photos + security

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 1 2007 06:24
photos + security

Split from: http://libcom.org/forums/thought/abortion

Devrim wrote:
Am I the only person here who thinks that Flint, and Rise are shockingly stupid, and naive to be posting their pictures up on a libertarian communist board on the internet?
Devrim
thugarchist wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Am I the only person here who thinks that Flint, and Rise are shockingly stupid, and naive to be posting their pictures up on a libertarian communist board on the internet?
Devrim

At a certain point in the US you're already burned and everything you do is above ground.

rise wrote:
Devrim,

I'm already a very "public" figure. Im on the executive of a union local with 5000 members, and I've spoken and numerous events and demonstrations with thousands of people in attendance. I did a small speaking tour of the east coast of the US and canada for NEFAC last year. My name and image are publicly available on my union's website.

If anyone was inclined to get "information" on me, the cat is already out of the bag. Besides that, I have nothing to hide - I support my politics because they are revolutionary and credible -- I'm not embarassed by them. I also recognize that if any intelligence agency or law enforcement organization or red squad wants my photo or personal information, they alreayd have it, for sure.

rise wrote:
acutally im only embarassed by people who claim to share my politics, or claim to be anarchists, like some of the people who post on here, and the people who run the local food not bombs.
Devrim wrote:
rise wrote:
Devrim,

I'm already a very "public" figure. Im on the executive of a union local with 5000 members, and I've spoken and numerous events and demonstrations with thousands of people in attendance. I did a small speaking tour of the east coast of the US and canada for NEFAC last year. My name and image are publicly available on my union's website.

If anyone was inclined to get "information" on me, the cat is already out of the bag. Besides that, I have nothing to hide - I support my politics because they are revolutionary and credible -- I'm not embarassed by them. I also recognize that if any intelligence agency or law enforcement organization or red squad wants my photo or personal information, they alreayd have it, for sure.

Whatever, it is bad security practice.

Security concerns are important. This doesn't mean that we should have an excess of paranoia. There are times when it is obviously necessary to be in situations where your security will be compromised, posting a picture of yourself, and you girlfriend on the internet isn't one of them.

Even if people have your photo, and personal information there is no need to give them another connection for nothing.

Also, even if you have a relatively high profile, it doesn't mean that everyone else does, and that some people are not stupid enough to copy you. It develops a bad general culture of security.

We will probably have another coup late this year, or early next year. After the coup before last over 600,000 people were arrested. It gives you perspective.

Devrim

Flint wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Whatever, it is bad security practice.

Security concerns are important. This doesn't mean that we should have an excess of paranoia. There are times when it is obviously necessary to be in situations where your security will be compromised, posting a picture of yourself, and you girlfriend on the internet isn't one of them.

Even if people have your photo, and personal information there is no need to give them another connection for nothing.

Also, even if you have a relatively high profile, it doesn't mean that everyone else does, and that some people are not stupid enough to copy you. It develops a bad general culture of security.

We will probably have another coup late this year, or early next year. After the coup before last over 600,000 people were arrested. It gives you perspective.

Devrim

I think I'm already http://www.discoverthene tworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1167 burnt (damn! did they take down my picture?) [i]admin - ffs break links dammit!. My partner and I have been together for over a decade, share a bank account, car, have leases together, are benefactors on life insurance and what not. I think the state might have enough to figure out the connection. (She also got an illustration credit in my last article). Last two articles I published under my legal name.

A lot of folks in NEFAC have already been arrested because of their political activity; though none have ever been disappeared or done serious time. We had a pretty high profile case with some arrests due to anti-fascist activity a while ago, and the details of the folks involved got shared with neo-nazis and the internet at large. That's just how it is.

NEFAC is not an underground organization, and most of us have stopped pretending that it is. Most of the aliases are dropping away to. If someone wants to be doing underground activity or keep their identity masked from the state (or even an employer) they might want to stay as far away from NEFAC as possible.

