A few years ago, when you saw a security camera, you may have thought that the video feed went to a VCR somewhere in a back office that could only be accessed when a crime occurs. Or maybe you imagined a sleepy guard who only paid half-attention, and only when they discovered a crime in progress. In the age of internet-connectivity, now it’s easy to imagine footage sitting on a server somewhere, with any image inaccessible except to someone willing to fast forward through hundreds of hours of footage.
That may be how it worked in 1990s heist movies, and it may be how a homeowner still sorts through their own home security camera footage. But that’s not how cameras operate in today’s security environment. Instead, advanced algorithms are watching every frame on every camera and documenting every person, animal, vehicle, and backpack as they move through physical space, and thus camera to camera, over an extended period of time.
The term “video analytics” seems boring, but don’t confuse it with how many views you got on your YouTube “how to poach an egg” tutorial. In a law enforcement or private security context, video analytics refers to using machine learning, artificial intelligence, and computer vision to automate ubiquitous surveillance.
Through the Atlas of Surveillance project, EFF has found more than 35 law enforcement agencies that use advanced video analytics technology. That number is steadily growing as we discover new vendors, contracts, and capabilities. To better understand how this software works, who uses it, and what it’s capable of, EFF has acquired a number of user manuals. And yes, they are even scarier than we thought.
Briefcam, which is often packaged with Genetec video technology, is frequently used at real-time crime centers. These are police surveillance facilities that aggregate camera footage and other surveillance information from across a jurisdiction. Dozens of police departments use Briefcam to search through hours of footage from multiple cameras in order to, for instance, narrow in on a particular face or a specific colored backpack. This power of video analytic software would be particularly scary if used to identify people out practicing their First Amendment right to protest.
Avigilon systems are a bit more opaque, since they are often sold to business, which aren’t subject to the same transparency laws. In San Francisco, for instance, Avigilon provides the cameras and software for at least six business improvement districts (BIDs) and Community Benefit Districts (CBDs). These districts blanket neighborhoods in surveillance cameras and relay the footage back to a central control room. Avigilon’s video analytics can undertake object identification (such as whether things are cars and people), license plate reading, and potentially face recognition.
You can read the Avigilon user manual here, and the Briefcam manual here. The latter was obtained through the California Public Records Act by Dylan Kubeny, a student journalist at the University of Nevada, Reno Reynolds School of Journalism.
But what exactly are these software systems’ capabilities? Here’s what we learned:
Pick a Face, Track a Face, Rate a Face
If you’re watching video footage on Briefcam, you can select any face, then add it to a “watchlist.” Then, with a few more clicks, you can retrieve every piece of video you have with that person’s face in it.
Briefcam assigns all face images 1-3 stars. One star: the AI can’t even recognize it as a person. Two stars: medium confidence. Three stars: high confidence.
Detection of Unusual Events
Avigilon has a pair of algorithms that it uses to predict what it calls “unusual events.”
The first can detect “unusual motions,” essentially patterns of pixels that don’t match what you’d normally expect in the scene. It takes two weeks to train this self-learning algorithm. The second can detect “unusual activity” involving cars and people. It only takes a week to train.
Also, there’s “Tampering Detection” which, depending on how you set it, can be triggered by a moving shadow:
Enter a value between 1-10 to select how sensitive a camera is to tampering Events. Tampering is a sudden change in the camera field of view, usually caused by someone unexpectedly moving the camera. Lower the setting if small changes in the scene, like moving shadows, cause tampering events. If the camera is installed indoors and the scene is unlikely to change, you can increase the setting to capture more unusual events.
Pink Hair and Short Sleeves
With Briefcam’s shade filter, a person searching a crowd could filter by the color and length of items of clothing, accessories, or even hair. Briefcam’s manual even states the program can search a crowd or a large collection of footage for someone with pink hair.
In addition, users of BriefCam can search specifically by what a person is wearing and other “personal attributes.” Law enforcement attempting to sift through crowd footage or hours of video could search for someone by specifying blue jeans or a yellow short-sleeved shirt.
Man, Woman, Child, Animal
BriefCam sorts people and objects into specific categories to make them easier for the system to search for. BriefCam breaks people into the three categories of “man,” “woman,” and “child.” Scientific studies show that this type of categorization can misidentify gender nonconforming, nonbinary, trans, and disabled people whose bodies may not conform to the rigid criteria the software looks for when sorting people. Such misidentification can have real-world harms, like triggering misguided investigations or denying access.
The software also breaks down other categories, including distinguishing between different types of vehicles and recognizing animals.
Proximity Alert
In addition to monitoring the total number of objects in a frame or the relative size of objects, BriefCam can detect proximity between people and the duration of their contact. This might make BriefCam a prime candidate for “COVID-19 washing,” or rebranding invasive surveillance technology as a potential solution to the current public health crisis.
Avigilon also claims it can detect skin temperature, raising another possible assertion of public health benefit. But, as we’ve argued before, remote thermal imaging can often be very inaccurate, and fail to detect virus carriers that are asymptomatic.
Public health is a collective effort. Deploying invasive surveillance technologies that could easily be used to monitor protestors and track political figures is likely to breed more distrust of the government. This will make public health collaboration less likely, not more.
