💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-is-s-he-an-informant.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:36:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Is S/He an Informant? Author: CrimethInc. Date: July 6, 2013 Language: en Topics: informant, how to Source: Retrieved on 29th October 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2013/07/06/is-she-an-informant-a-ten-point-checklist
A group of people who have been directly harmed by informant
provocateurs have put together this checklist, drawing on personal
experiences as well as those of other activists and information from
informant provocateurs who have gone public. We hope you can learn from
the damage that has already been done, so these people can be stopped
before they are able to harm you.
Here are ten warning signs:
Something feels “off.” Something about them just doesn’t line up. Their
stories about their activist history or life history, don’t ring true.
At this point, you need to run a background and criminal check. If you
wait for all the other signs, it may be too late. The most obvious cause
for serious concern is when someone shows up in an activist community
and they don’t seem to have existed prior to that. That should be a deal
breaker right off the bat.
Despite the misgivings of some members, the individual quickly rises to
a leadership position. S/he eagerly takes credit for actions in the
media and begins to promote him/herself. S/he works to become one of the
“faces” of the organization, and clearly wants to be a poster child for
the group, attempting to “brand” their identity with the group’s name,
imagery, and identity. S/he likes getting photographed, even when
engaged in illegal activity.
S/he photographs actions, meetings, and people that should not be
photographed. S/he posts photos of actions and meetings on social media
sites like Facebook, even tagging activists without their permission (in
effect, facilitating law enforcement surveillance).
S/he is a liar. S/he shows signs of lacking ethics and lacking
transparency with the rest of the group.
S/he advocates for high-risk illegal action to people s/he should not
trust, while claiming to understand the importance of security culture.
S/he goads others to violent action, for example by telling them they
need to be “warriors.” Upon reflection, the illegal actions in question
often have no real purpose and will not advance the goals of the group
in any meaningful way. The person generally has a very twisted
perception of what it means to be a warrior.
S/he seeks internal rifts in the community and exploits them. S/he has a
cycle of abuse with groups and individuals: a honeymoon period, followed
by manipulative, abusive behavior, followed by apologies and promises to
do better. Then the cycle repeats.
S/he always has bail money and pocket money, but either no real job, or
no job that pays that much. S/he may imply access to a trust fund or
similar resources, but this needs to be checked. S/he somehow has the
financial freedom to be at any action that will get media attention, or
any underground action that may involve illegal activity.
S/he is found to be lying about really serious things like identity,
family, background, race, or ethnicity.
S/he has warrants but is unafraid of announcing and advocating illegal
action, using his/her real name, publicly advertising his/her
whereabouts, and once again jumping into the frame whenever photos or
video are being taken at illegal actions. When picked up, s/he always
makes bail and gets released, sometimes released on Own Recognizance
even when the charges are very serious. This happens a lot. Then the
individual goes right back to meetings, taking photos and posing for
photo ops. S/he has a Catch and Release cycle with the cops. S/he may
have a history of very early release from prison, then going directly to
political meetings, sometimes of groups s/he privately claims to hate,
or that would have been forbidden as a condition of normal parole.
Juicy information, given only to the suspected informant, comes out the
law enforcement end. To be sure this is taking place, the information
must be unmistakable, and have been shared face to face, one on one,
with zero possibility of surveillance (say, whispered in the informant’s
ear in the middle of a field).
Full admission: “My name is ________ and I was employed by [agency] to
infiltrate [organization].” A full admission of informant and/or
provocateur status may include details of what the informant provocateur
received in exchange for their work: either the amount of money they
were paid, or the deal they got to be released from prison or avoid
prosecution for particular crimes. In some cases, the deal includes a
future position with the law enforcement or intelligence agency that
hired them. On the unlikely chance that someone is mentally ill, this
information could conceivably be checked against the going rate for
informant provocateurs; but if the other criteria are met, assume they
are telling you the truth, even if they are mentally ill. While mentally
ill people do not make reliable informants, they can make excellent
provocateurs, and their history of instability can be cited as evidence
when law enforcement denies the individual was hired as a provocateur.
