Spying on Activists: Why no Double Agents?

[phildwyer]

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same? Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure? But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know. Does anyone?

 

[dylanredefined]

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same? Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure? But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know. Does anyone?

Their not spooks so the first thought is " Lets hurt the shit" not this is "An asset we can use". Then you have to use your double agent effectively
which is a skill and mindset fortunately not commonly available. Spooks are total bastards.

 

[DotCommunist]

if the activist outfit catch you being a tout you are going to have to stop being in the group and go draw a pension/write a book. If the state catch you playing double you are going to prison for a long long time. Its all about having the monopoly on violence in the end.

 

[Pickman's model]

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same? Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure? But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know. Does anyone?

because it would be a stupid idea. to turn someone into a double agent you have to have something on them, and knowing they're a copper won't do the trick as they have the resources of the government behind them. they are paid by the state. they are supported by the state. non-state groups like activist organisations don't have the resources or wherewithal to isolate and interrogate/debrief an undercover cop, who could in any event be expected to have had some form of anti-interrogation training. even if they agreed to act as a double agent, how would you be able to trust them and what would you really hope to gain? they've been lying to people who thought they were friends or lovers for many years and they could not really supply information which would be useful for group decisions.

 

[DotCommunist]

because it would be a stupid idea. to turn someone into a double agent you have to have something on them, and knowing they're a copper won't do the trick as they have the resources of the government behind them. they are paid by the state. they are supported by the state. non-state groups like activist organisations don't have the resources or wherewithal to isolate and interrogate/debrief an undercover cop, who could in any event be expected to have had some form of anti-interrogation training. even if they agreed to act as a double agent, how would you be able to trust them and what would you really hope to gain? they've been lying to people who thought they were friends or lovers for many years and they could not really supply information which would be useful for group decisions.

and then there is the triple 'guess what Your Maj? they think I'm informing on you! feed me irrelevant things that are concrete enough for minor results then they will trust me when I feed them misdirection you provide me with'

How can any clandestine org ever trust an admitted traitor who claims they are playing traitor to get information. You'd have to cut them off completely- nothing they say could be trusted. A turncoat is a turncoat, no matter how often he turns it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same? Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure? But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know. Does anyone?

I'd suppose it's because the govt, on catching a spy, has very large power, either to bargain or compel. The govt can make 'an offer you can't refuse'. Activist groups don't have that same ability.

 

[Pickman's model]

and then there is the triple 'guess what Your Maj? they think I'm informing on you! feed me irrelevant things that are concrete enough for minor results then they will trust me when I feed them misdirection you provide me with'

How can any clandestine org ever trust an admitted traitor who claims they are playing traitor to get information. You'd have to cut them off completely- nothing they say could be trusted. A turncoat is a turncoat, no matter how often he turns it.

yeh and there's to my mind only one entirely effective way to deal with a tout

 

[phildwyer]

Their not spooks so the first thought is " Lets hurt the shit" not this is "An asset we can use". Then you have to use your double agent effectively
which is a skill and mindset fortunately not commonly available. Spooks are total bastards.

That may be true, but some activists are bastards too.

And in any case, surely the impulse to hurt the guy is more bastardly than the impulse to turn him?

 

[phildwyer]

because it would be a stupid idea. to turn someone into a double agent you have to have something on them, and knowing they're a copper won't do the trick as they have the resources of the government behind them.

I'm not necessarily talking about coppers (although quite frankly the cops they send to spy on UK activists look to me like a bunch of untrained clowns who wouldn't stand up to 2 seconds of pressure).

But a corporate spy--they kind who work for McDonalds and Microsoft, those C21 guys etc--they don't have state protection, nor do they feel loyalty to their employers. And I bet many of them hate what they do and would be quite happy to fight for the good guys for a while.

 

[phildwyer]

yeh and there's to my mind only one entirely effective way to deal with a tout

What's that then tough guy?

 

[phildwyer]

I'd suppose it's because the govt, on catching a spy, has very large power, either to bargain or compel. The govt can make 'an offer you can't refuse'. Activist groups don't have that same ability.

Anyone has the ability, if they're sufficiently ruthless and brave. The question is: do they have the will? I suspect not.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

But a corporate spy--they kind who work for McDonalds and Microsoft, those C21 guys etc--they don't have state protection, nor do they feel loyalty to their employers. And I bet many of them hate what they do and would be quite happy to fight for the good guys for a while.

I imagine most of that type would simply work for whoever can pay them the most.

 

[ddraig]

also they probably don't and never will 'get it' whatever that 'it' is in that situation

 

[phildwyer]

and then there is the triple 'guess what Your Maj? they think I'm informing on you! feed me irrelevant things that are concrete enough for minor results then they will trust me when I feed them misdirection you provide me with'

Well there is that--the double agent can become a triple agent. That's probably what Philby did imo. But Philby was a genius. Does Mark Kennedy/Stone strike you as a genius?

You just have to be smarter than them is all...

