SSG Private RallyPoint Member 4470847 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Hopefully there is a CSM or LTC or above that can help answer this question, I would love some assistance understanding this. Why would a Chain of Command be against helmet mounted GoPro cameras? I asked mine if it was okay to use one during our upcoming PLFX and Company LFX during daylight hours. The intent is for AAR purposes, like football game film. I was told no. I know it isn&#39;t because how we train is classified, our manuals can be found and accessed all over the internet....<br />Is it CYA? Are they scared of Army WTF moments on Facebook? Is it some off the wall liability issue? There is nothing in the division standards on Gopros, so what&#39;s the problem? 2019-03-21T18:19:59-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 4470847

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Hopefully there is a CSM or LTC or above that can help answer this question, I would love some assistance understanding this. Why would a Chain of Command be against helmet mounted GoPro cameras? I asked mine if it was okay to use one during our upcoming PLFX and Company LFX during daylight hours. The intent is for AAR purposes, like football game film. I was told no. I know it isn&#39;t because how we train is classified, our manuals can be found and accessed all over the internet....<br />Is it CYA? Are they scared of Army WTF moments on Facebook? Is it some off the wall liability issue? There is nothing in the division standards on Gopros, so what&#39;s the problem?

2019-03-21T18:19:59-04:00 2019-03-21T18:19:59-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 4470874

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>There’s a ton of reasons on this one. <br />Number one being AR 670-1.<br />However, TTPs could be more easily studied by enemies. Also privacy issues. You’re capturing the faces of all of those around you. It’s most likely also got a little to do with a liability.

2019-03-21T18:27:51-04:00 2019-03-21T18:27:51-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 4470904

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Let me begin by saying I am a leg. Now that I have surrendered my credibility

2019-03-21T18:33:50-04:00 2019-03-21T18:33:50-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 4470960

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If the army wanted you to have a go-pro, they’d have issued you one. <br />There are a whole lot of reasons why the Command could say ‘no’ to them. You’ve mentioned some of the possible reasons. Other responses have mentioned others. <br />But as so many Privates are often advised on Rallypoint, unless the order is illegal, the Command is probably good to issue it. The reason doesn’t really matter. <br /><br />Best of luck

2019-03-21T18:44:38-04:00 2019-03-21T18:44:38-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 4471045

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>From a command perspective, mostly just too much of a liability. If someone is injured or there is an accident we already have procedures in place to investigate but the last thing a command needs is that footage of the mishap leading to a potential break in the notification process of a casualty. As far as your tactics statement yes true our manuals are online readily accessable, but our adptive style as a military leaves some TTP&#39;s still unavailable unless present and participating in training, for the most part anyway. Just my 2 cents.

2019-03-21T19:18:57-04:00 2019-03-21T19:18:57-04:00 CSM Michael Chavaree 4471109

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I used unit funds to purchase some for my unit for exactly the reason you mention. I would encourage it as long as we keep it internal for AAR. As a future CSM, I will prob wear one as well.

2019-03-21T19:40:07-04:00 2019-03-21T19:40:07-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 4471187

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>A lot of units purchase them for AAR&#39;s. The 82nd makes them mandatory on jumps. The issue is who owns the footage. If you use your own camera, the footage is yours to distribute as you please. While &quot;you&quot; may handle that in a responsible manner, others do not. All it takes is one new Private to get filmed in a shoot house saying, &quot;I shot that fucking rag head&quot; to get accidentally uploaded, and it will become an international incident with a Congressional inquiry. As any NCO can attest, it will absolutely happen. Or something even worse.<br />If you want cameras get your unit to purchase them. There&#39;s plenty of precedence for it already, so it&#39;s an easy sell if your unit has the funds.<br /><br />Also, the unit has the funds. I&#39;ll ask CSM Paquin about it tomorrow.

2019-03-21T20:03:25-04:00 2019-03-21T20:03:25-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 4471368

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>We have the PAO to develop the information campaign for the command.

2019-03-21T20:53:39-04:00 2019-03-21T20:53:39-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 4471695

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>From a macro standpoint, are the camera authorized to be worn on the ACH? If not, how does a chain of command get approval? Who is authorized to download the video once complete and on what medium? The camera isn&#39;t government issued (and I would assume not authorized), how would a user go about getting approval in order to video other Soldiers without their permission? While there are liability concerns that need discussing, are there other means available to achieve the same outcome?