If you're worried about repression, by all means post under an alias and don't let anything personal out; and keep your personal life as separate from your political life.

I wonder though... is it the completely marginal position of libertarian communism as a political current in most places that encourages libertarian communists to think that some weak security measure will protect them. On one hand it seems like hubris to think that their politics or activity is so potent that the state is going to spend time smashing you down; and the other it seems like an acknowledgement of the marginality or impracticality of their politics at the current moment that they don't feel that they actually have to be public with their politics. Obviously, states sweeping up 600,000 people who have anything to do with "communists" are dealing with a very different situation from where large scale repression hasn't happened in many decades.

---

Going to delete my myspace profile now!

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 1 2007 06:58
Flint wrote:
I think the state might have enough to figure out the connection.

Actually, I was thinking of the connection to Libcom, not your girlfriend.

Flint wrote:
Last two articles I published under my legal name.

Rather Foolish I think.

Flint wrote:
A lot of folks in NEFAC have already been arrested because of their political activity; though none have ever been disappeared or done serious time. We had a pretty high profile case with some arrests due to anti-fascist activity a while ago, and the details of the folks involved got shared with neo-nazis and the internet at large. That's just how it is.

Yes, shit happens. I wrote before:

Devrim wrote:
There are times when it is obviously necessary to be in situations where your security will be compromised, posting a picture of yourself, and you girlfriend on the internet isn't one of them.
Flint wrote:
NEFAC is not an underground organization, and most of us have stopped pretending that it is. Most of the aliases are dropping away to. If someone wants to be doing underground activity or keep their identity masked from the state (or even an employer) they might want to stay as far away from NEFAC as possible.

No, we are not an underground organisation. Our publication though for example is illegal (which doesn't mean that it is not distributed in bookshops).

I am not sure what you mean by underground activity. I don't think that we have underground activity.

On the point of keeping things secret from your employer, in the past I was involved in a workers' group in a large public sector company. Management knew who I was. When our publications came out, I went round the office selling them during work time, fine. But what are you suggesting that we should have said to a new worker who wrote to us from another office? "Just walk up to the management, and tell them you support the reds". No, we told them to leave the publications in the canteen when it was quite. It would have been very stupid for people who were on a six month probationary period to tell the management they were going to be militants in the future.

It just makes sense to be careful.

Flint wrote:
I wonder though... is it the completely marginal position of libertarian communism as a political current in most places that encourages libertarian communists to think that some weak security measure will protect them.

No, I don't think that it will protect people. I just don't think that there is any reason for publicising information for the sake of showing off your girlfriend.

Quote:
On one hand it seems like hubris to think that their politics or activity is so potent that the state is going to spend time smashing you down;

I believe that the state monitors political groups. I don't think that our organisation, or yours are the top of their priority list. For example, I am sure that the Turkish state has hundreds of people involved in trying to monitor the PKK. They probably have one bloke, who monitors a whole range of left groups, and maybe reads our publications once a month.

If we intend to grow, the monitoring will increase though.

Quote:
and the other it seems like an acknowledgement of the marginality or impracticality of their politics at the current moment that they don't feel that they actually have to be public with their politics.

I am public about my politics. I just don't give away information for nothing.

Quote:
Obviously, states sweeping up 600,000 people who have anything to do with "communists" are dealing with a very different situation from where large scale repression hasn't happened in many decades.

Flint, we are supposed to be revolutionaries. If there is a revolution in the US, I am 100% certain that it will get more repressive. The coup before last, which I mentioned was in 1980, nearly 30 years ago. The last coup in the 90's didn't have anything like this. I think that the next one won't either.

I just think that people should be careful, and not compromise their security without due reason.

Devrim

skip
Offline
Joined: 12-11-06
Jul 1 2007 08:07

I think the situations in Turkey and the US aren't really comparable when talking about this issue. First is the issue of how much information we can actually keep from the US government. I think we have to assume that not only does the government monitor our publications, but they probably read our internal listservs, occasionally monitor our phones, etc. This isn't because NEFAC is a significant threat at the moment, more it's because this sort of surveillance is almost trivial for groups like the NSA. So in the US at least, anyone in NEFAC or any other well known US anarchist group who thinks that the government doesn't have a good idea about their identity, affiliations, and activity is a bit delusional.

