reating etworks Informant: « person recruited by police to provide information + Isamember(s), friend(s), or associate(s) of group # Referred to as ‘Confidential Source’ or ‘Confidential Infor- mane by police Infilteator: A person who infilrates a group by posing asa genuine member. ‘© May be military, police, intelli gence, corporate, private contrac- to, ‘patriot «May be citizen facing imprisonment ‘Snitch: Someone who gives up in- ‘criminating evidence to authorities. Snitch Jacket: Reputation for being an informant. Is used both in police Jargon and street slang. Jacket comes “from the “fie jackets” that were used ‘by the police prior to computerization “of records. Uhe phrase has part ofits “origins in the police interrogation tactic of threatening criminals who will not cooperate. Ironically police of _ficers have been known to threaten to ‘publicize or have correctional officers publicize that a perpetrator’s “jacket” says they are an informant to get them ainform. Network: 4 social structure made Lup of individuals (or organizations) called “nodes’, which are linked (connected) by one or more specific {types of interdependency. Radical Networks may have comples links based on friendship, sharing living space, common interest, common organizational practice, membership in organizations, shared identity, sexual relationships and connections to. physical space, 5 Basic Infiltrator Types 1. Hang Around: less active, a tends meetings, events, collects documents observes listens 2. Sleeper: low-key at first, more 3. Novice: low political analysis, “helper; builds erust and ered. ibility over longer term 4, Super Activist: out of nowhere, now everywhere. Joins multiple groups or committees, organizer 5. Ulera-Militant: advocates mili- tant aetions & conflict * Agent Provocateur: incites illegal acts for arrests orto discredit a group or movement Light Undercover: may have fake ID, more likely to return to family life on weekends, ee, Deep Undercover: fake goo" issued ID, employment & renting history, te. «May have job, apartment, part- net, or even family as part of undercover role # Lives role 24-hours day for extended time (with periodic breaks) Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks 1 “GOD: I own you like Lown the caves. THE OCEAN: Nota chance. No comparison. GOD: I made you. Icould tame you. THE OCEAN: At onetime, maybe. But not now. GOD: I wil come to-you, freeze you, break you. THE OCEAN: Iwill spread mysef lite wings. Lam a billion tiny feathers. You have no idea what's happened to me! Dave Eggers Part %: An Introduction Ir must be made clear thar if there is one thingto take from this pamphlet, there are no fool proof methods for routing out undercover'sand informants. “This pamphlet is about exploring possibilities or countering covert investigative efforts initiated or assisted by police. The objective of counteringall aspects of state-led intelligence gathering is not inherently to reveal undercover activity bur to create a safer and less penetrable network to operate out of. Dialogue about this issue need to be addressed with a bit of finesse as there are many dangers, disservices and fruitless avenues people worried about undercover investigative operations can explore. Its clear that our practices in dealing with undercover investigations need invigorated theoretical and practical attention in a manner that we can communicate across our personal networks. In the last several years undercover operatives have been suspected or confirmed in radical networks across the country. In the courtrooms, holding cells and on the gallows, or navigating new worlds free from imposition and misery, we will realize itis only us who can organize our own safety and only our choices that can prepare us for freedom. “There appears to be arise in known infiltration investigations in North American radical networks, with thorough destabilizing effects on our ca- pacities to struggle, comrades facing heavy repression and of course, the less obvious consequences on our personal mental states. The place that we start is with dialogue. We realize that organizing in radical environments has led ‘many of us to have experiences already with undercover operatives. We have 2 Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks allrtically thought aboue dealing with them, and had personal experience or have heard historical stories of individuals and networks that have dealt with them in the past. We all come from unique organizing environments, and both our networks and police investigative operations are incredibly dynamic. “The need for dialogue and personal reflection on methods to provide greater protection for ourselves and the networks we organize out of has become an unavoidable dilemma to confront. Our analysis of the shifting terrain thae makes our networks grow and disband, and thorough communication of these understandings to other radical networks are our strongest tools for subverting covert police operations. ‘A pamphlet that deals with addressing ways to combat undercover investigative work needs to explain the role of an undercover in relation to much broader investigative efforts of