Watchlists
One feature available both with Briefcam and Avigilon are watchlists, and we don’t mean a notebook full of names. Instead, the systems allow you to upload folders of faces and spreadsheets of license plates, and then the algorithm will find matches and track the targets’ movement. The underlying watchlists can be extremely problematic. For example, EFF has looked at hundreds of policy documents for automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and it is very rare for an agency to describe the rules for adding someone to a watchlist.
Vehicles Worldwide
Often, ALPRs are associated with England, the birthplace of the technology, and the United States, where it has metastasized. But Avigilon already has its sights set on new markets and has programmed its technology to identify license plates across six continents.
It’s worth noting that Avigilon is owned by Motorola Solutions, the same company that operates the infamous ALPR provider Vigilant Solutions.
Conclusion
We’re heading into a dangerous time. The lack of oversight of police acquisition and use of surveillance technology has dangerous consequences for those misidentified or caught up in the self-fulfilling prophecies of AI policing.
In fact, Dr. Rashall Brackney, the Charlottesville Police Chief, described these video analytics as perpetuating racial bias at a recent panel. Video analytics “are often incorrect,” she said. “Over and over they create false positives in identifying suspects.”
This new era of video analytics capabilities causes at least two problems. First, police could rely more and more on this secretive technology to dictate who to investigate and arrest by, for instance, identifying the wrong hooded and backpacked suspect. Second, people who attend political or religious gatherings will justifiably fear being identified, tracked, and punished.
Over a dozen cities across the United States have banned government use of face recognition, and that’s a great start. But this only goes so far. Surveillance companies are already planning ways to get around these bans by using other types of video analytic tools to identify people. Now is the time to push for more comprehensive legislation to defend our civil liberties and hold police accountable.
To learn more about Real-Time Crime Centers, read our latest report here.
This article by Vince Emanuele was originally published by Counterpunch on July 28 2020. Vince offers analysis on the issue of power, shootings, organizing, and the need to articulate a comprehensive list of demands to ease inequity.
“An incorrect power analysis can lead people who want to end capitalism to think that small numbers of demonstrators occupying public spaces like parks and squares and tweeting about it will generate enough power to bring down Wall Street.”
Winning is the primary task of any political organizing effort. Generally speaking, in order to win, people must change the power dynamic between elites and the rest of us.
Right now, ordinary people have very little actual power, but plenty of potential power. Elites hold institutional power, but their power is unstable, based on coercion, and requires our cooperation and participation.
Questions concerning tactics should always be tied to strategy. And strategy should always be tied to vision. First, vision. Second, strategy. Third, tactics. Many leftwing movements throughout the past two decades (antiwar, environmental, Occupy, BLM) started with tactics, then moved to strategy, and still lack a coherent vision. Movements today are making the same mistake.
Eight weeks ago, mass uprisings exploded across the U.S.
They were organic and fueled by righteous anger. Stores were looted. Police stations burnt to the ground. Most importantly, the uprisings included millions of people who don’t self-identify as organizers, activists, or radicals.
Today, the protests have largely died down, except for Portland and a few smaller scale actions taking place throughout the U.S. The goal, however, should be to increase participation. Without a broader political vision, which has yet to be articulated in any coherent or collective manner (here, I don’t solely blame BLM–this has been a fundamental problem with most left mobilizing efforts over the past 25 years), any future actions will have limited success.
This is already the case as many towns, cities, and states have stopped talking about how to reform police departments, and instead have switched their focus to mitigating the pandemic. To be clear, calls to ‘defund’ or ‘abolish’ the police is not a vision. It may be part of a broader political vision, but it’s definitely not an all-encompassing vision, or one that addresses the many challenges ordinary people face. Obviously, the current rebellions are not strong enough to seize, take, or create alternative forms of power, and even if they were, what the hell would we do with our newfound power?
I guess this gets back to the question: does the left actually want power?
Not the power to impose dictate and rule over the people, but the power to democratically make decisions? Some of my friends on the left have openly said, “I like being on the outside, agitating and causing problems.” But “agitating” and “causing problems” isn’t revolutionary, at least not in my view. If what we seek is revolution, it seems clear to me that we need a vision for what a new society could or should look like.
The current wave of protests includes democratic socialists, indigenous groups, communists, anarchists, non-affiliated leftists, first time protesters (including many teenagers), progressives, even some liberals. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that everyone in the streets should identify as one politically and ideologically homogeneous group, but there’s not even broad agreement on fundamental questions concerning the state, economy, ecology, or democracy.
On a small scale, the people currently marching in the streets have yet to articulate what, exactly, ‘defunding the police’ looks like, or what, exactly, the funds redirected from the police should go towards (and that’s assuming we could mount campaigns powerful and strategic enough to make sure defunding occurs), let alone what the movement would do if it actually had the power to collectively make decisions and reshape society.
Take Chicago, for instance, a city that’s 30% black (also the most segregated city in the nation). Not one reform has been announced in the third largest city in the U.S., a city plagued for over a century by corrupt policing (one of the most corrupt police departments in history). Yet, the left gathers 1,000 people for a rally at the Christopher Columbus statue in Grant Park to intentionally engage in skirmishes with the police (eventually, the city took down the statue). Yes, take down the statues, but let’s not confuse political theater and symbolic actions for political vision and strategic purpose.