Also, the situation in the US, although deteriorating, is nowhere near as repressive as the situation sounds in Turkey. At this point that overzealous security culture would be more of a detriment to effective organizing than any real obstacle to government surveillance. In Turkey it sounds like repression is a much greater likelihood in the near future, and I imagine maintaining a degree of anonymity is quite a bit easier as well, so maybe this balance is a bit different than it is here.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 1 2007 08:19

Everyone active here with anything more than a couple pebbles bouncing around in their skull cavity has to assume they're thoroughly burned vis-a-vis the government. Those of us who are a little more discreet are mostly worried about fascists and employers. Once it's too late on either of those fronts, some people decide they may as well push for full transparency / notoriety because that can be its own kind of protection.

I'm interested to hear more about the coup you're anticipating. That's gotta be a bad feeling.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 1 2007 08:48
Devrim wrote:
At this point that overzealous security culture would be more of a detriment to effective organizing than any real obstacle to government surveillance.

I can see the points that are being made. I know that it can go to far, but as I said before:

Devrim wrote:
There are times when it is obviously necessary to be in situations where your security will be compromised, posting a picture of yourself, and you girlfriend on the internet isn't one of them.
skip wrote:
I think the situations in Turkey and the US aren't really comparable when talking about this issue

Maybe not, but it is good to develop a positive culture within your organisation about this whever you are.

MJ wrote:
Everyone active here with anything more than a couple pebbles bouncing around in their skull cavity has to assume they're thoroughly burned vis-a-vis the government. Those of us who are a little more discreet are mostly worried about fascists and employers.

Yes, well the employers, and fascist are one reason. Also often different departments of the state don't realise what you the others are doing.

The point is there are things that we have to do as part of our politics. Posting pictures of our girlfriends on the internet isn't one of them.

Devrim

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 1 2007 08:58

Yeah I think you have to do it either way - be quite careful, or pretty transparent. People at my old job knew about this site because I told them, and I put it on a couple of application forms for web jobs I applied for recently - that way less opportunity for come back if they give me the job and find out later (in fact I think it might've got me a job). This is public sector though, it would've been suicidal in a couple of my old jobs, and of course I didn't tell them my username. I don't post my photo up though, and don't use my real name on things, although I used to a while back so there's ways of finding out given things stay on the internet for years with little control. This is why anyone posting up personal information more than once will get banned, and another reason why Chuck Hendricks is an idiot.

To be honest, with employers, the most likely thing is to get burned via internet usage policy rather than the content of the site (which you could do them for under equal ops if they actually tried to use it), sad but true.

I don't think the state necessarily knows who we all are now - obviously they have the capacity to do so, but they may well not have bothered. Clearly redwatch and some employers are very interested and it's not clever to draw too much attention to yourself or make it easy.

More than posting photos up, if you use your real name for your e-mail address, or put any personal information in private messages (phone numbers, addresses etc.) - then you could get burned if we ever get hacked (or if there was a physical breach of the server, or any admin's pc with a database backup on it), since it'd be easy to mine that information out from a database dump. Better to exchange e-mails over pm, then e-mail anything like that - although of course e-mail is completely insecure as well.

We do our best to avoid getting hacked, but it's best to bear that in mind.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 1 2007 09:01
MJ wrote:
I'm interested to hear more about the coup you're anticipating.

It is openly discused in even the Western Media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/turkey/story/0,,2083592,00.html

Observer 20th May wrote:
Last month a notice was posted on the military general staff's website stating that the armed forces were ready once more to intervene. Erdogan described the message as 'a shot fired at democracy'. Elsewhere the Turkish intelligentsia, never slow to coin a new politicism, labelled it the 'e-coup'. Gul's nomination was revoked and Erdogan brought forward the general election to July. The AKP are favourites to win that election but if they do so then many observers believe a fifth coup to be the probable outcome.
MJ wrote:
That's gotta be a bad feeling.