police. Le. undercover's and informants, do nor exist in vacuums. They are not lone gunmen vigilante types. They are ‘employed in specific investigations to gather information, build cases against people and possibly destabilize the effectiveness of a network. Ifthere is an undercover operative in your network, they are a visible manifestation of a larger investigation which often but not always includes surveillance operations, {groomers and handlers, and people working on the more technical aspects of information gathering. In the case of a recent undercover police operation, it hasbeen revealed thar the undercover was always in very close proximity to 1wo other police officers, while in the presence of people in the radical neeworks they were embedded in. They also had a handler who they met with morning and night to review notesand make daily objectives, and there were many more police involved in surveillance operations. “There are also various types of covert operatives that have infiltrated and destabilized both radical and criminal organizations. Briefly, there are both shal- low and deep undercover’. Informants that range from people imbedded deeply in radical movements that decide to switch sides and build cases as well as former allies that role under repressive pressure. These notes only deal with informants, and police who are entering neeworks, not states witnesses and heavily embedded informants who have developed a long history of trust. The question of how to ‘reate necworks that are uncompromisingly free of snitches, people who cross the line and states witnesses need to be addressed on a more Fundamental eve in dif- ferent settings. For various case studies, research Anna Davies, Jacob Ferguson, William O'Neal, Rob Gilchrist, Dave Hall, Jay “Jaybird” Dobyns, Alex Caine, Brendan Darby, Brenda Dougherty, Khalid Mohammad, Andrew Darst. Protecting your safety is protecting everyone's safety. The goal of anarchist agitation isto build a social force that has the potential to destroy hierarchical institutions and paradigms with solidarity. Other goals include: building infrastructure and autonomous space, to intervene in conflict, push tensions to conflict, and to realize the potentials and interconnected- ness of our personal and collective freedom. Anarchists expose that liberal concepts of individual freedom are predicated on dominance and apathy Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks 3 towards others, whereas individual freedom as an anarchist concept cannot be severed from the collective, but ean also only be personally defined. ‘An example of this can be seen in offensive struggles and the relevance of solidariey central to the anti-authoritarian spirit. Attacking police for instance in Vancouver, isa direct act of solidarity with people in Guelph or anywhere else who face the same institutions of repression. Through these attacks, the weakening and the example of insolence has implications on the infallibility of police as enforcers of social morality and our collective ability and agency to fight them and win back decentralized control. On a similar level, our ability to organize ourselves in a manner that is effective in staving off the investigative efforts of the criminal justice systen ‘while maintaining a social presence, is interwoven with our concepts of free- dom. Ihave heard people who have just been deale the devastating effects of undercover police pillaging their social network say, “she lesson to learn is that I need to distance myself from people Lam not confident in and work on projects with people I know well” The issue is that if we see undercover operations as 2 threat to our personal freedom only, we make half efforts that remove ourselves, from danger and leave our networks open to attack. If we individually inves- tigate and critically examine al che links in our networks instead of removing ‘ourselves from parts of them, we provide a greater security to our network and ourselves. We are strengthened by the acts of mutual aid and solidarity, they protect usand at che same time make us more dangerous and uncontrollable. “Let the pigs join our activist group, they can cook our food and wash our dishes. They arent going to get shit, because Igot nothing to ide.” Wis till fairly prevalent idea that covert police investigations don't really harm necworks if the more clandestine culture within these networks stays well sealed from the outside. Le sick them on the activist groups or if you are concerned about someone, let them stay involved in a peripheral way as longas they dont get close. The concept comes out of the conceited notion that the militant is the center of investigative efforts. This logic does not consider that criminal inves- tigations into anti-authoritarian networks are meant not just to criminalize militant resistance, but destabilize and undermine the networks themselves and ereate social profiles. “The mentality of the Lasez-fare anarchist in relation to investigative efforts ‘comes out oflaziness, not wanting to upset the herd, not wanting to make yourself look like a person who is concerned about police investigations, not wanting