Filmmaker, organizer, former marine, and native Ukrainian, Sergio Kochergin puts it well:
This is the 4th time in my life that I see statues being toppled. The first time it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the statues were toppled, these countries were raped economically, socially and culturally by the neoliberal system. The inability of close-knit communities to organize and develop a vision for a new society turned into another exploitative playground for the elites. The second time was In 2003, when I personally saw statues of Saddam Hussein toppled in Iraq. The country was thrown into a civil war (U.S. and U.K. imposed genocide), resources were privatized, masses imprisoned, abused, and exploited. The country is still recovering from decades of war and a caliphate created by the U.S.-U.K. invasion. Elites in Iraq have made out like bandits, enjoying billions of dollars worth of contracts and extracted oil revenues, while the people of Iraq suffer and protest in the streets, demanding security, food, healthcare and peace. In 2015, I saw statues being toppled after the popular uprisings in Ukraine. The movements on the ground did not have a collective vision. As a result, the country completely opened its doors to more capitalist predators, putting up 60% of all agricultural land for sale to the highest bidder, unleashing an onslaught of murders and attacks on small-scale farmers. Also, the passing of the E.U. visa mandate, replacing low-skilled workers in E.U. countries who migrated west to England, Netherlands, and Germany with high-skilled Ukrainians performing low-wage, low-skill jobs in countries like Poland, Czech Republic, etc. And finally, In 2020, in the U.S. people are toppling statues while the economy slumps into a dark hole, unemployment benefits are running out, people are getting evicted, and we are still waging wars around the world. With a continuous assault on our educational system most people don’t know our history anyhow, so whether statues stand or fall, those who don’t know the history are likely to repeat it. And without a vision, what are we doing? I am not bashing the toppling of the statues or trying to ignore the violent history these statues might entail. I am critiquing the lack of understanding about the most important issues we are facing: capitalism, low wages, lack of healthcare, lack of affordable housing, climate change, and militarism. Our lack of vision creates a lack of participation. Creating truly revolutionary movements requires dedication and discipline. Romanticizing violence and disorder is an easy way out.
Toppling statues and engaging in street skirmishes with the police may give the impression of a radical political movement, but such actions are nothing more than a sort of revolutionary simulacra. Turning our actions into truly revolutionary acts requires behind the scenes work–the sort of work that’s not sexy: one-on-one conversations, meetings, reading, studying, planning, strategizing, and the like. Our most effective weapons are not our bats, shields, or fireworks, but our collective organizations and institutions. Once the skirmishes are over, will people continue to organize? That’s always the question.
Meanwhile, the night prior to the action in Grant Park, fifteen people were shot in the Gresham neighborhood following a funeral for a man who was killed by gun violence.
Of the fifteen, ten were women, with one 65 year old woman critically injured. All the victims were black. Without doubt, tragedies like this drive down support for ideas like ‘defunding’ or ‘abolishing’ the police (it should be noted that two patrol cars were at the funeral home when the shooting took place). While most Chicagoans don’t want the Department of Homeland Security patrolling their streets, they’re also tired of the neighborhood violence and shootings. Indeed, many of the same activists fighting against police violence are also the same people organizing against neighborhood violence, something the corporate media conveniently leaves out of their nightly news stories.
Most importantly, Chicagoans don’t believe that defunding or abolishing the police will solve problems such as systemic racism, poverty, or the many ills of Neoliberal Capitalism. The 2020 police budget in Chicago is $1.6 billion. That may sound like a lot of money, but what it amounts to is a measly $600 per city resident. In order to genuinely meet the needs of poor and working class Americans, to get at the root cause of neighborhood violence, we must end the War on Drugs, levy heavy taxes on the rich, corporations, and financial transactions, break up, then nationalize the banks, and radically slash the Pentagon’s budget.
Here, in Michigan City, Indiana, a town of 30,000 people, we’ve had 2-3 shootings every week since the beginning of summer: a fifteen-year-old killed at a house party; a sixteen-year-old shot at the beach; and a twenty-year-old shot while driving down the highway (his vehicle eventually crashed into a local business; people live-streamed the whole thing on Facebook).
We’ve had twice as many shootings this year as we had last year during the same period.
Most of the black people that we know in the city are now holding events and rallies to figure out what the hell they’re going to do about neighborhood violence, as opposed to police violence (a tragic turn of events). In some ways, the tides have fundamentally shifted. I’m assuming that’s also the case in other Rust Belt towns and cities across the U.S. where street violence remains the primary public health concern. Many black people in Michigan City are, in fact, calling for more police to patrol the streets. They’re scared for their children. They’re desperate, angry, and tired. At the same time, some residents are trying to figure out a combination of alternatives: social programs, community policing, after school and youth programs, and various other alternatives have been proposed.
The problem, of course, is that the organizational infrastructure doesn’t exist to implement these reforms, which is why people look for easy answers (such as more police). When people don’t see viable alternatives, they’re willing to settle for a miserable system instead of betting on a new (potentially more miserable) system.
For those of us living in places like Michigan City, Gary, Hammond, and similar small Rust Belt cities, we’re in a serious bind. Without doubt, people are more critical of policing than ever before, but on the other hand, people are scared of the street gangs and neighborhood violence (I call it neighborhood violence because most of these cats aren’t even crewed up–they’re just shooting it out at house parties, acting wild as hell in public, without affiliation or material interests).
Basically, without major federal government programs, we’re fucked.
Indiana is a trifecta Republican controlled state with all sorts of preemptive laws, which means we can’t do much at the municipal level. And even if we could, there’s not enough money in the municipal, county, or state coffers to properly deal with the issues we face.