 

[phildwyer]

I imagine most of that type would simply work for whoever can pay them the most.

Or for whoever will hurt them the least.

 

[DotCommunist]

Well there is that--the double agent can become a triple agent. That's probably what Philby did imo. But Philby was a genius. Does Mark Kennedy/Stone strike you as a genius?

You just have to be smarter than them is all...

Philby and his ilk were recruited and from the highest echelons of society, they were plugged in 'made men' of the Establishment. The trust was implicit and high level.

Thats why they got away with it. Then.

it doesn't translate to what we have today imo!

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone has the ability, if they're sufficiently ruthless and brave. The question is: do they have the will? I suspect not.

so not anyone has the ability as not everyone will be sufficiently ruthless and brave.

 

[Pickman's model]

What's that then tough guy?

obvious really. but it no longer seems the common practice.

 

[phildwyer]

Philby and his ilk were recruited and from the highest echelons of society, they were plugged in 'made men' of the Establishment. The trust was implicit and high level.

Thats why they got away with it. Then.

it doesn't translate to what we have today imo!

Philby didn't get away with it. British Intelligence caught him in 1955, and presumably turned him then. But either the Russians never realized that, or (more likely) he managed to turn himself back again.

 

[phildwyer]

so not anyone has the ability as not everyone will be sufficiently ruthless and brave.

That's right. That's why I used the qualifier "if."

Actually it's more ruthlessness than bravery. And I suspect that is the true answer to my question: activists don't turn spies into double agents because they're not ruthless enough to do what it takes. And thank God for that.

 

[existentialist]

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same? Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure? But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know. Does anyone?

It takes a lot of resources and organisation to run spies/informants into any organisation. To turn an informant would be tricky enough as it is, but the resources needed to support and protect them would be way beyond the kind of organisations that get spied on in the first place.

 

[phildwyer]

It takes a lot of resources and organisation to run spies/informants into any organisation. To turn an informant would be tricky enough as it is, but the resources needed to support and protect them would be way beyond the kind of organisations that get spied on in the first place.

This is what I don't understand.

What's so difficult about saying: "Look Mate, you're busted, and we know where your kids go to school. But as long as you tell Ronald McDonald that the protest is next Thursday instead of Friday, we'll pretend nothing ever happened."

Well of course I know what's difficult about it--you have to be a complete bastard to say it. But it's not practically difficult is it?

 

[classicdish]

Leaving aside trying to 'turn' undercover police officers or corporate spies, what about if someone approaches an activist and tries to recruit them? The activist could "agree" to become a spy/informer but in reality they could deliberately feed and mixture of fact and misinformation cooked up by the group in question. Does this as qualify as a "double agent" or is it something else?

 

[dylanredefined]

That may be true, but some activists are bastards too.

And in any case, surely the impulse to hurt the guy is more bastardly than the impulse to turn him?

I would say since turning the spy is a long drawn out process and you have to have a certain mindset to do that sort of thing.

 

[phildwyer]

Leaving aside trying to 'turn' undercover police officers or corporate spies, what about if someone approaches an activist and tries to recruit them? The activist could "agree" to become a spy/informer but in reality they could deliberately feed and mixture of fact and misinformation cooked up by the group in question. Does this as qualify as a "double agent" or is it something else?

That would be a double agent.

But that's not how spies get into activist organizations, there's no need. They just show up and ask to get involved.

 

[classicdish]

That would be a double agent.

But that's not how spies get into activist organizations, there's no need. They just show up and ask to get involved.

Police try to recruit activist to spy on Cambridge students and political groups - video (November 2013)

also

Police techniques for recruiting and running informants revealed - Police use money and ruses to persuade campaigners to inform on their fellow activists (March 2014)

 

[SpookyFrank]

obvious really. but it no longer seems the common practice.

Ah yes, extrajudicial murder. That one's guaranteed to get the state off your back.

Presumably there are bonus points for abducting your victim in front of her children?

 

[SpookyFrank]

You could always just not tell your tout that he's busted, and use him to lead his bosses up the garden path by feeding him information about stuff that's not happening or people who don't exist.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Police techniques for recruiting and running informants revealed - Police use money and ruses to persuade campaigners to inform on their fellow activists (March 2014)

In this case I might be tempted to take their money and see how much complete bullshit I can feed them before they cotton on. They're not gonna take me to court to try and get the money back are they?

 

[Corax]

When a government discovers a spy, they don't expose him/her, they turn them into a double agent.

Why don't activist groups do the same? Seems to me that potential for spreading disinformation and confusion would be huge.

Is it perhaps because being ethical types they feel unwilling or unable to exert the appropriate kind of pressure? But many such spies would turn with little difficulty, or even willingly--Mark Kennedy/Stone would have been well up for it, judging by his recent comments.

So I don't know. Does anyone?

What levers of persuasion (power) do the state have to effect that betrayal?

What levers do activist groups have?

You already know this. Why am I playing?