your- selfto look lke you are snitch jacketing someone, not having the tools to inquire further about someones background, and feeling helpless or isolated and probably ‘other reasons as well Ie is human to have these feelings and rationalities bur i is ultimately the most dangerous thing to do. In the absence of being routed out of networks, covert operatives end up building credentials through association, build ing intensive social profiles on everyone, finding pressure points to cause tension and conflict within networks, entrapping people, and monitoring our daily lives from the comfort of our living rooms 4 Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks A final note: There may be people in your network that youtare uncomfortable with or hnd disruprive to organizing efforts. They may not be an undercover operative but still need to be confronted or removed from an organizing capacity to provide safery or a more functional network. [though the goals may not be the same, the destabilizin effects of these relationships on networks have similar effects and should be openly discussed. ‘Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks 5 “Thank you for teaching us that,” against power, the only lost battle isthe one not fought.” The Practical Side of a Safer Network ‘We attend discussions, read information on and do research about the history of repression in radical networks at least partially wo learn practical lessons that apply to our life. Below isan attempt to develop an incomplete set of guidelines for discussion which can be adapted and applied to our networks today. Briefly we have included some broad suggestions for tools that may be helpful in aiding personal efforts to create a stronger base of safety. 6 Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks Building your Toolbox «Understand and research the different types of risks that are posed. from undercovers informants and state witnesses. «Research the historical case studies and impacts of undercover’, infor- mants and snitches on social movements and underworld tendencies. «Review relevant police literature on investigative techniques, to gain in- sight into ways undercover police operations may function and to develop investigative techniques to use in combative ways and gain security. «Review literature and ongoing discussions related to security culture. + Examine the history of organizing methods used in radical networks, revolutionary organizations in different eras and places and compar- ing them to modern affinity-based organizational models of today’s anarchist networks «For historical examples research: OCAP, Os Cangaceitos, Rote Zora, The A.LF/E.LE, The Red Army Faction, The LR.A., The Black Panthers, Insurrectionary Anarchism, Autonomist movements and ‘Anti-fascist resistance in occupied Europe during WWI Or read books such as We Are dn Image Of The Future, The Subversion Of Politics, Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret War Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, Black Mask & Up Against The Wall Motherfucker, Argentina's Anarchist Past: Paradoxes (of Utopia, Conftonting fascism: Notes On a Militant Movement Direct Adtion...et. Security Guidelines for Discussion “Ie is easy to bit a bird flying in a straight line.” “B. Gracian ‘This isa security guideline for developing safer networks into 6 parts for farther discussion. There will never be single solutions. This model may provide suggestions that guide a more secure practice. Ultimately, these structured ways ‘of creating more secure networks must be very dynamic to continue relevance. As investigative efforts adapt, so do our practices to stay ahead. ‘They are: Creating a base of safety list Creating a network map Tactics for further inquiry Communicating with your base Communicating with a potential police informant Concluding action AVAWNE Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks 7 Jill’s Base of Safety Network Map Example LEGEND O Base of Safety Need Slightly More Communication Need alot of communication Links between people = Who is close with who Living Together Group or Project Membership ¢ ¢ © ¢© Books to Prisoners ‘oa © Food Not Bombs Sheilag ore oo, Create a Base of Safety List Create alist of people that are involved in your neeworks. ‘Asking yourself series of structured questions which reveal your level of safety with an individual in the network who are the people close to you? how do you know them? who are your comrades (people you work on projects with)? twho are the people you likely enter confrontation with? what is their historical connection to you? how did you meet, where did you meet? through which people were you introduced? have you met their other friends from different social networks? have you met their families? ‘can people you trust verify their history? are there aspects of ther life you have a hard time communicating about or verifying (work, home, vebicle, aspects oftheir past)? + have you clearly talked about and are satisfied with the intentions of the people you organize with on the projects you mutually work on? + do-you like how they communicate to others about similar