Corporate-sponsored spying on green groups
Mother Jones has published an investigation of Beckett Brown International (later called S2i), a private security firm that the report claims was paid by corporate client to spy on Greenpeace, the Center for Food Safety, and other environmental concerns. Run by former spooks, the company allegedly employed police to help dig through garbage seeking intelligence on groups that may have included the National Environmental Trust, the Center for Food Safety, the Environmental Media Services, and others. Beckett Brown International dissolved in 2001. From Mother Jones:
According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit collected confidential internal records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies.Link
In addition to focusing on environmentalists, the firm, Beckett Brown International (later called S2i), provided a range of services to a host of clients. According to its billing records, BBI engaged in "intelligence collection" for Allied Waste; it conducted background checks and performed due diligence for the Carlyle Group, the Washington-based investment firm; it provided "protective services" for the National Rifle Association; it handled "crisis management" for the Gallo wine company and for Pirelli; it made sure that the Louis Dreyfus Group, the commodities firm, was not being bugged; it engaged in "information collection" for Wal-Mart; it conducted background checks for Patricia Duff, a Democratic Party fundraiser then involved in a divorce with billionaire Ronald Perelman; and for Mary Kay, BBI mounted "surveillance," and vetted Gayle Gaston, a top executive at the cosmetics company (and mother of actress Robin Wright Penn), retaining an expert to conduct a psychological assessment of her. Also listed as clients in BBI records: Halliburton and Monsanto.
the latest
latest episodes
When will the left realize they are at war and adjust accordingly?
So the spies are being spied upon.
You sort of assume these things in activism. There are all kinds of horror stories floating around about the us environmental scene, the most famous of which being about a mole who went so deep undercover as to marry an activist and have kids, only to have his partner arrested soon after. If someone walks into an activist meeting with lots of enthusiasm and starts talking about doing an action, you have to assume that person is a cop. Its all oral history, but I sort of believe it, up to a point.
It isn't game over, but I suspect this front is closed.
here's a really good article. It will take five,precious, irreplaceable, sacred minutes of your life to read. Why bother?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703
Hmmm... spies is so accusatory. What I meant is the watchdogs are being watched.
Wilkommen Staatsicherheit 2.0!
Ugh. Who cares? Spy back.
As for going so deep that you marry someone and have kids with them, that's a horrifying and shocking thing to do. But plain-old-cat-and-mouse infiltration...I have a hard time getting upset about that. Information is costly; if you can get it without breaking the law or doing something shockingly bad, go for it. My only big qualification is the government, who ought not be poking around like that. And even then, it all depends. If it's the FBI infiltrating Greenpeace, I think that's scary and bad; if it's the FBI infiltrating a group that meant real harm, I'd be scared if they didn't do it.
#7
On one level they are after ALF/ELF style actions, but it has come to the point where many of these actions are done by agent provocateurs. Probably their reasoning is people in Greenpeace have links to the grassroots activists committing criminal damage or whatever. and if they happen to turn up any dirt in the process of investigating criminal damage, well that's one less dissenting voice to worry about.
But as you concede, information is costly and so is the exclusive domain of those who can afford it. I reckon the companies Beckett Brown works for commit far worse crimes as a matter of course than the hippies superglued to some motorway, only corporate privacy is de facto protected while if you jokingly mention a plan to throw a paint filled water balloon at a McDonald's you could well end up in the nick. You may as well ask why the FBI does not infiltrate corporations that have histories of breaking government regulations, which again, devastate society, and depending on your views of global warming science, may ultimately make the planet uninhabitable.
So you cannot posit it to be a battle between equals, because although environmentalists probably have truth and law on their side, corporations have money, which is much more important in society today. Really, truth is worthless in society; you sure cant sell it, anyway.
"...although environmentalists probably have truth and law on their side, corporations have money, which is much more important in society today."
You assume that because environmentalists aren't out to make money, they must be on the side of truth and justice and all that is right and good in the world, but people are driven by more than just money. In fact I'd say that faith is a far more powerful driving force than the almighty dollar.
Environmentalism isn't about truth. Well, sometimes... but mostly it's about appeals to emotion, hyperbole, the prioritization of aesthetics over true sustainability, and the condascending belief that the movement knows what's best for society.
Environmentalism has more in common with religion than with science, and it's my contention that people motivated by faith are often more dangerous, and always less rational, than those motivated by greed.
To bring it back to the issue at hand: If a large corporation wants to avoid being caught with their pants down by the next smear campaign, I'm all for it. Similarly, ENGOs should go on using leaked information to raise awareness of real issues.
@Takuan:
what a great article, thanks. i looked up SAIC on wikipedia, too. i love how almost every aspect of the company seems designed to look as innocuous as possible, from the office-park style HQ to the dorky logo.
@9: You assume that because rational-than-thou skeptics aren't out to make money, they must be on the side of truth and justice and all that is right and good in the world, but people are driven by more than just money. In fact I'd say that the need to justify one's own laziness by smugly criticizing the efforts of others is a far more powerful driving force than the almighty dollar.
Knee-jerk skepticism isn't about truth. Well, sometimes... but mostly it's about appeals to ego, cynicism, the prioritization of smart-ass criticisms over constructive advice, and the condescending belief that nobody else is rational enough to have any clue what's best for society.
This is fun, I could go on all night ;)
Sometimes I wish we could all move off this rock and buy up the whole planet as a heritage land trust. But I have the feeling that some wouldn't even find that acceptable.
Thank you for reading that, Minamisan. Be careful and respectful with that name. It is a great and noble one.