2019-03-21T23:50:50-04:00 2019-03-21T23:50:50-04:00 CAPT Kevin B. 4471763

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Just try running around with a Go-Pro in a Navy shipyard or say Delta Pier or MLA at Bangor/Kings Bay and you&#39;ll be face planted and typically given a Bad Chicken Dinner. There are a lot of regulations out there about recording devices. When not in those areas, then it&#39;s at the policy level. As a matter of ownership, the MIL may own images etc. captured by personal stuff. The policy then goes on to state the recording is to be vetted by the PAO side for release. The other aspect of the policy typically gives free reign to things like dinners, ceremonies, etc. But then again I once went to a dinner where it was all banned lest everyone had to wear a ski mask. If you are not explicitly authorized, then they can easily decide you are not after the fact. Tickle the Dragon at your own risk.

2019-03-22T00:43:36-04:00 2019-03-22T00:43:36-04:00 SSG Robert Perrotto 4471933

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Honest answer SSG - When I had a platoon I had a standing directive, no phones , no cameras on missions, Not because I feared that someone would do something illegal, but more the fact that trying to control 30 people from uploading footage and photo&#39;s to their social media, which have location, date/time stamps, and a host of other intelligence that could be utilized against us. The second reason is, these things can and often are used by pundits and activists, usually cherry picked scenes and photo&#39;s, to discredit the military.

2019-03-22T05:02:26-04:00 2019-03-22T05:02:26-04:00 CSM Richard StCyr 4472657

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Personally I&#39;d be against it for OPSEC reasons. If your unit is doing lanes and practicing TTPs it would be hard to maintain control of the video data and if the enemy knows how you plan to react to contact then they can adjust their tactics to better counter your TTPs.<br />We all know TTPs morph and change to meet the threat as deployments progress (or they should) but giving the hooligans an edge at the outset could be a bad deal.<br /><br />Some here may remember the policy issued down range during the 05-07 rotation in Iraq and later when we were told not to post photos of vehicles that were hit with IEDs and EFPs because it was found that the enemy was using them for BDA and adjusting their angles of attack to make more effective devices. That real life instance supports not using the cameras.<br /><br />Conversely I understand the argument of using the videos for AARs and have been in facilities where this was done. However the recording was controlled by the range cadre and supposed to be deleted after the AAR process and there were checks and balances to ensure this and consequences for release of the material covered under punitive action.

2019-03-22T09:51:38-04:00 2019-03-22T09:51:38-04:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 4472780

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It seems the answer to this conundrum is as complicated as the technology that drove the question. I have a bit of research to do on the subject, and reselling the idea as well. I even got an answer from a Naval officer, which I wasn&#39;t expecting, but glad to receive. Thank you for all the guidance from the Commanders, CSMs, 1SGs, and fellow NCOs.

2019-03-22T10:21:51-04:00 2019-03-22T10:21:51-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 4473319