experiences you have had with them? + “doyou have a strong sense of trust? why? ‘You will now have divided lists of people. Some of which you were at ease answering the above questions forand feel very secure and rusting with: Thsis your base of safety. Other people on the list you may know varying degrees of information about buthave revealed that aspects of thee life or the way you relate to them may bealoof'to you. You want to communicate more with them before adding them to your base of safety. You will realize that a hierarchy of knowledge and safety will probably develop, where some people may just need small conversations to feel more secure with, and other people may need alot of effort to revel safety. (Ona personal level investigative lst like these re formal extensions of our choices in ascociation we make mentally ona daily bass. This exercises to sharpen ‘ourability co make informed and critical choices about the people we associate with. “Thegoalsin chese assessment questions are to critically understand the socal relations that make up day-to-day interactions with the broader network you commonly relate to. Analyzing relationships in this manner maybe effective in both mapping and realizing a network of relative saery, while exposing aspects of people you want to lear more aboutin the hopes of them becoming safe links in your network. The use of exercise ike this affirms a base of safety and allows for pro-active individual research, preferably in periods of relative calm. Taking the time and energy to do this work are steps towards critical and empowering choices related to our safety thar steal agency from the rips of paranoid haplessness and fear. 10 Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks Create a Network Map Place the list of people in your network on to a network map. Use 3 different color pens or markers to write peoples names on the map, depending on whether they are on your new base of safety, or someone you would like to know more about before adding them to your list. Colour 1) Base Of Safety Colour 2) People that need slightly more communication with Colour 3) People that require a lot of communication. Now create links using more colors to reveal the perceived conne: of people within the network. Colour 4) Who lives together Colour 5) Who are people closest to you in the network Colour 6-2) Use markers to define project membership to the best of your ability. Le I marker will be used to connect the member of your local Food Not Bombs group, while another marker willbe used to define the Books to Prisoners group. Note: It would be foolish to include clandestine organizational efforts in this list. ‘Your completed map will now reveal several details: + Thelevelat which people are embedded in your networks by the amount and types of links they have. «The types of social connections that people have to each other in a network. Ir could reveal... «That someone you are interested in more communication with is also close to people that are on your base of safety. + There are people you or other people in your base of safety organize with that have tentuous social connections. + Doyounced help from people in your base of safety toassistin the inquiry? ‘Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks 1 Tactics for further inquiry Ikis imperative to see the people you want to know more abouts people with the potential tobe in your safety network. Ifyou believe that there is no ‘way you will ever feel safe with that person in your network, there are probably more issues than just untrustworthy behavior. Consider talking with very close friends from your base of safety about options, such as, removing that person from your network, or having a discussion with the person around why you do not want to organize with them. Sort Questions Soft questions are meant to be asked in subtle and undetected ways and are aimed at revealing information in a way that masks intention of the questioner, “Think about the environment and atmosphere and attempt to control the environmental variables for the questions. A relaxed and comfortable person is more likely going to have their guard down. They are more likely going to indulge you to keep up the pleasantries of conversation. Itisalso impossible to detect shifts in body language and facial expression when people are stressed out. Subtle and benign questions focused around the direction of aspects of their life that you would like to know more about may help. If you want to understand their past better, for example, during a friendly conversation you could steer the direction of conversation to your family history, and maybe ask questions like: What is your mom's name? Did she keep her maiden name ors that your dads last name too? Haro Questions Hard questions are meant to be interrogative. They are meant to put the person you are communicating with on edge, to let them know that you are serious about retaining information. ‘These types of questions are aimed at revealing information through implied coercion. They work with questions that you can verify in the moment. Where were you born? Where did you go to primary school? What is