No, not really. As I said before, I don't think it will be like the 1980 coup, more like the 1997 coup. It is just a change of government.

In the USA there are elections, and when the bourgeoisie doesn't like the result, you have recounts, and court cases. In Turkey there are elections, and when the military doesn't like the result there is a coup. It is all part of the normal democratic process.

Devrim

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 1 2007 14:10
Devrim wrote:
In the USA there are elections, and when the bourgeoisie doesn't like the result, you have recounts, and court cases. In Turkey there are elections, and when the military doesn't like the result there is a coup. It is all part of the normal democratic process.

If it happens I think you should support the democratically elected wing of the bourgeoisie. Critically of course wink

On privacy, I'm not bothered about the state knowing who I am. I mean if what we want to happen politically actually happens - mass struggle, near revolutionary situation, etc. there will be mass arrests, disappearings, torture, etc. and I don't think there's anything we can really do about that.

The only thing I'm bothered about is employers, which is why I use a pseudonym, and an alternate username to post about stuff at my workplace.

As for pictures, well lots of us use stuff like facebook and myspace anyway, and not feeling able to would be pretty shit. I don't make the connections between my political activity and personal networking things much. I've had pictures of myself on here briefly, I'm fine with that, and I do like knowing what people look like when you're discussing with them.

I bet Smash Rich Bastards is this guy:

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 1 2007 15:45
Mike Harman wrote:
This is why anyone posting up personal information more than once will get banned, and another reason why Chuck Hendricks is an idiot.

Can this be my one shot?

skip
Offline
Joined: 12-11-06
Jul 1 2007 16:48

I think employers and fascists can be a concern, but I think at a certain point, with employers at least, the internet makes that all unavoidable, especially if you're name is easy to google. I think the point is that flint's real identity is already totally out there for anyone who bothers looking, so he might as well just go with it.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jul 1 2007 17:08
Devrim wrote:
Maybe not, but it is good to develop a positive culture within your organisation about this whever you are.

I know you're only saying this out of concern, and I appreciate it. But the fact is, most of us are well familiar with "security culture" as exchanging paranoid pamphlets about it seems to be a key element of anarchist subculture in the US, and say five years ago most of us still thought that way. Many NEFACers have willingly and to different extents moved away from this, in part because it's clear NEFAC is not going to be an underground revolutionary organization, and because all the cloak and dagger stuff makes all the leftist tailgaiting we aspire to do kind of awkward.

Devrim wrote:
Yes, well the employers, and fascist are one reason. Also often different departments of the state don't realise what you the others are doing.

Streamlining information exchange and removing the already crumbling firewalls between its departments has been a major, well-publicized and well-publicly-supported, element of the post-September-2001 US state. I think at this point we just have to assume full rationality, and feel lucky whenever it exhibits irrationality in our favor.

ftony
Offline
Joined: 26-05-04
Jul 1 2007 17:56
John. wrote:
I bet Smash Rich Bastards is this guy:

poor chap, he's lost a glove. no wonder he's resorting to vile hand signals.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 1 2007 18:00

Yeah but there is a real 'baby and bathwater' phenomenon across these boards...ie because wacky american anarchos are into 'securtiy culture' that shouldn't put you off....I think not signing articles is a really basic thing...doesn't interfere with anything or make anything akward except intelligence gathering. 80% of information gathered by Special Branch in Britain in 70s was from what was openly published in left wing publications. Irish police anyways are not omnipotent or particularly on the ball so there is no need to make it easy for them if it doing so doesn't interfere with doing the job your organisation is there to do. For example no need to put photos with names attached up on indymedia, photos themselves are often ok - they'll have them from there own cameras if it is footage of a demo. There is a happy meduim.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 1 2007 20:46
Mike Harman wrote:
Yeah I think you have to do it either way - be quite careful, or pretty transparent.

