Posted on Nov 25, 2014
Would wearing a dog tag(s) be considered an OPSEC violation?
6.9K
40
35
1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
OPSEC
OPSEC
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
SSgt (Join to see), It is definitely not an OPSEC violation, though your dog tags do contain PII with your name and social on them.
(5)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
PII is a big thing these days and the available training is quite extensive. However, some individuals (who've gone through the training) still "lose" them and if fallen in the wrong hands put their fate (identity) in the hands of others.
Sir, thank you for the response and have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
Sir, thank you for the response and have a great Thanksgiving holiday.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSgt (Join to see) Definitely, I see where you were going with the question with one of your expanded definitions below. I think it properly falls into the PII protection but not necessarily the Operational Security domain.
You have a good thanksgiving as well!
You have a good thanksgiving as well!
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Operational Security violation? Meh - maybe. I know in the past there were times where we had to sanitize ourselves to the point of cross-checking to make sure your battle had any military-related gear with us (down to checking our tighty-whiteys for ID markings). It was a scary thought surrendering that Green ID Card and dog tags before going on mission. But those days were extremely rare.
As mentioned in this thread - I might consider it a PII violation if you're wearing them for a status symbol. As SSgt (Join to see) mentions, there are individuals among us that can and will use any information available for a few bucks. Keeping one's PII under wraps makes sense these days and I suspect will become increasingly more important in the future.
As mentioned in this thread - I might consider it a PII violation if you're wearing them for a status symbol. As SSgt (Join to see) mentions, there are individuals among us that can and will use any information available for a few bucks. Keeping one's PII under wraps makes sense these days and I suspect will become increasingly more important in the future.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
say what?????????????????????????it was part of my uniform the whole time i was in the marine corps army navy and air force...
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG Pownall,
It seems you were a busy guy back in the day. Yes, it’s a part of the uniform but some individuals like to wear them when not in uniform. I understand why we have them for work/deployment purposes but there is always that risk of losing them. I have dog tags that have my SSN and others with my EDIP but only are used when necessary (field ops/deployments/inspections).
Thank you for the response.
It seems you were a busy guy back in the day. Yes, it’s a part of the uniform but some individuals like to wear them when not in uniform. I understand why we have them for work/deployment purposes but there is always that risk of losing them. I have dog tags that have my SSN and others with my EDIP but only are used when necessary (field ops/deployments/inspections).
Thank you for the response.
(1)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) thank you for informing those of us who have been out a while. The times have certainly changed. Sad that this has to be an issue but an unfortunate reality.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SSgt (Join to see)
Sir,
I agree but falling in the wrong hands could affect OPSEC and really anything else. We all know that during OCONUS operations service members where dog tags and almost always one/few get misplaced and/or lost.
OPSEC has many definition and interpretations but this tid bit I found (below) is quite interesting.
Determines indicators that hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries
Sir, thank for the response and enjoy your holiday/s.
I agree but falling in the wrong hands could affect OPSEC and really anything else. We all know that during OCONUS operations service members where dog tags and almost always one/few get misplaced and/or lost.
OPSEC has many definition and interpretations but this tid bit I found (below) is quite interesting.
Determines indicators that hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries
Sir, thank for the response and enjoy your holiday/s.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Well, according to the code of conduct, the only information carried on them are things you can give out anyway. While I agree, they are horrid when having a little chest hair or in the cold. But we do what we must.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
So, would you feel comfortable making the information on your dog tags public? Your name, date of birth, and SSN are basically all someone needs to start opening banks accounts and credit cards in your name.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
no, i wouldnt. in fact, i think that the SSN should be taken from the Dog take and our DoDID number should be on there. the same as if i gave my info to some terrorist claiming to chop my head off. but your SSN isnt needed to steal you indentity. your name, date of birth and address is.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Obviously, wearing it while in uniform (of course the proper way/tucked) is not an OPSEC violation. I have not seen any clear and specific directive/regulation on dog-tags and OPSEC or INFOSEC. There are rules against photographing/photocopying certain official documents/articles.
I tell you what I have seen that wrenches my guts. I have seen service-members proudly display them hanging on their rear view mirrors on their POV. Some took selfie pictures with it hanging ontheir neck-looking all cool (aaand zoom, zoom, there goes your social). Heck I've seen Soldiers, Civilians, and their Families take pictures of DoD CAC, Birth Certificates, and voting ballots. The problem about all of this are obvious violations of all sorts and some not so obvious breaking of DoD Directives, Federal, and some state law.
I tell you what I have seen that wrenches my guts. I have seen service-members proudly display them hanging on their rear view mirrors on their POV. Some took selfie pictures with it hanging ontheir neck-looking all cool (aaand zoom, zoom, there goes your social). Heck I've seen Soldiers, Civilians, and their Families take pictures of DoD CAC, Birth Certificates, and voting ballots. The problem about all of this are obvious violations of all sorts and some not so obvious breaking of DoD Directives, Federal, and some state law.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT David Oliver, Happy Thanksgiving. I am in the middle of preparing for my family to arrive later this afternoon, by then I should have the meal ready to eat (pun intended).
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster,
I erred by including birth certificate; I was thinking of 18 U.S. Code § 1426 - Reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers which is prohibited. That’s what I have; I never had a birth certificate anyway (so you don’t have to worry about me running for President *smile*).
Once again: Dog Tags/ID Tags [The Topic of this Discussion]… Ironically I have not seen mention of regulation/rules against photographing them but I would like to think that we all have common sense. Wearing them is not a violation of OPSEC Instagraming or Facebooking them is asking for trouble to come your direction.
…and now to being specific as you rquested:
1. The photocopying of U.S. Government identification cards is a violation of Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701 and punishable by fine and imprisonment.
