As our direct action movement becomes more effective, government harassment will only increase. To minimize the destructiveness of this government harassment, it is imperative that we create a “security culture” within our movement. Violations of security culture include behavior that is inappropriate because it intensifies government harassment, jeopardizes the freedom of other activists, and destroys the trust within the movement.
Be concerned about your online and personal security (courtesy of security.resist.ca):
- Because someone might be listening.
- Because you are not only responsible for your own security, but that of the people you work with and care about.
- Because your email is not automatically secure.
- Because you might be handing out your account password every single time you log in.
- Because you might not only be implicating yourself in direct action, but others as well.
- Because there are people out there who might use your information to damage you and to damage our movements.
A lot of people in the activist community have come to realize that security is important in all aspects of our lives: when we talk on the phone, who we meet with and what we discuss, who we plan actions with, and how we connect to our network accounts to check email and surf the net.
Activists and community organizers are watched, bugged and monitored more frequently that we care to know about. From the histories of AIM and the Black Panthers under COINTELPRO to the current right-wing attacks on immigrants and refugees… From the APEC, WTO, FTAA, and other anti-globalization protests – it is apparent over the history of progressive movements that the security state has a high degree of interest in not only surveilling, but also disrupting and destroying efforts at social change. New “anti-terrorism” laws have expanded the FBI and RCMP/CSIS ability to watch and infiltrate organizations, and harass and arrest individuals.
Activities that were legal two years ago, are quickly becoming illegal due to huge shifts in basic civil rights law and the decimation of constitutional agreements.
It is because of this, that this site has been online in one form or another since 1999. As activists and organizers who have had experience with security matters over the years, we have tried to put together information, suggestions and ideas that would be of most use to community organizers from all backgrounds. We welcome any feedback or suggestions and are always looking for contributions to this site.
- Security Culture
- Building & Structural Security
- Law Enforcement Agency Investigations
- Surveillance and Counter-Surveillance
- Informants, Infiltrators & Provocateurs
- Police Undercover Operations
- Preparing for Police Raids Before They Happen
- Safe Research & Investigations
- Electronic Gear
- Computer Security
- COINTELPRO
If An Agent Knocks: Federal Investigators & Your Rights (Center for Constitutional Rights)
Do I have to talk to the FBI?
No. The FBI does not have the authority to make anyone answer questions (other than name and address [see errata]), to
permit a search without a warrant, or to otherwise cooperate with an investigation. Agents are usually lawyers, and they are
always trained as investigators; they have learned the power of persuasion, the ability to make a person feel scared, guilty, or
impolite for refusing their requests for information. So remember, they have no legal authority to force people to do
anything — unless they have obtained an arrest or search warrant. Even when agents do have warrants, you still don’t have to
answer their question.
There are 3 distinct categories of police interference with a citizen’s liberties: Conversation, Detention and Arrest. It is important to identify your situation so you know your rights, and, remember, anything you say can and will be used against you! Stay calm and in control of your words and actions at all times.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: Congress’ Fascist Agenda for Protestors
First Amendment rights of the American people were sacrificed to further corporate interests when President Bush signed the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) into law on November 27, 2006. The bill had been pushed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a lobbying group that is funded by big corporations, many of which have exorbitantly profited from animal use and abuse. AETA conjures public fear by labeling citizens engaged in animal welfare issues who take direct action as “terrorists,” even though they have never harmed a single human or non-human life. And now, not only does the government and its corporate
alliances seek to label these Americans as “terrorists,” but they face excessive punishments that exceed the federal guidelines for similar offenses.
How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines “Domestic Terrorism”
Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover “”domestic,”” as opposed to international, terrorism. A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “”dangerous to human life”” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html
In October, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a split decision in a criminal case against a group of individual animal rights activists and their organization, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (”SHAC”). The defendants were prosecuted under a now-outmoded version of the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA).In Part One of this two-part series of columns, I discussed the evidence against the defendants, the text of the relevant version of the AEPA, and the gist of the constitutional challenge.
That challenge depends upon the due process right to know which conduct will, and will not, be deemed criminal; and upon the First Amendment right to protest action with which one strongly disagrees.
