Spying on Activists: Why no Double Agents?

[phildwyer]

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?

True, spies tend to skip the courts. But you might wish they hadn't.

 

[phildwyer]

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.

In which case he would realize what was happening as soon as the first tip didn't pan out. And you wouldn't know that he'd realized. So then you'd really be screwed.

No, it would have to be done with the spy's knowledge and co-operation.

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

do you think before you post or just bash the keyboard?

let's take mark kennedy for example. yer man made damn sure he was in a large number of networks. it is very unlikely that any of these networks could have turned him, but let's assume one had. then they would have a moral obligation to tell other networks that he was a police spy. how long do you think it would have been before this got back to the national public order intelligence unit one way or another?

 

[phildwyer]

What levers do activist groups have?

All sorts. Tons. Use your imagination.

As I said, the problem isn't practical--it's not difficult to make a double agent. The problem is morality--it's nasty work making a double agent. The kind of activist we're talking about here is too moral to do it.

 

[phildwyer]

let's take mark kennedy for example. yer man made damn sure he was in a large number of networks. it is very unlikely that any of these networks could have turned him, but let's assume one had. then they would have a moral obligation to tell other networks that he was a police spy.

Don't be sillier than usual.

There's no moral obligation if he's working for their side now.

 

[SpookyFrank]

do you think before you post or just bash the keyboard?

let's take mark kennedy for example. yer man made damn sure he was in a large number of networks. it is very unlikely that any of these networks could have turned him, but let's assume one had. then they would have a moral obligation to tell other networks that he was a police spy. how long do you think it would have been before this got back to the national public order intelligence unit one way or another?

It's not a long term strategy I'll give you that, but before outing Kennedy he could have been fed some choice misinformation. A few days could have been long enough to trigger a massive police mobilisation against a fictional action, not unlike the Nottingham school raid which Kennedy's information led to, and expose the whole undercover plod fiasco in the most damaging and humiliating way possible.

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't be sillier than usual.

There's no moral obligation if he's working for their side now.

don't be such a stupid cunt. mk was involved with anti-fascists and with environmentalists, among others. there's two sides already, and it's quite possible that he was pretty much the only link between some networks. should eg the environmentalists say nothing to the anti-fascists and make sure mk's feeding bollocks about environmentalism and not worrying what he's saying about anti-fascists? it's not "the government" and "everyone else" - there's a load of 'sides' or interested parties.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I knew Kennedy and I know the people who exposed him. It's fair to say they weren't in a position to think of the possible strategic advatnages of the situation at the time, which is understandable in the crcumstances.

e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing.

 

[Buckaroo]

 

[Corax]

All sorts. Tons. Use your imagination.

As I said, the problem isn't practical--it's not difficult to make a double agent. The problem is morality--it's nasty work making a double agent. The kind of activist we're talking about here is too moral to do it.

No, the whole post please.

 

[Pickman's model]

i gave you a like but please don't post any more billy bragg

 

[Pickman's model]

Ah yes, extrajudicial murder.

yeh cos the state never commits extrajudicial murder

 

[SpookyFrank]

yeh cos the state never commits extrajudicial murder

I generally think that a lot of stuff the state does is bad, that's kinda why I'm opposed to it.

 

[Pickman's model]

I generally think that a lot of stuff the state does is bad, that's kinda why I'm opposed to it.

apparently in a rather half-hearted fashion

 

[SpookyFrank]

apparently in a rather half-hearted fashion

They executed loads of people after the French Revolution.

About a fortnight later, they had an emperor instead of a king.

 

[Pickman's model]

They executed loads of people after the French Revolution.

About a fortnight later, they had an emperor instead of a king.

you're telescoping the french revolution and collapsing the events of 1789-1800.

the point you seem to be making is that they didn't guillotine all the right people

 

[SpookyFrank]

you're telescoping the french revolution and collapsing the events of 1789-1800.

the point you seem to be making is that they didn't guillotine all the right people

The point I was trying to make is that simply murdering people you don't like may not be the best way to bring lasting political change.

