Jump to content

Oooops. Someone's in trouble.


RogueSnake79

Recommended Posts

Quote

On July 15, a forum user of the online vehicle shooter game War Thunder uploaded breech schematics from the Challenger 2 Army Equipment Support Publication (a guide for planning staff, operators and technicians on how to operate, maintain or repair the platform) in “support” of their argument that game developers Gaijin Entertainment had wrongly modeled the relevant areas on the in-game rendition of the Challenger 2, leaving it with thinner armor than in reality alongside an incorrect layout of gun drive components.

 

https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/07/17/uk-mod-reviewing-apparent-uploading-of-classified-challenger-2-documents-to-video-game-forum/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/18/classified-details-of-armys-challenger-tank-leaked-via-video-game

 

Just caught this, thought it might be of interest. Nothing to do with Steelbeasts thankfully so please feel free to move to the relevant sub forum. Never played that other game.

Edited by Funduro
No relevance to steelbeasts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) It's the Grauniad. Well known peddler of total BS

 

 

b.) unclassified ŭn-klăs′ə-fīd″

 

adj.

Not placed or included in a class or category.

 

adj.

Of, relating to, or being official matter NOT requiring the application of security safeguards.

 

adj.

NOT CLASSIFIED

 

 

Not difficult really, but as I say the Grauniad are famous for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

If it was so classified to begin with then they should have taken better care of it.  Besides, if the video game company has it at this point, then you know Russia and China already have it.

Thats the same as saying: Why should I go to jail for burglery?...they should have secured their house better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members

Please define the clear line between "negligent" and "proper" storage and handling, and between "proper" and "dysfunctionally paranoid" if you want to shift the responsibility to the army. The East German army treated even the most trivial manuals as secret. They were supposed to be locked away all the time.

(Short supply of toilet paper, on the other hand, resulted in the Russians in Germany repurposing outdated manuals, to the (if somewhat dampened) glee of Military Liaison Office patrols who retrieved a near-complete (if shitty) T-64 manual that way).

 

The point of that story is, too much secrecy is an impediment to efficient everyday work. Even if you are paranoid and lock everything away all the time, circumstances will still allow outsiders to get their hands on copies (while transitioning from one post to another during my army time, my car was burglarized during an overnight stay, and a manual that I had with me was stolen, among other useless crap).

So, the second line of defense is to protect the information contained in the manual, and to threaten with legal action and harsh penalties if you violate the regulations. And of course, everyone signing up for soldier business is being informed about the necessity for discretion about things they may learn during their service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have secret classified documents with stamps that say "UNCLASSIFIED" all over them, then you're being negligent.  You aren't properly marking your secret documents that detail the workings of your obsolete tank.  You might get angry when it shows up in public, but maybe you're not being careful with how you handle your documents rather than the guy releasing them being a criminal.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had accidentally slapped the wrong stamp on their own document at some point in the past.

 

Now, If some tank commander comes along and decides on his own "Well this ain't that important, lemme just stamp it 'unclassified' and put it on the internet!", then he's an idiot and a criminal and should be beaten with the book.  It would be one thing to do that in order to leak information for political reasons, espionage, or personal gain.  But to settle an argument about a video game???  He had to know what was at stake there and I just can't imagine someone doing that.

 

I suppose well have to wait to see what the results from his trial are.

 

Allow me to point to another example.  The US Navy once said it's submarines could go "Deeper than 500 feet".

Then a camera crew came onboard to film, did their job, and left.  When the show aired, the navy noticed, after the world saw it, that a sign was left in uncovered saying not to use a certain gauge when operating below 800 feet.

 

Classified information was thus revealed by a camera crew filming for some TV show.

Rather than arrest the film crew, the Navy said "Oops we were negligent with that and should have covered it because it was classified.  Oh by the way our subs go deeper than 800 feet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 1:22 PM, Maj.Hans said:

If you have secret classified documents with stamps that say "UNCLASSIFIED" all over them, then you're being negligent.  You aren't properly marking your secret documents that detail the workings of your obsolete tank.  You might get angry when it shows up in public, but maybe you're not being careful with how you handle your documents rather than the guy releasing them being a criminal.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had accidentally slapped the wrong stamp on their own document at some point in the past.

 

Now, If some tank commander comes along and decides on his own "Well this ain't that important, lemme just stamp it 'unclassified' and put it on the internet!", then he's an idiot and a criminal and should be beaten with the book.  It would be one thing to do that in order to leak information for political reasons, espionage, or personal gain.  But to settle an argument about a video game???  He had to know what was at stake there and I just can't imagine someone doing that.

 

I suppose well have to wait to see what the results from his trial are.

 

Allow me to point to another example.  The US Navy once said it's submarines could go "Deeper than 500 feet".

Then a camera crew came onboard to film, did their job, and left.  When the show aired, the navy noticed, after the world saw it, that a sign was left in uncovered saying not to use a certain gauge when operating below 800 feet.

 

Classified information was thus revealed by a camera crew filming for some TV show.

Rather than arrest the film crew, the Navy said "Oops we were negligent with that and should have covered it because it was classified.  Oh by the way our subs go deeper than 800 feet."

The Royal Navy is pretty strict on submarine secrecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...