Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations acting as citizens in uniform and should be granted greater latitude. On the other hand, comments made in an official capacity are likely to be governed by internal guidelines, as with any public and private organization. Armed forces that do not forbid service personnel from communicating with the media often require them to receive prior permission from the relevant superior. Alternatively, communications with the media may only be undertaken via an authorized spokesperson – often personnel trained in media relations. Military discipline requires some limits on freedom of expression. Accordingly, types of expression that would undermine discipline can be restricted, even if equivalent conduct would be unregulated in civilian employment.172 The need to ensure the political neutrality of the armed forces can also justify restrictions on service personnel’s right to freedom of expression. Similarly, the interests of national security preclude service personnel from disclosing classified information and operational details, especially during operational deployments, and this may sometimes extend to the communication of personal and other details that in non-operational environments would be innocuous. Logistical difficulties of military life – in particular, deployment overseas – can create barriers to personal communication. Armed forces often facilitate personal communications between personnel and their families to support their well-being, and thus strengthen morale. The ubiquitous use of mobile phones also presents potential challenges. On the one hand, mobile phones enable armed forces personnel to maintain contact with family and friends even when on military deployment, with consequent benefits for morale. Armed forces personnel may use their phones to describe their situation and conditions in the unit to their families, friends or other contacts through phone calls, text messaging, videos and photos. Mobile phones also allow them to more easily communicate bullying, mistreatment and other abuses. On the other hand, in situations of active deployment, mobile phone use can be a potential danger, putting at risk the lives of both the user and other members of their unit, thereby impacting military effectiveness. There is a real risk that service personnel may inadvertently give away sensitive operational details. Moreover, there are recent cases where mobile phone GPS data have been used by an adversary to track military units and direct attacks against them. Even apparently innocuous apps may provide useful information, such as the layout of military bases, by recording the jogging routes of personnel.173 It is not surprising, then, that a number of armed forces regulate the use of mobile phones under operational conditions in order to protect operational security and the lives of armed forces personnel.174 172 This has also been the approach of the United States Supreme Court, see: Parker v. Levy 417 U.S. 733 (1974). 173 “Fitness app Strava lights up staff at military bases”, BBC News, 29 January 2018, https://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/technology-42853072. 174 Responses to the ODIHR-DCAF 2018 questionnaire, qu. 14. 91