Public opinion concerning the police is changing, but mostly in the direction of minor reforms. Gallup recently released a wide-ranging poll of 36,000 participants who were asked various questions about policing reforms. Below are their responses:
Requiring Officers to have good relations with the community: This idea meets with little controversy, as almost all Americans (97%) support it overall, including 77% who strongly support it. Black Americans are somewhat more likely to strongly support this requirement, at 83%, than are White (76%) or Hispanic Americans (77%).
Changing management practices so officer abuses are punished: Ninety-six percent of Americans support changing management practices so officer abuses are punished, with 76% saying they strongly support the idea. Nine in 10 Black Americans (91%) strongly support such a change, versus eight in 10 Hispanic Americans (80%) and just over seven in 10 White Americans (72%).
Promoting community-based alternatives such as violence intervention: Eighty-two percent of Americans overall support a greater role for community organizations, with 50% saying they strongly support it. Most likely to strongly support the idea are Black Americans (73%), Democrats (75%) and adults aged 18 to 34 (65%).
Abolishing police departments: For most Americans, the idea of abolishing the police goes too far: 15% overall say they support it, with Black Americans (22%) and Hispanic Americans (20%) somewhat more likely than White Americans (12%) to do so. Almost no Republicans (1%) support the idea, versus 27% of Democrats and 12% of independents. However, there is also a sharp distinction between younger and older adults on this question; one-third of those younger than 35 (33%) support the idea, compared with 16% of those aged 35 to 49 and 4% of those aged 50 and older.
Ending ‘Stop and Frisk’: Overall, 74% of Americans support the idea of ending stop-and-frisk policing altogether, with 58% saying they strongly support it. Though Black Americans are most likely to strongly or somewhat support ending stop and frisk at 93%, strong majorities of Hispanic (76%) and White Americans (70%) do as well. However, there is a much larger partisan divide; 94% of Democrats versus 44% of Republicans support ending the practice, with independents in between at 76%.
Eliminating police unions: A majority of Americans, 56%, support eliminating police unions, with results relatively consistent among Black (61%), Hispanic (56%) and White (55%) adults. Despite much higher approval of labor unions in general among Democrats than Republicans, Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to favor eliminating police unions (62% vs. 45%, respectively). Political independents fall closer to Democrats, at 57%.
Eliminating officer enforcement of nonviolent crimes: Half of Americans overall (50%) strongly or somewhat support this idea, including majorities of Black (72%) and Hispanic (55%) Americans, compared with 44% of White Americans. As with ending stop and frisk, there is also a huge partisan divide on this proposal; three-fourths of Democrats (75%) and about half of independents (49%) support the idea, but 16% of Republicans do.
Reducing police department funding and shifting the money to social programs: Overall, 47% say they support reducing police department budgets and shifting the money to social programs, including 28% who strongly support it. However, 70% of Black Americans strongly or somewhat support reducing police department budgets, versus 49% of Hispanic Americans and 41% of White Americans. Moreover, the partisan divide is wider for this idea than for any other police reform proposal: 5% of Republicans support it, compared with 78% of Democrats and 46% of independents.
The two demands most associated with the current wave of protests, namely, calls to ‘Defund the Police’ and/or ‘Abolish the Police,’ receive the smallest amount of support among those polled, though support for ‘Defunding the Police’ (47%) is much greater than public support for ‘Abolishing the Police’ (15%). In some cities and towns, defunding the police may be a viable option, but the impact of that victory will be short-lived because the funds gained from defunding the police will never be enough to meet the needs of the people.
The current wave of protests will enjoy a very short shelf life if we’re unable to gain the support of large numbers of poor and working class whites, Latinos, Hispanics, and Muslims.
Here, I’m thinking of the original Rainbow Coalition, which included the Black Panthers, Young Lords (Latino, largely Puerto Rican organization), and the Young Patriots (poor and working class whites), who found common ground (housing, poverty, war), while recognizing important differences. Fortunately, to some degree, the protests have a sort of baked-in ‘Rainbow Coalition’ quality to them (thanks to previous movements): young white, Latino, Asian, Muslim, and Hispanic people fill the streets alongside young black people. It’s been a remarkable two months. Yes, mistakes have been made, but that’s always the case. We’re here. Now what?
It seems clear to me that the next step is to broaden our demands to include issues like Universal Basic Income (UBI), Medicare For All (M4A), student debt forgiveness, extending the $600 per month Unemployment Insurance benefit, expanding the moratorium on evictions, and protecting and expanding workers’ rights. These issues have the ability to bring millions of ordinary people into the mix.
Speaking anecdotally, I will say that I know many people who sympathize with the BLM protests, but who are too busy with children, work, family, and generally coping with the pandemic to join them.
They would, however, join a nationwide protest movement that simultaneously demanded police reforms and social democratic reforms. Basically, Bernie’s platform, but with much more emphasis and a clearer (better) vision on racial justice, militarization, and ecological devastation. Such a platform would have the support of tens of millions of Americans who would see their primary concerns (housing, rent, bills, medical care, education) addressed, while also understanding how those concerns are connected to systemic racism and police violence.
