associate and continuing contact. Your list of friends on Facebook may include foreign nationals, or you could have foreign followers on your Twitter page. Is giving
a foreign national access to your social networking page as a “friend” considered close and continuing contact even if you never directly message them? Is having access to your updated information enough for a person to be considered an associate? Unfortunately, this uncharted territory can ensnare a potential or current clearance holder.

Foreign intelligence agencies use social networking sites. They have been known to befriend Facebook users who automatically accept their “friend” requests.

I had a client who lost her security clearance after using an online chat room. She was seeking advice on how to beat a computer game while attending a gaming convention. The “gaming” experts she chatted with online were foreign intelligence agents working out of China.

You may want to eliminate any foreign nationals from your social networking sites to eliminate any potential security concerns. A clearance holder also needs to be responsible for what he or she posts online. These sites are considered “open source intelligence,” and mining information from them is simple. Anyone can do a Web search and bring up postings from Twitter and
Facebook. Technology companies are developing more sophisticated ways to monitor social networking sites, offering the ability to scan millions of online social conversations at once. Intelligence agencies around the world are taking advantage of this technology to gain valuable information.

Social networking sites are creating new territory for many workplaces. Just this month a Staten Island, N.Y., judge had to be transferred to a new location because of his Facebook use. The judge reportedly used the site to update his whereabouts and post pictures of his courtroom. The Pentagon also is weighing if troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan should continue to have social networking access.

When dealing with a security clearance, keep in mind the HAM principles: honesty, accuracy and mitigation. Honesty and accuracy are the most important factors when filling out an SF-86 questionnaire. It is always better to report a contact that could jeopardize your clearance, than to appear evasive or dishonest.

During an interview following your SF-86 submission, you’ll be asked more questions about your background. Discuss any concerns with an attorney before the interview. An attorney’s advice can give you a better chance at reversing an adverse determination. If a disqualifying condition is found, you want to show that the issue is not as severe as it appears. If you receive a letter of intent to deny or revoke a clearance, you could have as little as 45 days to respond. The appeal must be a thorough brief that emphasizes mitigating factors and cites relevant legal precedents.

Greg Rinckey, a former military and federal attorney, is managing partner of Tully Rinckey PLLC, a law firm with offices in Albany, N.Y., and Washington.
E-mail your legal questions to askthelawyer@federaltimes.com.