Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: Instant E7 or O6?

  1. #51
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    I agree with what Mjollnir is stating here. For one thing, the DoD itself can't change the laws in the CFR. It can only operate within its constraints. So any discussion about changing those laws is basically living in a world of "the way it should be," instead of the world of "the way it is."
    Pretty much, changing the USC / CFR is not needed to solve the problem. Frankly, I wouldn't want contractors or GS's doing Title 10 missions, cyber (non-kinetic) or otherwise (kinetic).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    Bringing someone in as an E7 or O6 is operating within those constraints. However, I think that there are better ways to operate within them myself. Like all the suggestions I mentioned earlier.
    There are few ways, I really don't see too many being brought in as E7's or O6's, but the DoD wants the flexibility to do so (just like medical, dental & legal) ... to be able to attract talent. The most senior I have seen was a dentist brought into the Navy as an O5, he was our dental officer on the USS SAIPAN in 2000. As remote of a chance as it may be, if (the) Mark Zuckerburg of the hacking community wanted to sign up to be in the military to do hacking for the military ... bringing him in as an E3, 4, 5, O1, 2, 3 or even 4 would be a waste of what he brings to the table.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  2. #52
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    But you know that these codes are being bypassed all the time, even though you're not going to admit it in a public forum. Everyone knows these codes are being skirted. It's like the parents who know their kids are breaking the rules by drinking with their friends but everyone pretends it's not happening as long as nobody gets in trouble.
    Having done targeting for cyber, I can confidently say that a lot of discussion with JAG's goes into the process to keep it under the right authorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Again, you are wrong. People are understanding the Titles just fine. The discussion isn't about what the Titles say.
    Right, because someone saying the guy on the keyboard for overt OCO can be a civilian understands Title 10. My mistake.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    As remote of a chance as it may be, if (the) Mark Zuckerburg of the hacking community wanted to sign up to be in the military to do hacking for the military ... bringing him in as an E3, 4, 5, O1, 2, 3 or even 4 would be a waste of what he brings to the table.
    Zuckerburg would only work for the Israelis.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-22-2016 at 07:55 PM.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    . Some things need to be done by actual military troops or they violate the Geneva Convention.
    Oh, you mean like contractors conducting interrogation of enemy combatants?

    Certainly the lawyers would never allow something like that!
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 06-22-2016 at 08:24 PM.

  5. #55
    Senior Member USN - Retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ewa Beach, Hawaii
    Posts
    702
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I am not dodging it, I don't think you understand the situation.

    Think of the cyber operator on the keyboard as the non-kinetic infantryman. When he/she pushes [enter] and transmits a weaponized data packet, malicious code, command etc. that is the 'bullet'. When that act is overt, it is under Title 10 and the person in charge (platoon commander or cyber officer) must be military; the worker bee (infantryman) pressing enter (pulling the trigger) must be military.

    We could not deploy a platoon of contract infantry with a military commander in a Title 10 mission, same for cyber.
    These two articles prove that civilian cyber warriors already exist...
    Note the phrase " Elite cadre of civilian cyber warriors" in the second article.

    http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity...hizzes/106842/
    http://federalnewsradio.com/defense/...ber-workforce/
    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others

  6. #56
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Oh you mean like contractors conducting interrogation of enemy combatants?

    Certainly the lawyers would never allow something like that!
    Actually, that wouldn't (most of the time) be a Title 10 operation / function and would be legit to be done by a contractor (or GS). The methods they use when doing it however could be illegal ...
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    These two articles prove that civilian cyber warriors already exist...
    Note the phrase " Elite cadre of civilian cyber warriors" in the second article.

    http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity...hizzes/106842/
    http://federalnewsradio.com/defense/...ber-workforce/
    Cyber command is another self licking ice cream cone Charlie Foxtrot that should be immediately disbanded.

  8. #58
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by USN - Retired View Post
    These two articles prove that civilian cyber warriors already exist...
    Note the phrase " Elite cadre of civilian cyber warriors" in the second article.

    http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity...hizzes/106842/
    http://federalnewsradio.com/defense/...ber-workforce/
    Yes, they do ... however ... what types of missions they do is limited by the law. The first article is talking about IT specialists and policy people, the second article is very specific to the USAF and makes the following statement:

    “The analogy I like to use is our special operations community. We want to have that same kind of specialized expertise in cyber,” he said. “How do you manage those people?”

    He said the Air Force is at the very beginning of an effort to find legal ways to award higher pay to certain highly-skilled individuals in high-demand occupations.
    That article is from 2013, the proposal now is a response to that effort.

    You should take an hour and read this article, you may find it professionally or personally edifying. It explains the Title 10 & Title 50 debate pretty well, why the authorities and missions are different etc. It is 58 pages long about half of that is footnotes ... but it is a well written essay

    http://www.soc.mil/528th/PDFs/Title10Title50.pdf


    Beyond that, you seem to want to disagree for the sake of disagreement and I really don't know why ... I can lead you to water, I can show you the water, I could throw you in or hold your face into the water but if you don't want to drink because you want to be ignorant or a stubborn ass ... that is on you.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  9. #59
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Yes, they do ... however ... what types of missions they do is limited by the law. .
    Only when held accountable to, and by, those laws. Giving the operators different titles to change the mission from "overt" to "covert" is just a slick way of getting around regs. It's the same people doing different shit with less oversight.

    Again, you can argue the point but that's simply because your NDA doesn't allow you to agree with it.

  10. #60
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Only when held accountable to, and by, those laws. Giving the operators different titles to change the mission from "overt" to "covert" is just a slick way of getting around regs. It's the same people doing different shit with less oversight.

    Again, you can argue the point but that's simply because your NDA doesn't allow you to agree with it.
    Again, I have done the job ... it is not as loosey goosey and you want to make it out. I am not so stubborn to argue the point simply to disagree ...
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •