portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

police / legal

Agent Provocateur Alert

Agent Provocateur with international reach. Has infiltrated various groups in Boston. If you go to the anti-DNC protests, do not allow this individual to photograph you.
Agent Provocateur 1
Agent Provocateur 1
See summary.
informer fi dead! 19.Jun.2004 06:24

Hot Steppa

all informer mus die

Don't get it 19.Jun.2004 09:59

why

should i trust this post? Because you call yourself "counter counter intel"? That sure convinces me, dude.

Seriously, these kinds of posts are extremely suspicious and could be very damaging. Show me some sources, not just some lame post.

Why? 19.Jun.2004 10:11

because

other photos and articles about this same clown have been posted at other IMCs, DC and elsewhere.

cautious 19.Jun.2004 10:55

concerned

Calling someone out as cop is always a very serious thing. That asside I have this cops picture before, on a site from colorado.

post proof if you have it 19.Jun.2004 14:47

please

if you have 'proof' from other websites, photos, personal experience, or ANY other source, you should post it here.

let people make up their own minds.

otherwise, it is just gossip or hearsay and, therefore, completely irrelevant.

thank you...

I remember that guy! 19.Jun.2004 15:21

!

Hey, I remember that guy's picture. There is this raving lunatic that has a website called KOBE. He also has the website "beachcities imc". It's a fake IMC rejected by the rest of the IMC community. Beneath that fake IMC, on a subdomain called "whiterosejournal," there was this website make fun of the real website "whiterosejournal." On that fake copy of the website, there was a picture of the guy shown in the poster above. The fake website was posting all kinds of forged shit, falsely using the names of real anarchists as the authors. I think the poster is for real.

Here's his State Department connection. 19.Jun.2004 15:33

Observer

His Dad works in the US Embassy in Nicaragua

 http://foia.state.gov/MMS/KOH/key_country_print.asp?ID=Nicaragua

Have you seen the defamation videos of anarchists? 19.Jun.2004 15:36

Hmmm

One was called, "Loser DeVoy"

He filmed it.

Ummm. 19.Jun.2004 16:51

a skeptical person

Several friends of mine have been kicked out of various activist groups, like Earth First!, becuase someone said they were infiltrators. Calling someone an inflitrator requires no proof, people will never forget it, and the alleged infiltrator has no way to disprove it. "Of course he wouldn't admit to being an infiltrator." people will say. "She just participates in illegal direct action so that people will trust her" or "All those reasons that he probably isn't an infiltrator just prove that he is a really good one.". Once you have been accused, there is really nothing you can do. So only call someone out for this unless you are really, REALLY sure. And the fact that his dad works at the US Embassy in Nicaragua is irrelevant, the majority of anarchists have parents that work in high-up positions.

What a crock. 19.Jun.2004 18:01

Binky

"the majority of anarchists have parents that work in high-up positions"

Bullshit.

The facts. 19.Jun.2004 18:12

Ignore if you wish.

This report is for real. It has been posted to protect you. Ignore it at your own peril.

Hee Hee 19.Jun.2004 22:34

A skeptical person

You haven't noticed that most anarchists come from upper or upper-middle-class backgrounds? Most anarchists don't like to talk about it, it's true, but you should really ask around. I know I am probably going to get a response indignantly claiming that whoever is responding comes from a poor family, and that is possible, but most anarchists aren't poor. I can't believe that anyone isn't aware that most anarchists are burgiouse white kids.

Bad-Jacketing 20.Jun.2004 00:10

Drew

You know, if you read a little history you might learn that one of the most effective ways to disrupt someone's political effectiveness can be a "Bad Jacket" applied to their reputation. Leave a police report filled out in their name, like they wrote it up on a real meeting that happened, and put that in their living space where a room mate finds it, etc. Post a notice that someone is a cop. You get the idea.

The Feebs did this to the Black Panthers all the time; even got some folks killed over bullshit arguments they stirred up.

It is VERY important to be absolutely clear why you think someone is an agent. Forget 'protecting sources and methods' - they know all of the possible leaks - and might exploit your trust in those leaks. Just post your evidence, raw, for all of us to digest in the open. Always open the possibility that you were led to a false conclusion by a deliberate leak.

In other words, you would not trust a scientific study which left out details of how they selected and anylized the evidence, so why should we assume you're for real without that same level of disclosure? Lots of folks who do not know this guy might soon end up at the other end of his lens. What should they do? Should they believe a rumor about him, or trust their own instincts?


One day you will realize that ANYONE can become an agent; it only takes a midnight arrest and a bit of torture. The key to smelling bacon is to be wary of the behavior, not so much the person. Just like safe sex - use a condom even if they "look OK."

ALWAYS watch whom you admit your actions (past, present, future) to, and ALWAYS wonder why someone is asking you to help them if what they ask is illegal.

If someone is making you look like a fool and pushing that image around, by all means turn the tables. But be willing to be called on your 'evidence' if all you have are accusations.

Modesty becomes one 20.Jun.2004 01:35

.

You guys who lie about the size of your dicks should be especially careful.

"ALWAYS watch whom you admit your actions (past, present, future) to, and ALWAYS wonder why someone is asking you to help them if what they ask is illegal."

Bad Jacketing exists, this is not a case of that. 20.Jun.2004 05:10

FooBarBaz

Let us assume that we should never out someone when we have direct evidence that said person is a government agent. What price do we pay by remaining silent just to make sure that no one thinks we may be "bad jacketing" someone. I have this to ask you, how many photos of people that show up at protests are publishes by "Cop Watch" based only on how the attendees look? This is not a case of that. This is a case of informed knowledge that the individual above joined a group specifically to collect video footage and turn it over to a government operation actively smearing the same activists. Additionally, disinformation planted with him was turned over to the government operation. This is not a case of speculation.

It would be irresponsible to know that someone is actively infiltrating dissident groups for the purpose of spying on them and inducing them to commit illegal acts and not inform other dissidents of the danger.

This is a tough world. The guy pictured in the announcement will not be able to hide behind the expectation of being protected by his victims.

One more thing about the above thread. 20.Jun.2004 05:51

FooBarBaz

The primary antagonist against publishing this information attempts to base his argument around a red herring. He argues that "most anarchists have parents in high up places." While I still dispute this, the claim is very interesting on the following grounds:

(a) Nowhere above was it stated, at any time, that he is anarchist. How was such a conclusion reached by the antagonist? We stated that his targets were anarchists and not that he was an anarchist. In fact, he stated many times that he is not an anarchist, but toying with the idea of becoming an anarchist. How did the antagonist conclude that he was an anarchist or that he was trying to appear to be an anarchist?

(b) The primary reason for concluding that he is an agent is that he actively videotaped and photographed other anarchists and handed those videos and photos over to a government sponsored group (with connections to the military) that then doctored them, produced defamatory videos and images and then published them. He actively attempted to set up people by asking them to hold special green paper, blank, claiming that an antiwar video would be imposed. Those images were doctored to induce arrests.

(c) He actively encouraged people to publically engage in displays that would DEFINTELY provoke arrest by the Secret Service. He invited others to participate while it was being photographed. No one was stupid enough to take him up on it. He then stated that he might be arrested for what he is doing but that it would be worth it.

(d) We can connect him to another individual working for the police and communicating with the police while pretending to be an activist.

(e) Information given only to him was acted upon the FBI.

(f) We can connect him to two other children of former state department workers who are now adults and engaged in cyber warfare against anarchists and muslims.

(g) He came well prepared with background information on his targets and posed to have "incredibly similar" interests with them. The parallels are beyond reason and probability.

(h) The mocking website he put up featured his own picture. The actual website that he mocked was monitored (according to the logs), by the CIA and by his work IP address on a daily basis.

As far as we're concerned, the question is not whether he is an agent (that is certain), but why it is that he is working at Harvard University.

Accountability 20.Jun.2004 10:00

Lucy Parsons

Thank you, FooBarBaz, for posting the content that should have come in the original post with the picture. Unfortunately, it's not quite enough to verify the credibility of the "agent" charge.

Folks who call out cops should do so cautiously, and should publish all the reasons that they have for arriving at such a verdict. They should also use their own real name (i.e., the one your friends call you, not your indymedia name) and city to provide some accountability. Does that make you shudder? It should: calling someone a cop is serious, and requires as much accountability as possible. Does that raise the stakes on calling someone a cop? You bet.

There is, as always, a fantastic solution to putting yourself, as an individual, in a vulnerable spot: Organize. If someone's really a cop, at least one credible organization can call them out on it, don't you think? So, if you want to publish photos of an alleged agent, get an organization you're part of to back you up and take some of the responsibility for it. That way we all have a way to dispute or verify claims about "agents."

(P.S. Asserting that other websites have also published information doesn't make it true!)

so... like the feds.... 20.Jun.2004 11:05

fido

should we make an 'example' of this kid?

anybody that asks me to hold up bluescreen or green will lose their camera.

Camera Security 21.Jun.2004 10:09

Videoista

Rest assured that just about anything you do at a demonstration is gonna be on film. We have em, the cops have em, the informers have em. Act with that knowledge in mind.

Any time you are engaged in an act that should not be filmed, consider that perhaps it shouldn't be done at a public demonstration. If you're willing to do it then and there anyway (and that's cool, so long as you are aware of the stakes), you can protect yourself some by being masked head to toe.

Always watch people you don't know who are taking head shots of people. They're likely to be cops or informers. Ask em straight out. A filmmaker will focus on action, a cop will often focus on people's faces or other identifying characteristics. Don't trust "press passes" either. Anyone can make one. (And if it's a corporate pass, then they're definitely not on your side, whether it's for real or not.)

In the pdx indy video collective, we try always to consider the security of those whom we are filming. But not everyone does...it's up to you to protect yourself. If you ask one of us to stop filming, we will. But again, not everyone will, and there are probably other cameras nearby that you don't see.

If you're filming activists, keep their safety in mind. Shoot compromising actions from behind, from far away, from an angle that doesn't show their faces, or not at all. If you have footage of something hot, get it out of the area immediately. That goes for actions and also for police misconduct. The police probably know you have it, and will look for an excuse to hold you and confiscate your camera.

We walk a fine line between protecting security and giving voice. Sometimes, protecting someone's security can seem like we are silencing or ignoring their actions. (As when, after day x, some people were upset that the bridge scene was not in the video. It was a heroic act that should have been shown, but we did not have the footage at the time, and by the time people began expressing that they might have footage of it, a) the video was already out, and b) the situation was too hot -- we did not wanna see it, possess it, or show it.) So it's a judgement call. Some people want their actions to be seen, others do not. If you do not, it's cool to let us know and we will stop filming. Anyone should have that respect and if they do not, their motives are suspect.