2. As, I suggested, most of the rules on photographing ballots vary from state to state. New Hampshire, for example, implemented a law this year that makes it illegal to share a photo of your own ballot, with a fine up to $1,000 (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:43). If you need to know the rule for your respective state check here: http://www.dmlp.org/state-law-documenting-vote-2012
Rules such as these are put in place with the best of intentions, they are meant as measures to preserve integrity and promote security. I just keep my belongings (ID, mail, license plate, political views-ehm!, and any PII) off the world-wide-web as much as possible.
I erred by including birth certificate; I was thinking of 18 U.S. Code § 1426 - Reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers which is prohibited. That’s what I have; I never had a birth certificate anyway (so you don’t have to worry about me running for President *smile*).
Once again: Dog Tags/ID Tags [The Topic of this Discussion]… Ironically I have not seen mention of regulation/rules against photographing them but I would like to think that we all have common sense. Wearing them is not a violation of OPSEC Instagraming or Facebooking them is asking for trouble to come your direction.
…and now to being specific as you rquested:
1. The photocopying of U.S. Government identification cards is a violation of Title 18, U.S. Code Part I, Chapter 33, Section 701 and punishable by fine and imprisonment.
2. As, I suggested, most of the rules on photographing ballots vary from state to state. New Hampshire, for example, implemented a law this year that makes it illegal to share a photo of your own ballot, with a fine up to $1,000 (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:43). If you need to know the rule for your respective state check here: http://www.dmlp.org/state-law-documenting-vote-2012
Rules such as these are put in place with the best of intentions, they are meant as measures to preserve integrity and promote security. I just keep my belongings (ID, mail, license plate, political views-ehm!, and any PII) off the world-wide-web as much as possible.
State Law: Documenting the Vote 2012 | Digital Media Law Project
On this page, we provide a list of election laws, websites, and contact informationfor election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Contactingyour state election officials is a great way to get information aboutwhat your state allows in terms of documenting the vote. As you learn new information, please contact us and let us know how your state is handling these requests, so we can share that information on this site.
(3)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT David Oliver, Excellent. However, in regards to the appropriate law and or regulation concerning military ID cards, Title 18 does not apply; Title 10 applies to Military ID cards. One specific type of use where copying is specified is when it is used as an ID Card in conjunction with medical treatment. This information is located in the DoD Instruction 1000.XX series of instructions and the instructions are implemented via a combined service regulation and Army Regulation 600-8-14 is the Army Regulation number. The regulation narrows the scope of the use of this practice, it states in paragraph "1.8.1.1. The cardholder may allow photocopying of their ID card to facilitate DoD benefits. Photocopying is prohibited in all other instances; furthermore, the photocopy shall not be used as substitute for an ID card." The DoD instructions actually allow a wider scope of use, but the regulations are what is used for enforcement. I could go into a number of other cases where the Regulation is incorrect due to the need to use it for OTHER government benefits. But as you have stated either directly or indirectly "Use Common Sense". SGT Oliver, I wish you Good Luck, and I hope to see you progress up through the ranks, and continue to be an outstanding individual and NCO.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thank you, SSG Robert Webster! I love knowledge (it's part of the BE-KNOW-DO concept).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Cpl Dennis F., they are moving back to Service Numbers. It is already on/in our ID Cards
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Just because it was change from SSN to EDIP doesn't necessarily make you any safer. Unfortunately, there are service members who do erroneous things to fellow service members in order to make a few dollars. I've witness it first hand and it's heartbreaking to see the affected individual suffer.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Happy Thanksgiving.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Happy Thanksgiving.
(3)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
EDIPI while technically PII is readily available to anyone with access to the GAL and/or the DoD411 site.
Has the USMC already started switching tags to EDIPI? Big Blue is still doing SSN right now.
Has the USMC already started switching tags to EDIPI? Big Blue is still doing SSN right now.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not at all. Potential PII issues sure. Potential personal secure issues sure.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Which is why I say, be aware when Instagraming yourself wearing it outwardly (not proper).
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I would have to know the OPSEC specifics to be able to give a valid opinion. Are there still multiple levels of OPSEC dependent on specific circumstances?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Let's look at our terms to understand what is being asked. From FM 1-02:
operations security – (DOD) A process of identifying critical information and subsequently analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: a. identify those actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; b. determine indicators hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries; and c. select and execute measures that eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. [Note: the Army replaces “critical information” with “essential elements of friendly information.”] Also called OPSEC. See FM 3-13.
'OPSEC violation' is not explicitly defined. However, let's take it to mean something along the lines of, 'Any action taken by a Soldier, DoD Civilian, or DoD-supporting contractor which violates the measures selected for execution through the OPSEC process in order to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation."
If we can agree to that definition, the only way for the wearing of 'dog tags' to be an OPSEC violation would be for the NOT wearing of dog tags to have been selected as a measure to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. While it is very possible that under specific circumstances that could be a measure adopted for a specific mission, it is not a general measure I've personally seen any level of Command make for its personnel.
operations security – (DOD) A process of identifying critical information and subsequently analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: a. identify those actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; b. determine indicators hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries; and c. select and execute measures that eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. [Note: the Army replaces “critical information” with “essential elements of friendly information.”] Also called OPSEC. See FM 3-13.
'OPSEC violation' is not explicitly defined. However, let's take it to mean something along the lines of, 'Any action taken by a Soldier, DoD Civilian, or DoD-supporting contractor which violates the measures selected for execution through the OPSEC process in order to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation."
If we can agree to that definition, the only way for the wearing of 'dog tags' to be an OPSEC violation would be for the NOT wearing of dog tags to have been selected as a measure to eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation. While it is very possible that under specific circumstances that could be a measure adopted for a specific mission, it is not a general measure I've personally seen any level of Command make for its personnel.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google