Even if the people I know were able to join the movement, where would they go? Locally, in places like Northwest Indiana, leftwing political organizations simply don’t exist. I’m assuming that’s the case in many small cities, suburban, and rural areas. Yes, a few left organizations exist, but they’re small, insular, and culturally isolated from the public. Some of them periodically mobilize, but their efforts are mostly uncoordinated and lack support from ordinary people (people who don’t self-identify as leftists/radicals/progressives). Actual deep-organizing efforts are non-existent. At best, momentary mobilization.
They’re showing that left political organizations can both mobilize (OURMC held a BLM solidarity rally with over 700 people no less than two months ago) and organize ordinary people (OURMC is currently organizing tenants in Michigan City). When the pandemic started, OURMC immediately set up a city-wide mutual aid network.
OURMC doesn’t claim to have the answers, but it does understand that successful (or potentially successful) organizations should be able to do multiple things at once: mobilize in solidarity with national and international campaigns and movements; support local, state, and federal electoral efforts that align with its core values and bring ordinary people into the mix; adapt to changing political, economic, and cultural conditions (strategically, tactically, and ideologically); and create alternative cultural outlets (virtually impossible during a pandemic) that help build community.
Building multiracial organizations and coalitions is absolutely essential to winning.
Any action, strategy, or vision that doesn’t include a multiracial and internationalist component doesn’t deserve the light of day. And any action, strategy, or vision that drives down the opportunity to build such a movement should be critiqued and questioned. If the current wave of protests devolves into symbolic protests or a series of street skirmishes with police and rightwing agitators, we run the risk of eroding public support and driving down participation. I know many people on the left don’t want to hear that, or they may disagree, but it’s the truth (the polls don’t lie, which is why the powerful pay so close attention to them).
The current wave of protests must articulate winnable demands with regard to policing (which will vary greatly depending on geographical location/political context) while simultaneously articulating demands that meet the primary material needs of poor and working class people (wages, housing, debt). In order to do both, our movement needs vision. In order to develop vision, movements need organization and discipline. If we don’t do all the above, I’m afraid we’ll miss a great opportunity to make fundamental changes at a critical moment in history.
Vincent Emanuele is a writer, journalist and activist who lives in Michigan City, Indiana. He hosts “Meditations and Molotovs” which airs every Monday @1:00pm(CST) on the Progressive Radio Network (prn.fm) and can be reached at vincent.emanuele333@gmail.com
This piece consists of excerpts from two articles. In the first one, Ashoka Mukpo discusses the report by Global Witness on the killings of environmental defenders in 2019. In the second article, Leilani Chavez describes the threats posed on environmental defenders by the current Rodrigo government.
In a new report, the watchdog group says that at least 212 environment and land defenders were killed across the world in 2019.
The deadliest countries were Colombia and the Philippines, with 64 and 43 killings respectively.
Despite making up only 5% of the world’s population, representatives of Indigenous communities accounted for 40% of those killed.
Killings related to agribusiness jumped by 60%, to 34 in 2019 – researchers say as consumption of commodities like beef and palm oil increases, so too will deadly conflict over land.
2019 was the deadliest year on record for environmental activists, according to a new report by the advocacy watchdog Global Witness. In total, the group says that at least 212 people were killed across the world in retaliation for their defense of land and the environment, with those representing Indigenous communities bearing a disproportionate brunt of the violence.
Many of the killings were linked to battles over control of forests that are critical to the global fight against climate change, said Chris Madden, a senior campaigner at Global Witness.
“Looking at the cases that we’re seeing and the issues these people are working against, they’re often the very same causes of climate breakdown,” he told Mongabay in an interview. “So that’s why we’re saying they’re at the front line of the climate crisis.”
Topping the list of the deadliest countries for environmental defenders in 2019 were Colombia and the Philippines, with 64 and 43 killings respectively. In Colombia, the figure was more than double the number who were murdered in 2018. Overall, the most dangerous region for defenders was Latin America, which saw two-thirds of the global death toll, with the Amazon alone accounting for 33 deaths.
Despite only making up 5% of the world’s population, activists representing Indigenous communities, who are often on the front lines of conflict over forests and land, comprised 40% of those killed.
In Colombia, the 2016 peace agreement signed between the government and the leftist guerrilla group FARC is causing a scramble for control over lucrative resources left behind in the group’s wake.
As FARC insurgents demobilize under the terms of the agreement, paramilitary and other criminal groups are rushing in to fill the void, with Indigenous communities suffering as a result of the power struggle. Those communities accounted for half of the documented killings in the country despite representing less than 5% of Colombia’s population.
In late May, Mongabay published video of paramilitaries firing assault rifles into an Indigenous Emberá town and forcing members of the community to flee by canoe.
When environmental defenders are killed in Colombia, the courts rarely deliver justice. According to Global Witness, nearly nine in 10 murders of human rights activists in the country do not lead to a conviction.
Elsewhere, the deaths of activists have been linked to intimidation and violence carried out on behalf of repressive governments. Killings in Honduras jumped from four in 2018 to 14 in 2019, giving it the highest per capita rate of any country analyzed by Global Witness. In the Philippines, 2019’s toll brings the total since Rodrigo Duterte took office in mid-2016 to 119 — almost double the figure for the comparable period before his election.
Attacks on environmental and land defenders in the Philippines have escalated under President Rodrigo Duterte, with at least 43 deaths in 2019, watchdog group Global Witness says in its latest report.
It recorded a total of 119 defender deaths in the Philippines since Duterte took office in mid-2016.