I used to try to have one foot in either side and it became apparent that it was fairly useless after some racist cops gave over my name, address, ht, wt, age, social security number etc to organized nazis. So whatever.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 2 2007 12:51

From another thread:

Devrim wrote:
rkn wrote:
Thrashing_chomsky wrote:
Me and the offending sign and Tshirt.

If you are averse to the idea of being up on R*dwatch, i'd edit that photo out.

http://www.r*dwatch.co.uk if you don't know what i'm on about.

I just looked at that. They have pictures of Jack, Revol, Madashell, and LoneWolf. All from stuff you posted on here I presume.

Devrim

Devrim

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jul 2 2007 13:33

And as I said on that thread, it doesn't bother me. It would bother me if they had my address up there or any kind of information that would allow my employer to identify me, but they don't, they have a (actually fairly bad) picture of me. The odds of being able to successfully identify any one individual from that site alone among all the hundreds of pictures nicked from indymedia are slim, to say the least.

As for the police and the security services, if you've ever been to a large demonstration without a mask, they've got your picture. If you've ever been arrested, they've got details to match up to it. It's just not worth wasting time and energy worrying about it.

navindra
Offline
Joined: 22-01-07
Jul 2 2007 14:04
thugarchist wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
This is why anyone posting up personal information more than once will get banned, and another reason why Chuck Hendricks is an idiot.

Can this be my one shot?

woah... is that mathias giving hendricks a massage?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 2 2007 16:51
navindra wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
This is why anyone posting up personal information more than once will get banned, and another reason why Chuck Hendricks is an idiot.

Can this be my one shot?

woah... is that mathias giving hendricks a massage?

Of course.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jul 2 2007 18:30
Terry wrote:
I think not signing articles is a really basic thing...doesn't interfere with anything or make anything akward except intelligence gathering.

I've opted to going with being pretty public with my politics at my job, etc... among other things, I was the listed owner for the local anarchist bookstore (and my significant other was also a listed officer in the bookstore). Any hope I had of security through anonymity has been gone for many years. Some of the local anti-war groups I was active with was also under surveillance by the NSA and the Pentagon. Enough of my mail has been damaged that I don't think I'm paranoid. I realize how marginal the political milieu I'm involved in is, and how minor my own part is... and to know there is this much attention already... I just don't see much point in being anything other than transparent.

The first article I published under my legal name I did so because I was getting involved in Military Families Speak Out, specifically because my sister was going to Iraq with the U.S. Army. She's informed me that doing so has been an obstacle to her getting any security clearance. I've been in a pretty public position with that, having articles in the paper and lobbying congress (for whatever that is worth) and being a very vocal, public opponent of the war.

If folks want to take an active part of public social movements and argue for their politics in those social movements; then some of them are going to have to put their politics on the table in a very public way. Maybe some folks can get along with dropping a leaflets anonymously and keeping a low profile, but we also have to have some radicals being publicly obnoxious. Folks can deal only in cash, sign all articles with a pseudonym, wear a mask at every demonstration (and some crude attempts at anonymity make you look more suspicious), avoid any kind of responsibility that involves even a slight amount of publicity or public recognition (like speaking at an event or being a press contact); but at some point some of us have to be willing to be publicly associated with our politics, to have more financial interaction than cash, and be publicly associated with the things they write.

Returning to anonymity isn't really an option for me. Now, I'm not going to post my cellphone number and home address to a public web forum--largely because I don't want to be annoyed by any amateur reactionary; but if the state wants me; they can find me--likely they've been able to find me for the last decade.

