British soliders could be banned from playing PR?

dandred · Post by **dandred** » 2007-08-10 04:19

Just read this from here http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... ss&feed=11

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

sekiryu · Post by **sekiryu** » 2007-08-10 04:30

If I had a dollar for every time the UK banned or threatened to ban something........fvcking nanny state.

DeePsix · Post by **DeePsix** » 2007-08-10 05:23

Starlight to my position!

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-08-10 05:28

Why the hell do they call them Starlights...

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2007-08-10 05:38

Well at least we can still wipe our arses. Had to ask permission to post that. Not.

UNENFORCEABLE.

Skullening.Chris · Post by **Skullening.Chris** » 2007-08-10 05:47

Well, its Britain, they'll probably use cctv's to track your every movement to make sure.

G.Drew · Post by **G.Drew** » 2007-08-10 08:08

now that really is taking it too far

like Gaz said, unenforceable

MCG-GMAN · Post by **MCG-GMAN** » 2007-08-10 09:04

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

Nobody spotted the magic word? "if"

Since when did us playing games or posting on here contain any information in detail relavent to any matter of defence? This is simply a knee jerk reaction to the recent criticisms of the sailors who were captured near Iran selling their stories to the paper. Certainly won't stop me playing games, thats for sure.

Post by **Chuc** » 2007-08-10 10:05

Expendable Grunt wrote:Why the hell do they call them Starlights...

Cause that's the radio proword..

gazzthompson · Post by **gazzthompson** » 2007-08-10 12:04

dandred wrote:IF the information they use concerns matters of defence.

there not stopping people , well not trying to stop , just saying the cant post sensitive stuff , which is common sense and dose not happen here anyway

Post by **KingofCamelot** » 2007-08-10 12:24

gazzthompson wrote:there not stopping people , well not trying to stop , just saying the cant post sensitive stuff , which is common sense and dose not happen here anyway

Depends on the British definition of sensitive material, considering they give no guidelines in the quoted text, only "matters of defence". For all we know that could mean folks like Gaz and UK_Force talking about British Army weapons is in violation.

Aljen · Post by **Aljen** » 2007-08-10 12:55

gazzthompson wrote:there not stopping people , well not trying to stop , just saying the cant post sensitive stuff , which is common sense and dose not happen here anyway

It all depends on that who is defining the word: "sensitive stuff".

Ecko · Post by **Ecko** » 2007-08-10 13:08

Laughable.

BeerHunter · Post by **BeerHunter** » 2007-08-10 13:45

Ecko wrote:Laughable.

Well not really these days as games try to model the actual performance of vehicles and weapons more and more.

Hypothetical conversation in a game...

Taliban player : "WTFl , how the hell did he blow up the LAV with that."

Reg Army Player : " Yea - no way - but the newer model has 4" plate armour under it. Idiots never did strengthen the side plate though."

And there goes classified information..

You can pick up the specs and performances of just about any weapon using the net and people are more than willing to expound their knowledge in lively debates discussing ranges , sighting systems , limitations , muzzle velocities , speeds..name it and you can start a conversation about it.

Think the enemies aren't intelligent enough to figure this out and use it?

Think they are simply trying to ensure that British Army Reg's and reserves don't get caught up in the BS and inadvertently reveal classified info.

Typical politicians reaction though isn't it.

Don't like something , introduce a law making it illegal then let someone else worry about enforcing it.

Gonna be basically unenforceable.

Long Bow · Post by **Long Bow** » 2007-08-10 14:25

Good example Beerhunter

I recently read "My War" by Colby Buzzel (thanks to PR forum for recomending it eddie I believe

) The US army is going this way or may have already. Basically anything that might give information on current weapon capabilities, troop movements, names of places, routines anyting really that the enemy can use to their advantage.

It is beyond the scope of my brain to determine if it is a worth while defence tactic or a cheap censorship gag?

blud · Post by **blud** » 2007-08-10 18:40

It's not worthwhile. All the information is well known and easy to get through different channels. Often it's the CIA or SAS, or whoever, who teach the terrorists how to do things so 10 years later they can use it against us. You think enemy armies and terrorists are logging into video games to find out some tips about how to destroy western vehicles.... lol, it's laughable.

BeerHunter · Post by **BeerHunter** » 2007-08-10 18:45

'[T wrote:BludShoT;454503']You think enemy armies and terrorists are logging into video games to find out some tips about how to destroy western vehicles.... lol, it's laughable.

Nope -- not video games. These are usually frequented by youngsters who profess an intimate knowledge of military hardware and tactics..nope..but blogs , chat rooms etc. etc.

MCG-GMAN · Post by **MCG-GMAN** » 2007-08-10 23:16

Ahhh ... just remembered this funny piece of journalism from last year... Basically its an American news channel reporting how the pentagon was believing the specials forces expansion pack for BF2 was an unofficial terrorist addon. Watch the so called "expert" at around the 6 minute mark not know what hes talking about lol.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2105341
(Unfortunatly there might be a 30 second add before the 7 minute clip)

Clip is semi - relevant to this thread.