Martial law in Mindanao, which was only lifted last December, combined with Duterte’s counterinsurgency campaigns and wide-scale anti-drug war, exacerbated the threats against defenders, local groups say.
A plurality of the casualties in the global tally are in mining and agribusiness; the Philippines registered the most number of deaths in both sectors, the report says.
Forty-three land and environmental defenders were killed in the Philippines in 2019, according to a new report from the watchdog group Global Witness. The tally marks out the Philippines as the most dangerous country in Asia and the second most dangerous in the world for those taking a stand against environmental destruction.
According to the group, the criminalization of environmental and land defenders under the mantle of anti-terrorism policies imposed by President Rodrigo Duterte contributed to the attacks in the Philippines in 2019.
“[The Philippines] has been consistently named as one of the worst places in Asia for attacks against defenders,” the report says. “The relentless vilification of defenders by the government and widespread impunity for their attackers may well be driving the increase.”
The Philippines has been frequently listed among top countries considered dangerous for environmental and land defenders in Global Witness’s annual reports, and this year is no exception.
In 2016, the watchdog recorded 28 environmental and land defender deaths in the Philippines, a figure that rose to 48 deaths in 2017 — regarded as the bloodiest year on record in the Philippines and the highest number ever documented in an Asian country, Global Witness said.
In 2018, 30 deaths were recorded in the country, which put it in the top spot in the global rankings. Casualties for that year include nine sugarcane farmers, including four women and two children, who were shot by a group of unidentified gunmen after tilling a contested plot of land in the central Philippines.
Since Duterte took office in June 2016, Global Witness has listed a total of 119 killings of environmental and land defenders; this is double the combined tallies of recorded killings under his predecessors. For 2019, Global Witness reported 43 deadly attacks on environmental and land defenders in the Philippines, placing it behind only Colombia with 64 cases.
The attacks have been linked to Duterte’s counterinsurgency policies, including the declaration of martial law in Mindanao to squash a group of ISIS sympathizers who briefly took over the city of Marawi in 2017. The campaign to retake the city lasted five months, until October 2017, but Duterte only lifted martial law in December 2019, after extending it three times in a span of two years.
“Martial law ended in Mindanao without abuses by the civilian sector, by the police, by the military,” the president said in his fifth state of the nation address on July 27. Human rights groups, however, say otherwise, accusing martial law of breaching the civil and political rights of more than 800,000 people, including environmental and land defenders.
In this article, Salonika and Max expose how the Covid-19 pandemic has enforced suppression of political dissent in the Philippines due to a bill known as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 which places resistance movements in a pinch. You can also read this piece on the increased surveillance during the CoVid crisis.
Deep Green Resistance condemns draconian laws that stifle the political rights of citizens. We stand in solidarity with the resistance against this law.
In an event unprecedented in the history of industrial civilization, most humans have been confined, for the past few months, to their homes battling their fear and desperation. Meanwhile, states have used this unexpected opportunity to move closer to their dream of authoritarianism. Victor Orban has usurped power to suspend and decree laws under the pretext of the pandemic. Narendra Modi has used a time when courts are suspended to persecute peaceful protesters under terrorism charges. We have, in an earlier article, highlighted the increase in surveillance during the last few months.
Repression under Duterte.
The government of the Philippines has been hellbent on repressing any and all opposition for many years. President Rodrigo Duterte announced a “War on Drugs” months after his election. This ‘war’ gave authorization to the police to kill any person involved in the drug trade without due process. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the span of four years, with near total impunity for the killers.
Irrespective of one’s loathing of the drug trade, an inherent flaw in this plan must be visible to anyone. Any law along these lines can and will be used to stifle any form of political dissent. This is precisely what has happened in Philippines.
Philippines Government Response to the Pandemic.
The government’s response to the pandemic has continuously reinforced the economic and political hierarchy in the country. A controversy arose in the first months of the pandemic: Duterte and his cronies were tested for the corona-virus in violation of the criteria set by Department of Health, while actual patients were not receiving access to the testing kits. Local Government Units have taken actions to ease the suffering of general people, some of which have been stunted by the central government.
The situation in the Philippines has been accompanied by a rising suppression of journalism. On June 15th, 2020, a Manila court convicted Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. of cyber libel in a case widely decried as a political witch hunt. The persecution of journalists has always been a tool used by authoritarian regimes for repressing the democratic voices of dissent. Since this case is considered “the most high-profile case” against individual journalists, it is bound to set a precedence for similar persecutions in the future.
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
Now, Duterte is set to take another leap towards authoritarianism using the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 also known as Republic Act No. 11479. The bill cleared the Senate in February, passed the House of Representatives in June, and was signed by the president in early July.
The most contentious provisions include the warrant-less arrest and 14-day detentions of suspected “terrorists”, and the creation of an anti-terror council that would determine what is terrorism and order arrests without a warrant – a function usually reserved for the courts. –Al Jazeera report
The Act has broadened the definition of terrorism. Among other things, it includes any act intended to “destabilize or destroy the fundamental political, economic and social structures of the country.” The power lies with the anti-terrorism council to label any person inside or outside the Philippines a terrorist and arrest citizens at random.
The Act allows the Duterte regime to subject suspects to surveillance, warrant-less arrest and detention for up to 24 days. The Human Security Act of 2007 used to have a safeguard against wrongful detention in order to maintain accountability among the state actors. It monetarily compensated anyone who was imprisoned but later proven to be innocent. This protection has now been completely removed.
