The Post-pandemic Canadian Armed Forces

[Blackadder1916]

* I have no idea why there is no Appendix for Commissioned members.

The old quip of "don't call me 'sir', I work for a living" comes to mind.

 

[stellarpanther]

Even UoS isn't as cut and dry as people would think.  I've seen reports come back from D Med Pol saying the breach is minimal.  CO's usually recommend retention and that's the end of it.

 

[MJP]

Even UoS isn't as cut and dry as people would think.  I've seen reports come back from D Med Pol saying the breach is minimal.  CO's usually recommend retention and that's the end of it.

You are massively oversimplifying the CO's AR/MEL process but yes 99% of the low risk of breaching UofS 4395s(?) that come from DMEDPOL come back as Retain without Restriction (RWOR).  Much of it also has to do is that very few units actually follow the process correctly anyway.

 

[stellarpanther]

You are massively oversimplifying the CO's AR/MEL process but yes 99% of the low risk of breaching UofS 4395s(?) that come from DMEDPOL come back as Retain without Restriction (RWOR).  Much of it also has to do is that very few units actually follow the process correctly anyway.

It wasn't intentional and I know there is more the CO looks at which we as an HRA's we don't see.  I was just trying to say that a lot of people including me thought that if you are in breach of UoS, you are automatically released and I was just trying to say, not necessarily.
I'm still probably not wording it as I should.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?

 

[FJAG]

Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?

Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.

Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing for reservists.

:cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

I for one look forward to reading the resulting comments.

Or hearing them read out at the resulting summary trial, whatever.

 

[dapaterson]

Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.

Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing for reservists.

:cheers:

This assumes that Bloggins is on Facebook.  If Bloggins does not have a Facebook account, is it a legal order to oblige him to create one?

 

[stellarpanther]

I find it hard to see that order enforced and I don't just mean a CoC.  I'd love to see JAG's opinion on that topic.  About 5 years ago I got a verbal warning (since disappeared) for being on FB during my lunch hour and told we are not allowed to be on FB or other social media on DWAN computers.  I know of someone who was written up less than a year ago for the same thing at a different unit.  Also, not everyone has FB and I really don't think you can be forced to get an account. 

 

[PMedMoe]

Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?

How would they know if one is watching? Do they require comments/likes?  ???

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?

My thought is "no", if they're *working from home* and/or using their own Internet/computer/cell date/etc.  (the pick the hill you die on aspect is a separate convo  ;D)

Like Defence O365;  if I don't want it on my pers computer at home, it isn't happening.  Mid-April, I stopped using my pers cellphone for work when I had used to it a few times for teleconferences (dialing into a NCR local) and was then told there is 'no mechanism to reimburse for using personal cellphone'.  Well, then my pers cellphone isn't a 'mechanism for conducting non-personal business'.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.

Can the CAF issue a legal order for mbr's to use personal internet/cell services and devices for 'crown business'?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

About 5 years ago I got a verbal warning (since disappeared) for being on FB during my lunch hour and told we are not allowed to be on FB or other social media on DWAN computers.  I know of someone who was written up less than a year ago for the same thing at a different unit. 

If it was a DWAN computer...

DAOD 6002-2, Acceptable Use of the Internet, Defence Intranet, Computers and Other Information Technology Systems

Statement of Use

3.3 This DAOD provides instructions to authorized users on the use of IT systems.

3.4 For purposes of this DAOD, there are official, authorized, unauthorized and prohibited uses of IT systems.

3.5 Authorized users must only use IT systems for official or authorized uses.

3.6 Authorized users must not use IT systems for any unauthorized or prohibited uses. Section 5 outlines actions that may be taken in the event of such use.

4.5 The ADM(IM), a DND manager or supervisor, or a commander, CO or military supervisor, may restrict or prohibit any otherwise-authorized use if:
the use threatens the capability or integrity of an IT system; or
the restriction or prohibition is necessary for operational or administrative reasons.

Unauthorized Use

4.6 “Unauthorized use” is any use of an IT system that is not an official, authorized or prohibited use, including:

authorized use that is not of a reasonable duration or frequency;
authorized use that interferes with the performance of the duties and official functions of an authorized user;
authorized use that is restricted under paragraph 4.5;
use that would result in personal profit, e.g. electronic gaming or a business venture;
union business not specifically pre-authorized in writing by a manager or supervisor (see DAOD 5008-1);
use contrary to any order, instruction or other DAOD issued by or on behalf of the DM or the CDS; and
use that would reflect discredit upon the GC, the DND or the CAF.

 

[dapaterson]

Can the CAF issue a legal order for mbr's to use personal internet/cell services and devices for 'crown business'?

That is the $64,000 question that no one in ADM(IM) bothered to think about.

To say nothing of the "You must either give a third party personally identifiable information (cell number) or install invasive software on your personal device as a two-factor authentication tool" and "if you do install the apps on your iOS and Android device, you must also install software that will enable DND to remotely unlock and delete your device."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That is the $64,000 question that no one in ADM(IM) bothered to think about.

To say nothing of the "You must either give a third party personally identifiable information (cell number) or install invasive software on your personal device as a two-factor authentication tool" and "if you do install the apps on your iOS and Android device, you must also install software that will enable DND to remotely unlock and delete your device."

But..."leading change"!!!!

 

[dapaterson]

But..."leading change"!!!!

I'm glad you understand the vital ground.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm glad you understand the vital ground.

I've always said if we could somehow insert "effective" between "leading" and "change"...we'd kill 60-70% of that 'vital ground'. 

I'm surprised, to be truthful, how much "CAF business" was conducted on FB/ZOOM/etc.  I received emails (over Hotmail) that contained info it should not have (eg - PA such as Svc #s) and had to remind people *internet isn't DWAN*, both up and down my COfC.

 

[dapaterson]

Internet is better than DWAN, since you can send YouTube links.

 

[blacktriangle]

I'm currently looking at a phone, laptop, and dual external monitor setup all provided at no cost by a private sector employer.

Amazing what can happen in the real world...

 

[FJAG]

I'm officially changing what I said above from:

Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.

Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing for reservists.

:cheers:

to:

Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, have been provided with appropriate equipment that can access the internet and are not otherwise prohibited from accessing Facebook; I can see no reason why not.

Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing in all other circumstances.

The above is not a legal opinion to protect you on whatever hill you choose to die on.

:cheers:

Sometimes I tend to forget (it's been 11 merciful years since I hit CRA) just how mucked up an organization DND/CAF is when it comes to this stuff.