your birthday? What is your middle name? What job do you have? Give me your parents phone number and wait here with me while I verify the informati 12 ‘Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks PrysicaL SURVEILLANCE «License plates and VIN numbers # Addresses for surveillance (garbage checks, visits) Refer to Tracking and Monitoring Supplement™ Case Stupies: On the East Coast a freedom of Information request led to the deduction of an operational informant, and through investigative efforts they narrowed their search and surveilled 4 potential informant until confirmation. In Pittsburgh during the lead up to the G-20 a pop questionnaire was put on everybody that attended a meeting. When one person could not answer the questions adequately, they were asked to leave the meeting and disappeared from the network. When traveling to some networks in Europe it is common for people to ask you for background checks involving phone numbers of people close to you and other verifying information before you enter the network. A license plate check through the Ministry of Transpor- tation in Ontario may reveal who the owner of a car is, and whether the car is a fleet vehicle or belongs to a company that deals with law enforcement Research in Guelph related to verification of Brenda Dougherty asa student at the local university, could have oured her as an undercover as early as September 2009. Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks 13 Communicating with your base “Lihink shes a cop.” “Why?” “did you see the clothes she was wearing, and she asked me what I thought about how the demo went.” “Dre you wasted!” Contrary to the very common, very uninformed snitch-jacketing that {goes on in anti-authoritarian networks, we need to develop a security model that limits paranoia through gathering intelligence and communicating in ways that refrain from alarm and sensationalism, All communication approaches are contextual, these suggestions are based on personal experience and reflection and may not apply. “The importance and delicacy of communication with your network can not be understated. Security issues have a way of bringing out irrational, frustrated and upsetting tendencies within most people. It is hard to broach a conversation that focuses on the idea that a person you know could potentially be manipulating and deceiving you for malicious purposes and in many ways can cause strong tension and divisions amongst the network. In my experience with conversations related to dealing with potential undercover’, there was alwaysa strong sense of division and frustration amongst close friends on how to approach the person, if at all. With this knowledge, think about ways to disarm and de-escalate potentially divisive conversations, with people before you have them. The place to start communication is on the {ground floor of general inquiry with explanations that build cases for more research on an individual or add people to a position on your base of safety ‘Think hard about how you want to reveal information you have to your very closest comrades, to people who are closest with people you are inqui- ing about, and of course to the individual you are interested in with the goal being a zero tolerance for gossip and hurtful rumors. The objective of good ‘communication as is the objective of countering all aspects of Seate-led intel- ligence gathering is not inherently to reveal undercover activity but to create safer and less penetrable network. This desire for personal and collective safety can be helpfal in communication with hostile people in the network over the desire to find a rat chat may not exist. 14 Stop Huntin’ Sheep: A Guide to Creating Safer Networks Communicating with Potential Undercover Operatives Know that ifthey are in your presence and they are working, they very ‘well may not be alone, in terms of recording devices or unseen law en- forcement. ‘Wait for confirmation before allegations. ‘Watch the ways you threaten people and make choices based on well thought out plans. Intimidating peace/police officer is becoming a more widely used charge. Nor revealing intentions and a friendly attitude can be more appropriate for gleaning information than interrogative communication. Concluding action if undercover informants discovered “Let us speak, though we show all our faults and wedbesses,- fortis asign of eiength to be weak, to know it, and out with it - not ina set way and ostentatiously, though, but incidentally and without premeditation.” W-Herman Melville ‘the posibilites for countering covert investigative efforts initiated of assisted by police. The objective of countering all aspectdof state ed intelligence gathering is not inherently to reveal undercover activity but to create a safer and less penetrable network to operate out off Sprung from discussions following two police infiltrations into anarchist networks in Southern Ontario inthe lead up to the G20 summit in Toronto in 2010, this text offers suggestions on how to start making your networks safer and creating an active security culture within our everyday activities and organizing. T his pamphlet explores. y Srens of a we