In short, the new law allows the state to target, pursue, anyone who poses a threat to the autocratic regime and to unfettered capitalist exploitation. The implications are clear; as one human rights activist commented, “even the mildest government critics can be labelled terrorists.” It is expected that government officials will use this law to chill free speech by suppressing speeches, proclamations, banners, and writings.
A member of House of Representatives has remarked that the act would not include activists and that safeguards prevent abuse of the act. Nonetheless, judging by the history of draconian laws (including the War on Drugs), it would be reasonable to estimate that the law will be used to suppress any form of political dissent, not only ‘terrorism’. Even the vice-president has remarked that the act gives the state the power to call anyone a terrorist.
Nationwide, protesters had moved to the streets to raise their voice against the bill. Duterte’s government has used the restrictive laws of the pandemic as an excuse to deploy armed police in the areas of protests. Opposition activists are disappearing. They are being thrown in jail. The violent crackdowns on resistance have already begun to escalate. Laws like this leave resistance movements with little choice but to become more clandestine.
Salonika is an organizer at DGR South Asia based in Nepal. She believes that the needs of the natural world should trump the needs of the industrial civilization.
Max Wilbert is an organizer, writer, and wilderness guide who grew up in Seattle’s post-WTO anti-globalization and undoing racism movement. He is a longtime member of Deep Green Resistance. Max is the author of two books: the forthcoming Bright Green Lies, and We Choose to Speak, a collection of essays released in 2018.
This story is dated from 2014, but still provides a critical insight into the operations of federal intelligence agencies to discredit and disrupt social movements. We recommend activists and revolutionaries carefully study this information.
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.
Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on fourclassifiedGCHQdocuments presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”
By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.
The modern surveillance state is unparalleled. Many people are legitimately afraid of state repression.
But this fear can easily become paranoia and paralysis. As a result, some people will not get involved in radical organizing at all. Others will stay involved, but their paranoia will drive people away. The result? Our movements die.
How do we combat this? By creating a “security culture” in our groups.
What is Security Culture?
Security culture is a set of practices and attitudes designed to increase the safety of political communities. These guidelines are created based on recent and historic state repression, and help to reduce paranoia and increase effectiveness.
An Introduction to Security for Activists, Organizers, and Revolutionaries
Here at Deep Green Resistance, we are an “aboveground” organization with a firewall between us and underground action. That means that our primary work is legal (although this varies depending on jurisdiction). Our members also take part in non-violent direct action of the sort common among aboveground movements. This is in contrast with “underground” organizations that conduct clandestine, highly illegal activities. We advocate for this, as we think coordinated underground action is the best chance for saving the planet.
We do not plan or carry out underground actions. We do not even know about these activities, except when public communiques (see our underground action calendar for examples) are made. Our role is to be the public organization advocating for and explaining these actions. We call this separation thefirewall between aboveground and underground activities. Maintaining a firewall is essential for security and effectiveness.
Assata Shakur was a member of the Black Panther Party (an aboveground organization) and the Black Liberation Army (an underground organization). She was active in the early 1970s and was eventually arrested. She escaped prison in 1979 and went on the run, eventually reaching Cuba. In 1987 she published the excellent book Assata: An Autobiography, which contains the following quote on the importance of a firewall.
“One of the [Black Panther] party’s major weaknesses was the failure to clearly differentiate between aboveground political struggle and underground, clandestine military struggle. An aboveground political organization can’t wage guerilla war anymore than an underground army can do aboveground political work. Although the two must work together, the must have completely different structures.”
More information on the importance of a firewall and security culture can be found in the Deep Green Resistance book, available here.
Rules of Security Culture
Note: The following rules were created based on the legal and political situation in the United States.
Don’t Talk About…
Your involvement or someone else’s involvement with an underground group.
Your or someone else’s desire to get involved with such a group.
Your or someone else’s participation in illegal action.
Someone else’s advocacy for such actions.
Your or someone else’s plans for a future illegal action.
Don’t ask others if they are a member of an underground group.
Don’t talk about illegal actions in terms of specific times, people, places, etc.
Nonviolent civil disobedience is illegal, but can sometimes be discussed openly. In general, the specifics of nonviolent civil disobedience should be discussed only with people who will be involved in the action or those doing support work for them.
It’s still acceptable (even encouraged) to speak out generally in support of monkeywrenching and all forms of resistance as long as you don’t mention specific places, people, times, etc., but only if this is legal in your own jurisdiction. Even if voicing support for monkeywrenching is legal in your area, be aware of possible repression or consequences so you can make an informed decision about what level of risk you would be comfortable with.
Never talk to police officers, FBI agents, etc.
It doesn’t matter whether you are guilty or innocent. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. Never talk to police officers, FBI agents, Homeland Security, etc. It doesn’t matter if you believe you are telling police officers what they already know. It doesn’t matter if you just chit chat with police officers. Any talking to police officers, FBI agents, etc. will almost certainly harm you or others.
If you talk to a police officer, you give him or her the opportunity to testify against you based on what you said or what they say you said.
Simply and politely say you wish to remain silent. Ask if you are being detained or are under arrest. If you are not, then walk away. If you are arrested or detained, repeat to everyone who asks you that you wish to remain silent and that you wish to speak to a lawyer. Say nothing else but your name, address, and birth date.
Most convictions, whether people are guilty or not, come from people talking, not from investigative work.