---
If a person meets any of the criteria beyond points 1 through 3, you
shouldn’t be working with them. Hopefully, all the points beyond number
one will not even matter, as you will have already cut ties with the
person after the first red flag. Regardless of whether we can prove
someone is an infiltrator, if they display any of the problematic
behavior described here, they shouldn’t be party to anything sensitive
in the first place. Even if they’re not an infiltrator yet, it offers
reason to believe they could be turned or crack under interrogation.
Here are some other warning signs to watch for. When it comes to
people’s daily behavior, outside of meetings and actions, is the
suspicious person behaving inappropriately with children? Are they
harming their partners? Can they not keep their hands off kids? Or are
they trying to sleep with multiple adults in the group (or one of the
leaders)? Make sure you don’t have a pedophile who was let free in
exchange for disruption, or a serial rapist or woman beater who has been
turned loose on an activist community to cause devastation. Note when
such people never face consequences from law enforcement, even when the
victims press charges. If there’s a solid case against a predator, and
that predator is allowed to flee, then goes to political meetings in
another jurisdiction while the feds refuse to extradite him for trial…
bingo.
In our recent experience, a predator who met nine out of ten of the
above criteria (including number ten: an admission to other activists he
was trying to turn) was never convicted by law enforcement. Instead, he
was turned loose on a series of activist communities, wreaking havoc and
destruction. Only his death put a stop to it. But there are plenty just
like him, eager to take his place. Some of them may be on your friends
list on Facebook. Some may have literally gotten away with murder.
When it comes to the thorny question of agents provocateurs and direct
action, the point is not whether violence or nonviolence is preferable,
but whether someone has violated the consensus of their affinity group
and put their team in danger without their consent. It is irresponsible
to allege that violence is always the work of agents provocateurs;
rather, agents provocateurs set out to instigate violence that will be
disadvantageous or isolating for the participants.
Here’s an example. Someone who has met all the above criteria except
numbers nine and ten shows up at a public march. The march has been
planned as a peaceful, legal event. Perhaps not all actions by this
group are peaceful and legal, but for this event, that is the agreed
strategy. The event is covered by the media, people are using their real
names, and elders and children are participating. The provocateur has
spent months ingratiating himself into the group, showing up for every
action, paying the bills, giving people rides, saying whatever they want
to hear, even buying them drugs. But once the march is underway and the
cameras are rolling, the provocateur proceeds to show no regard for the
safety or consensus of his group. He does whatever he can to shift the
mood of the crowd, to instigate and encourage high emotions. The
conditions are tense, and the provocateur does what he can to encourage
breaks with discipline, and violations of the conditions previously
agreed to. Suddenly he strikes out with a small but significant action,
say of property damage or violence toward an individual, providing the
flashpoint for sudden escalation. Then, as others follow suit, and
illegal and dangerous actions erupt in front of the cameras, the
provocateur fades back into the crowd, his mission accomplished. He has
now put vulnerable and unprepared members of the community into direct
danger, leaving them to handle the consequences of his actions while
once again he goes free.
Check videos of actions on YouTube. Some people have filmed themselves
breaking the law at actions. Some videos include this flashpoint moment.
Note who does this over and over. Note who is and isn’t arrested for
these things, and who does and doesn’t do time.
Successful agents can be hard to spot. But most infiltrators are not
trained law enforcement officers. Most are criminals who have been cut a
deal if they simply go to meetings and listen, or if they go to meetings
and actions and disrupt.
In our experience, there have been a bare few, but significant, cases in
which activists have been mistaken in their suspicions. In one case long
ago that affected many of us, this misidentification had devastating
consequences. The mistake was due to a lack of evidence and experience
on the part of those who made the misidentification and a lack of solid
criteria with which to evaluate the situation–not to mention the
participation of actual agents in scapegoating an innocent woman. But
because of this serious mistake, many activists compounded that mistake
by swinging to the other extreme, overlooking blatant red flags and even
direct admissions of infiltrator status. By providing this checklist, we
aim to help you to develop your ability to identify, and prioritize, the
truth in these situations. It’s not “bad jacketing” when it’s true.
There are a number of guidelines and articles out there about security
culture. But just because a group has posted links or statements about
the need for security culture doesn’t mean everyone in that group is
paying attention and practicing security culture properly.
Be safe, be effective, and trust your gut.