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Initially, I thought, this will be easy. It&#39;s authorized, or not; not so much. Three main issues I discovered were mission security, control of the video information (VI) after recording, and ownership. For the record, the command team has an obligation to &quot;CYA&quot; you, individual Soldiers who may appear on the video, the command, and the Army.<br /><br /> I don&#39;t believe mission security applies here.<br /><br /> There is undoubtedly value for AARs, but the COC authorizing VI on personal devices assumes liability and responsibility for the disposition of the video (see reasoning below). My initial thought was, and remains, &quot;why not use it as a tool.&quot;<br /><br /> I understand the security risk for operational missions, and the risk for Soldiers who may be caught on video acting in a manner that doesn&#39;t reflect well. I no security risk for the intent in this discussion. With regard to the &quot;acting in a manner,&quot; if it rises to the level of becoming an issue, a video record may not be a bad thing, except for the person acting out.<br /><br /> I didn&#39;t find definitive results of the review that began in March 2018, but it began after the use of helmet camera from the Islamic State-linked fighters ambush in Niger was exploited to make a propaganda, but there were at least a couple of DoDIs updated.<br /> <br /> Before the Nigeria ambush video, there was an OSD memorandum, dated November 8, 2016, SUBJECT: Guidance for Use of Visual Information Captured by Department of Defense Personnel on Personal Equipment, stating &quot;office is working to update DoD policy to clarify security review responsibilities for the public release of mission-related VI captured by DoD personnel.&quot; The memo also acknowledged the AAR value of VI, but the issue was the security risk. The memo stated standards would be included in the references, which were:<br /> (a) Department of Defense Directive 5230.09, &quot;Clearance of DoD Information for<br />Public Release,&quot; August 22, 2008 (Latest I found is January 25, 2019)<br /> (b) Department of Defense Instruction 5040.02, &quot;Visual Information (VI),&quot; July 8,<br />2016 (latest I found is Change 2, Effective April 23, 2018)<br /> (c) Department of Defense Instruction 5230.29, &quot;Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release,&quot; August 13, 2014 (Latest I found is Change 1, April 14, 2017)<br /> (d) Department of Defense Instruction 8550.01, &quot;DoD Internet Services and Internet-Based Capabilities,&quot; September 11, 2012 (Found no more current)<br /> (e) ALDODACT message 11/06, &quot;Information Security/Website Alert,&quot; DTG090426Z AUG 06 <br /><br /> A December 2017 article from DIMOC, &quot;Modern Military’s Quandary: Personal Cameras on the Battlefield, By Lee Thomas DVI, Chief, Policy and Programs,&quot; raised the following issues:<br /> One issue is control of the video after recorded. DoD Directive 5230.09 and ATSD(PA) memorandum, “Guidance for Use of Visual Information Captured by Department of Defense Personnel on Personal Equipment,” November 8, 2016, requires a security review for clearance from the appropriate level of command before it ca be released.<br /> Further, &quot;if the operations they are documenting are connected to their official duties (regardless of who owns the equipment), or (3) the government employee is charged with creating imagery as part of their official duties and voluntarily uses their personal equipment to do so; that imagery is normally considered official United States Government federal records under Title 17, U.S.C (§ 101. Definitions) (A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties).&quot; <br /> &quot;For example, the Naval Special Warfare command recently determined that approximately 20,000 images taken by a Navy training instructor using his personal camera with the intent of publishing a commercial book for sale were in fact all Navy VI Records.&quot;<br /><br />Personally, I recall a Senior SGL (SFC) at the Chemical NCO Academy, Ft McClellan, AL, who took all the class photos and captured training events, and personally would love to see his photos, especially the smoke and Field Flame Expedients range pics published.

2019-03-22T12:54:00-04:00 2019-03-22T12:54:00-04:00 COL Dana Hampton 4473504

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>AR670-1 comes to mind as one source document. And since a GoPro isn’t generally a CIF item, that may be the reason. You might also consider that the commander can also set uniform policy as it relates to missions or training. <br /><br />GoPro type cameras are used in select SPECOPS events...again, the commander decides.<br /><br />So, I would go to the source, through the chain of command and ask the question. The answer may be a curt “no” with no further explanation. The NCO support channel is also always a good way to float these types of questions up. PLT SGT, 1SG, CSM to the CDR. If the question passes muster with your senior NCOs, then, most likely your CO with provide his reasoning.

2019-03-22T13:50:34-04:00 2019-03-22T13:50:34-04:00 LTC Gary Earls 4474698

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Can they be &quot;hacked&quot;?? Maybe it is a security problem that they don&#39;t want the Chinese or Russians to know how we train.

2019-03-22T20:43:24-04:00 2019-03-22T20:43:24-04:00 CPL Glynnda White 4516632

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>These do not belong in battle or training situations...PERIOD. If you want to record your physical stuff....do it on your own time.....not the military&#39;s. Serving in the military is not a social media/millenia person thing. This is the defense of our nation not gotcha moments...

2019-04-05T11:37:46-04:00 2019-04-05T11:37:46-04:00 2LT Earl Dean 4538907

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>It&#39;s mainly the army wtf moments a d something&#39;s that a unit may find that works isn&#39;t in the Manuel&#39;s , but you still don&#39;t want bad guys knowing what you can or would do. As far as who owns the footage? When you signed that paper you became Uncle Sam&#39;s property so they own you and everything about you. Sorry

2019-04-12T19:53:25-04:00 2019-04-12T19:53:25-04:00 MSgt James "Buck" Buchanan 4563692

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>One simple term, &quot;LIABILITY&quot;.