Don’t snitch. A snitch is someone who provides information to the police or feds in order to obtain lenient treatment for themselves. Often, snitches provide information over an extended period of time to the police. Sometimes this occurs after they are arrested and asked to become informants. In return, they may receive money or have their own illegal behavior ignored by the police. Learn more about one prominent snitch.
Never allow a police officer, FBI agent, etc. into your home if they don’t have a search warrant
If you invite a police officer into your home, they have consent to search your home.
If they come to your house to ask questions, do not let them in. From inside your door, or from outside with your door shut behind you, politely say “I wish to remain silent.” Ask them if you are under arrest or if they have a search warrant. If they say no, go back inside your house and close your door politely. If they come in anyway, don’t resist arrest. Say “I do not consent to a search.” Take note of who they are and what they do.
Be Smart
Learn the laws in your country/state/jurisdiction: learn what you can and can’t say; learn what acts are legal and illegal; learn what previous activists have been tried for and what is permitted legally.
Find out the details of activist and protest lawyers/legal advocates in your area: if you go on an action, make sure you write their telephone number on your body in a permanent marker.
Link in with experienced activists: they will have a wealth of experience and knowledge about the landscape of activism where you are, and can teach you what are the local logistics and strategies for staying safe.
Myths of Security Culture
Myth # 1
“Hiding my identity aboveground makes me safe.”
“If I read the DGR website I will be on a government list.”
“I don’t want my name on a registration list for a DGR workshop so they won’t know who I am.”
Any action involves risk. Nothing can guarantee safety. Any effective aboveground action can lead to repression. Security culture makes us more effective.
Aboveground movements protect themselves almost exclusively through numbers and public solidarity.
There is no way to effectively do aboveground work and keep your identity hidden. Nor is it beneficial or necessary to hide your identity to do aboveground work (in most cases).
Aboveground movements can only build numbers and public solidarity by being public, open, and expressing support of the movement in order to attract others.
Operate on the assumption that all internet and phone communication is monitored. However, since aboveground movements have nothing to hide, except occasional nonviolent civil disobedience, we must use the internet and phones to communicate in order to be able to organize effectively.
One of the main roles of the aboveground is to be the public face of the movement. We stand publicly and say “I support this strategy and I advocate for DGR,” for example. This important work cannot be done if we are constantly trying to hide our identities.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to keep a low profile, but hiding your identity completely while engaging with any movement is practically impossible. If you have reason to not want attention from the government (for example, if you are not a citizen), then the best way to be as safe as possible is to not engage with any movement.
Myth # 2
“We have to identify the federal agent, police officer, or infiltrator, etc. in the group”
It’s not safe nor a good idea to generally speculate or accuse people of being infiltrators. This is a typical tactic that infiltrators use to shut movements down.
Paranoia can cause destructive behavior.
Making false/uncertain accusations is dangerous: this is called “bad-jacketing” or “snitch-jacketing.”
Myth # 3
“Police officers have to identify themselves. Police officers can’t lie to you.”
Undercover infiltrators could not do their job if they had to identify themselves.
Police officers are legally allowed to lie to people – and do so routinely – to encourage compliance, both on the street and especially in interrogation. Police officers and other agents also present false evidence, including pictures, video, and audio to trick people into talking about other people.
Government agents of all kinds can threaten you, your family, and your friends. The best defense is to not talk, not believe them, not cooperate, and ask others for help.
Myth # 4
“Security Culture guarantees my safety.”
Security Culture makes you safer, but any effective action can lead to repression.
Nothing can guarantee safety, but Security Culture makes us more effective.
Strict separation between the aboveground and any underground that exists or may come to exist helps protect people.
Security Culture Breaches
Behavior, not people, is the problem
There are many behaviors that can disrupt groups or make them unsafe. Whether someone is a cop or not does not matter. Focus on addressing the behaviors.
Some of the behaviors to watch out for are sexism, abusive behavior, gossip, and creating conflict between individuals or groups.
What to do if there are breaches of Security Culture
Educate (tactfully and privately) and point people who breach Security Culture to further resources.
Don’t let violations pass or become habit.
Chronic violators have the same detrimental effect as infiltrators. It is important and necessary to set boundaries. If a member consistently violates Security Culture, even after being corrected, they should be removed from the group for the safety of everyone.
Q: Do you have lawyers willing to help us/advise us as we act?
A: We are currently building legal support for this purpose. We need volunteers for this and other tasks.
Q: What should I say if someone says: “I want to form an underground, join an underground, start a safehouse, etc.”
A: Say: “We are an aboveground organization. We do not want to be involved in underground work to maximize everyone’s safety and effectiveness. We do not answer anyone’s questions about personal desire to be in or form an underground.”
Q: What should I do if someone breaks security culture?
A: In case of minor issues, use education. Speak up right away, or pull the individual aside afterwards. More major issues or repeated violations may require you to end a relationship or remove a problematic individual from a group.
Q: Are you involved in “the underground”?
A: No. For the safety and effectiveness of all parties, DGR is an aboveground organization. We recommend you do not say “the underground.” This could imply you are in contact with an already existent underground organization. Instead, use, “an underground (which may or may not exist)” or a similar phrase.
Often, ALPRs are associated with England, the birthplace of the technology, and the United States, where it has metastasized. But Avigilon already has its sights set on new markets and has programmed its technology to identify license plates across six continents.