For those of us already out there, the best security seems to be notoriety and growing the movement so folks will care and do something if there is a move to get rid of you. Realistically, it might cost me some jobs (their are a lot I wouldn't even bother to apply for), but I've got a very skilled trade so I'm going to be O.K., one that I can even get a decent wage for if I had to limit my occupation to liberal NGOs. If the State decided it wanted to arrest 600,000 people (or, the equivalent for the U.S. would be 2.5 million people) because they *might* oppose a coup... I might be one of the first to be rounded up... but at least I wouldn't be lonely (by comparison, Ralph Nader only got 2.9 million votes in the 2000 Presidential Election).

rise's picture
rise
Offline
Joined: 11-01-07
Jul 2 2007 18:47

I concur. I'm very publicly linked to radical projects and movements, and have a somewhat high-profile position in my union. I've been followed by plainclothes and uniformed police both inside and outside of the country, and the domestic intelligence agency has showed up at my front door. As incompetent as the state security services may be, they already have way more information on me than a photo or name can ever reveal. This kind of paranoid behaviour just serves to marginalize us further. If you're "underground" then you're certainly not posting on libcom, you're living under an assumed name, and changing locations constantly. That's a lot different, and unless you're doing that, if you're an active rev you're hooped.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 2 2007 18:51

I'm just too good-looking and charming to hide.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 2 2007 19:16

That's fair enough Flint, here in this country on the other hand, the police force is really not that competent (in fact they mostly still use typewriters - or so I'm told - possibly an urban legend), they do target people they see as 'ringleaders' based on the amount of information they have about them.....and it isn't just a matter that this person exists and is involved in this, but also that they know these other people over here, used to be involved in that...etc...etc...a whole profile.
I should point out I'm not proposing being 'underground' or some such, but some basic things that make intelligence gathering more difficult, ie making profiles smaller, less exact and scantier...especialy when it costs no effort to do so.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 2 2007 19:27

Also the people they are most interested in, at least according to a historic study of the British special branch, are people with a strong involvement in popular campaigns, and the like, that is their criteria not 'political extremism' or potential to morph into an elf, eg in Britain in the 50s, 60s, 70s, the people they were most interested in were in CND or were trade union officials...they were not looking for maoists in case they might throw a rock or something.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jul 2 2007 19:33
Terry wrote:
Also the people they are most interested in, at least according to a historic study of the British special branch, are people with a strong involvement in popular campaigns, and the like, that is their criteria not 'political extremism' or potential to morph into an elf, eg in Britain in the 50s, 60s, 70s, the people they were most interested in were in CND or were trade union officials...they were not looking for maoists in case they might throw a rock or something.

Um.... doesn't this completely nullify your argument. There are few people in the world with a more public face than trade union officials.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 2 2007 19:38
Flint wrote:
Um.... doesn't this completely nullify your argument. There are few people in the world with a more public face than trade union officials.

Cause of the good looks and charm.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jul 2 2007 19:39
thugarchist wrote:
Flint wrote:
Um.... doesn't this completely nullify your argument. There are few people in the world with a more public face than trade union officials.

Cause of the good looks and charm.

To bad they make you wear long sleeves to work in the Nevada desert.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 2 2007 19:43
Flint wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
Flint wrote:
Um.... doesn't this completely nullify your argument. There are few people in the world with a more public face than trade union officials.

Cause of the good looks and charm.

To bad they make you wear long sleeves to work in the Nevada desert.

Too bad for Nevada. I'm outta here.

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 2 2007 19:57

Err no Joe Bloggs shop steward gets another addition to his file and is promoted to a 'more interesting' category in the filing system when he writes several articles for some lefty newspaper.

I'm not talking about being 'secret' I'm talking about minimising the profiling, there is no point in being 'secret', ie keep the file small and with less informtion.

Based on what I've read of the British police published left wing literature is their major source of information.

Based on what I've observed of the Irish police they go for people they see as 'ringleaders'...sometimes seemingly based on who they have known for the longest and hence have the biggest file on (this may be an assumption of rationality - it could be just who they most have it in for).

