I had no idea you could violate OPSEC with publicly available information. Those are some crazy technicalities.
It's called the Ease of Information Act.
The Internet is a very powerful tool, and if you dig deep enough and long enough on the right path, you'll find what you're looking for eventually. But OPSEC isn't just about super-secret-squirrel stuff like the top speed of the B2 bomber. It's about the public
availability of information. If the desired information is
sensitive (not necessarily
secret) and exists in a few places, and a few people share with a few people who share with a few people, then the sensitive information is now widely known.
For instance:
I keep in touch with guys in the sandbox. I know which camp they're at, what they do most days, and I have a fairly good idea of the missions they do and when they typically do them. It is not secret information, but it is sensitive information. If you dug around long enough, you'd probably find out what I already know. But that will take you TIME - time in which all those variables -- missions, readiness, timing and etc -- are likely to change. If I go running my yap, you'll know NOW. That
could make that information useful to you - which is why it is considered sensitive.
That's why I, personally, consider it OPSEC. I cannot change the fact that information that may be useful to you is somewhat public. However, I can do my best to ensure that any sensitive information I am privy to stays with me and doesn't become any more public than it already is.
It's also important to note that MY idea of OPSEC may be overly-cautious. My soon-to-be-wife, Wanda, works VERY closely with the SOF contingents at Pacific Fleet (SEALS). She knows where they're going and when before they do, as she is the messenger that transfers their orders (except for the uber top-top-top secret stuff, which only a VERY small handful of people ever know). 90% of her job she can't even tell ME about. And even if she
could, I doubt she
would. Not because she doesn't trust me, but because both she and I adhere to the principle of need-to-know. I don't need to know what Team XX is doing tomorrow, so why even discuss it?
Idle curiosity, even when completely innocent, can inadvertently expose secrets that can be used against our military's mission, risking lives AND the mission itself.
Because I am so close to Wanda, I don't JUST appreciate her sense of need-to-know. I watch very closely what I ask; it may be innocent, but as the discussion gets deeper, it could lead to her accidentally informing me of something I really shouldn't know. It hasn't happened yet, but I am a watchdog of the information we pass between each other, just as she is. Need-to-know.
That's where the line becomes fuzzy. She would NEVER release red-folder (top secret) information to me, even by accident. But she could innocently release details that I could piece together for myself to get a good idea of what was in that red folder; if I was so inclined, which I am not.
So I am pretty picky about OPSEC - more so than the average guy. Sensitive information is a daily part of my life because I am so closely connected with the guys in the field and with my fiance'. Nothing I know is not publicly available information. However, MOST of what I know aren't issues Hadji would even think to ask. Just as an example, I know one mission of the SEALS that 99% of the population doesn't know. It's public information. But no one asks, because most people would never equate this particular mission and its assigned contingent to any SOF group. I violate nothing to speak of it. But if I do, it gives just one more opportunity to put those men in harm's way if the wrong person who was asking the wrong questions suddenly gets an epiphany from my release of information and begins asking the right questions. Because of that possibility, it is
sensitive information and should not be shared with anyone who doesn't need to KNOW.
So, to me, if it involves what our boys and girls are doing today or tomorrow, it is OPSEC and on a need-to-known platform.
Any of this make sense, sir?
NOTE: "You" is a generic term and is no way meant to denote any one person, including Major Liability. I use it only in context of the answer for ease of description.