2019-04-20T18:20:41-04:00 2019-04-20T18:20:41-04:00 SSG Jeffrey Brady 4601549

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I&#39;ve been out since &#39;97 but was on the forefront of helmet mounted camera trials for the Army especially in Airborne ops. I&#39;ll toss in my two cents from back in the day leaving out all the security, hacking issues that have already been addressed.<br /><br />Personally I have my own GoPro now and I know it has fallen off my bike and my Kayak. This was a concern during initial testing on helmet mounted cameras. Are they securely fastened, won&#39;t fall off, and will they impede in your ability to perform your mission. Nothing will screw your day up than having a camera get caught up when your parachute is trying to deploy, or if you are moving at a fast speed and it catches a branch or something. Will it cause injury to the person wearing it? Will it cause your head to snap back.

2019-05-03T14:39:08-04:00 2019-05-03T14:39:08-04:00 SGT Juan Robledo 4630094

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Probably because it&#39;s not military issue, and possibly wouldn&#39;t have any idea what your intentions would be using such equipment

2019-05-12T21:59:35-04:00 2019-05-12T21:59:35-04:00 CPT Brad Wilson 4649190

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>My guess would be avoidance of “CNN Moments”

2019-05-19T10:57:46-04:00 2019-05-19T10:57:46-04:00 Pvt Michael Todd 4661502

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Vietnam changed the way the DOD thinks about press issues. They don&#39;t want any bad publicity like killing of innocents footage being shown on national tv, even though accidental. They want to control the flow of news out of the battle field. The press is mostly liberal and spins the war as being our fault and all casualties are due to our warmongering. That&#39;s why no go pros.

2019-05-23T08:57:54-04:00 2019-05-23T08:57:54-04:00 SPC Seany Weaver 4695378

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Wtf is wrong with this new generation wanting to record everything they do. It is called a memory. Quit being lazy and quit making an opportunity for someone to burn you or your unit.

2019-06-04T06:36:18-04:00 2019-06-04T06:36:18-04:00 MGySgt James Munn 4708897

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Things like that didn&#39;t exist when I was in, but if you feel there ia a legal liability you could check with the Legal counsel and ask for their input. If there isn&#39;t anything specific to a regulation it may be just a CYA on the part of the Cmdr.

2019-06-09T15:34:36-04:00 2019-06-09T15:34:36-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 4710087

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I would rather my soldiers concentrate on their training and not worry about trying to get that YouTube world star viral moment. Also, a lot of lewd &amp; comedic actions and conversations happen while in the field which civilians would find offensive and not politically correct.

2019-06-10T01:25:16-04:00 2019-06-10T01:25:16-04:00 CPL Joseph Elinger 4728859

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>

2019-06-17T08:02:13-04:00 2019-06-17T08:02:13-04:00 SFC (BJ) Billy Gober 5375652

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The world has become PC they are scared

2019-12-24T10:41:39-05:00 2019-12-24T10:41:39-05:00 SFC Michael Hasbun 6243039

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Where in any FM or AR or DA PAM 670-1 are Go Pro&#39;s authorized accessories to be mounted on uniforms?<br />Can you guarantee that every GoPro will be turned off in the TOC? Or by the SIPR computers? Can you guarantee they won&#39;t &quot;accidentally&quot; make it into the latrines?<br />No reg authorizes them, and there&#39;s a world of liability issues for the Commander to eat... It&#39;s easy to call a Commander &quot;scared&quot; when you&#39;re not the one who&#39;ll be fired or scapegoated when things go wrong.

2020-08-25T10:18:53-04:00 2020-08-25T10:18:53-04:00 SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member 6243281

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Like anything else that could possibly find its way into the public domain, releases of verbal or written statements, videos, etc. need to go through the Public Affairs Office (PAO). If everyone in the US Military decided to video events, and release footage (edited or not) at their own discretion, the PAO would be very busy putting out fires these servicemembers started. Just look at how certain unit commanders react when their troops put memos and pictures on US Army WTF Moments....

2020-08-25T11:31:21-04:00 2020-08-25T11:31:21-04:00 CSM Vern Pratt 8056781

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>NO GO with this CSM!<br />Personally I want Soldiers focused on their teammates, leadership, and mission not on a personal hero video. Secondly and most importantly are those personal videos are dangerous to SIGSEC AND OPSEC. My proof is to look at the Ukrainian War and how personal electronic communications (phone calls, social media posts) have led to effective targeting.

2022-12-30T08:05:49-05:00 2022-12-30T08:05:49-05:00 2019-03-21T18:19:59-04:00