I'm not really security aware at all by the standards of what I've seen of some of your black bloc types and that....and in fact in pushing this line in this discussion I feel a tad hypocritical*..but there is no harm at all I think in having a culture of being a bit aware of these things and making profiling a bit harder...bearing in mind there is none of the 'security culture' thing here that one would come across among american block block punk anarcho types....if I was around that I would be critical of it! ....especially for people who havn't already burned their boats and have small files and could keep having small files...on the other hand if as youse say the police forces in the US are well into efficent intelligence gathering on everyone..then yeah it would seem a little futile.

* especially given that I've signed articles, done mainstream media interviews, had photos with my name attached up on indymedia.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jul 2 2007 22:00
Terry wrote:
Err no Joe Bloggs shop steward gets another addition to his file and is promoted to a 'more interesting' category in the filing system when he writes several articles for some lefty newspaper.

I'm not talking about being 'secret' I'm talking about minimising the profiling, there is no point in being 'secret', ie keep the file small and with less informtion.

I guess you have to figure out whether the cost of Joe Bloggs Shop Steward in being "more interesting" to the police is worth the benefit of having Joe Bloggs Shop Steward publicly supporting his arguments with his public reputation as Joe Bloggs Shot Steward. Maybe it doesn't seem like much of an advantage to pushing those arguments for someone who is only working with a few people, and only known to a few people. "Anonymous Revolutionary X" can be easily laughed at, but the fellow worker who is solid in a strike, had your back against a boss/sexist/racist/homophobe, etc... might not be so easy to disregard. When people with good reputations (from a working class perspective) speak out publicly for revolutionary ideas; it does lend credibility to those ideas for the folks who respect the person's reputation.

Also, it's not like people are born with revolutionary ideas and they develop them in a vacuum. Often, people have been involved with lots of things that put them in the public eye for at least reformist goals before they come to revolutionary conclusions. (Terry, you are already burnt; I'll see you in the gulag!)

Not everyone who advocates revolution has to be publicly about that, but some folks are going to have to be very public about it. The more who are, the likelihood the safer any of them might be as individuals (up until the point the state wants to engage in full scale reaction and at that point it doesn't really matter how private you were going to be... states engage in near random acts of terror).

I think people should be inoculated about what it means to be out in public with your revolutionary politics. Let new folks get an idea what it's like to be interrogated. And, um... most folks got to know that the historical record of what happens to revolutionaries is...um... not so good. Folks need to pick the kind of security they are comfortable with... in a way, people who are totally transparent or totally underground have it a lot easier than folks who (hope?) to remain unnoticed by the state (but noticed by a lot of folks they argue towards revolution?). I realize that most revolutionaries in a non-revolutionary period will be in that situation; how to be radical but still have a vaguely normal life.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 2 2007 22:12

No one has argued for being underground, or anything like that.
What I said was that we should develop a security culture, and not give away information for nothing.
I wrote to Flint by PM:

Quote:
I agree with your points about the need to have a public profile. I only said that it is bad practice to give information away for things like posting a picture of you, and your girlfriend for no political reason whatsoever

Also, as well as your personal position, I think that you should accept that NEFAC does have influence within the anarchist movement, and that people , especially younger, less experienced militants can be influenced by your actions.

An example of this, and I am not blaming you for this, is the picture that some young anarchist posted of himself on a gay rights march in London as far as I can see purely for the purpose of showing off his banner, and T-shirt. Now, pictures people from Libcom have posted up before have appeared on the English fascist sight Redwatch. I certainly, think that the possibility of some drunk fascist seeing this guy in a pub, and deciding to beat up a 'red queer'. Maybe small, but possible.

I think that something like this could well be the result of a lax 'security culture'.

On the point of Turkey being different to the US, yes it is. Things can change, however. Turkey today is not Turkey of 1980.

I get the feeling that they are so used to arguing, against the left communists, and feeling attacked that they feel obliged to argue even when they know they are wrong. Maybe it is just embaressment at being a little foolish.

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 2 2007 22:15
Devrim wrote:
I get the feeling that they are so used to arguing, against the left communists, and feeling attacked that they feel obliged to argue even when they know they are wrong. Maybe it is just embaressment at being a little foolish.

Devrim