 

[Pickman's model]

The point I was trying to make is that simply murdering people you don't like may not be the best way to bring lasting political change.

let's put it this way: is france a monarchy or a republic?

 

[SpookyFrank]

let's put it this way: is france a monarchy or a republic?

In this day and age it makes precisely no difference.

 

[Buckaroo]

In this day and age it makes precisely no difference.

Too early to tell if it makes a difference

 

[Pickman's model]

In this day and age it makes precisely no difference.

right. so 225 years after the start of the french revolution, when pretty much every country was a monarchy in 1789 pretty much no countries are now (bar some obsolescent constitutional monarchies in which the monarchy doesn't rule but legitimises government, and of course lesotho and saudi arabia). i'd say that the getting rid of monarchies is at least a step in the right direction.

 

[phildwyer]

don't be such a stupid cunt. mk was involved with anti-fascists and with environmentalists, among others. there's two sides already, and it's quite possible that he was pretty much the only link between some networks. should eg the environmentalists say nothing to the anti-fascists and make sure mk's feeding bollocks about environmentalism and not worrying what he's saying about anti-fascists? it's not "the government" and "everyone else" - there's a load of 'sides' or interested parties.

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of this. Anyone else fancy having a go?

 

[phildwyer]

e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing.

But if they'd kept their heads, and asked him to turn before exposing him in public, he'd presumably have said "yes" freely and of his own accord. Right? In which case they'd have had a pretty damn valuable asset, and no need for dirty work either. Lord only knows what they might have achieved with that kind of mole.

Oh well, Monday morning quarterback and all that. Worth bearing in mind for next time though.

 

[friedaweed]

I knew Kennedy and I know the people who exposed him. It's fair to say they weren't in a position to think of the possible strategic advatnages of the situation at the time, which is understandable in the crcumstances.

e2a: Kennedy did actually offer to switch sides at one point, but that was after he'd been exposed so it wouldn't really have been a double agent thing.

Has Jazzz nicked your log in

 

[8ball]

What you want is triple-agents - at least that way you can start off with them inside your organisation.

 

[free spirit]

It's not a long term strategy I'll give you that, but before outing Kennedy he could have been fed some choice misinformation.

it's odd that nobody thought of that at the time...

 

[Pickman's model]

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of this. Anyone else fancy having a go?

that's because you're stupid.

it's simple enough for anyone else to understand, but not it seems for a snivelling failure like your good self. you make out there's a couple of sides, but the situation's more complex than that as per my examples in previous post you can't get your wanker head about.

 

[existentialist]

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?

Well, there's a few minor problems.

First of all, your agent goes back to his principals and says "these people are threatening my family", and his principals, if they have any interest in their spy continuing to operate as such, take the necessary steps and instruct him to say "Dunno what you're on about, guv"; either that or they decide that their man is blown and pull him out.

And you need resources. Lots of resources. Years ago, I used to work for a firm that did a little work for a firm that did a little work for a firm, etc., that did interesting things with surveillance and so on: if I learned anything (given that I wasn't anywhere NEAR the interesting stuff), it's that with anything covert, you basically start off by multiply the manpower by 9 - case handlers, liaison, communications, all that stuff. All this stuff of James Bond wandering off on his own is fairy story stuff. And, while I don't imagine police spies are particularly concerning themselves about co-ordinated anti-espionage stuff, it's going to be built into the system with all kinds of safety mechanisms.

You'd essentially need to match that, and then some, to set up and run a double. The motivation would have to be there, too - no point blackmailing them, this would be about ideology, not threats, it's a copper, remember - and they'd need to be VERY sure that you could look after them, especially given that they've already demonstrated that they could penetrate your operation. Just supposing you got a live one, he'd been converted to your cause, and was tempted to double, HE is going to need to be sure that there isn't someone else in your operation who's reporting back and who could burn him.

It just wouldn't be worth the bother.

 

[existentialist]

True, spies tend to skip the courts. But you might wish they hadn't.

That's one very poorly looking man

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's one very poorly looking man

He's about to die. That's why.

As for the op, how do you know it hasn't happened?