How About a SWC "Secure" Forum?

[Cavguy]

I am personally against a restricted discussion for SWC.

a) they are not certified to handle even Unclass/FOUO information as a non .gov/.mil site, nor should they. Even though I know both Bill and Dave to be fine patriots, they can't host anything more than we are talking about now.

b) there are several "restricted" discussion loops out there, although many are invite-only.

c) The Army has the whole BCKS infrastructure behind it's firewall (incl COIN Forum, TT forum, Company Command, NCO Net, Platoon Leader, Log Net, etc.) for FOUO type discussions not accessible to google.

d) Those with SIPR, well, there are SIPR sites.

The thing SWC does for us is provide an open, international, civilian, military and academic forum to hash out issues - behind a screen name if you wish - to preserve some semblance of anonymity.

[Steve Blair]

The thing SWC does for us is provide an open, international, civilian, military and academic accessible forum to hash out issues - behind a screen name if you wish - to preserve some semblance of anonymity.

This is a key point. You simply will not get the diversity of commentary that we enjoy behind a secure .mil-style gateway. Folks that want that sort of insulated discussion most likely already have access to such forums, anyhow.

[Rex Brynen]

I personally am against a restricted discussion for SWC.

I agree with Niel on this one. A supposedly "restricted" discussion component of the board potentially creates a false sense of what can, or cannot, be discussed in forum, and increases the chances that someone violates OPSEC.

It is far better to have the discussion open here--and therefore for everyone to be mindful of what they post because they assume that nothing is secure at all.

[Ken White]

No valid purpose to such a site that I can see.

[Entropy]

No valid purpose to such a site that I can see.

Agreed. It would do little more, IMO, than create yet another stovepipe and help encourage groupthink.