In contemporary U.S. history, a profound disillusionment with top-down political solutions has taken root. Millions of Americans are now actively seeking a different path. They are turning to grassroots organizing as a powerful form of resistance. This bottom-up approach aims to address pressing issues. These include protecting immigrants, challenging federal incursions into cities, and advocating for civil rights and policy changes.
However, this surge in activism faces a formidable adversary. The federal government wields vast surveillance powers. Silicon Valley companies often cooperate, holding immense amounts of American data. This creates a challenging dilemma for organizers. How can they mobilize diverse groups without exposing participants to monitoring? Agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are particularly concerning. These agencies possess significant funding and a history of controversial actions.
Organizing safely in this environment demands more than just technical expertise. It requires a delicate balance. Secrecy must be weighed against the inherent need for openness. Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), highlights this tension. She notes the need to limit access to sensitive information. Organizers must also carefully consider their chosen platforms. This ensures minimal data is handed over if law enforcement issues subpoenas. Yet, the very power of organizing lies in numbers and solidarity. This often necessitates public engagement.
There is no simple, universal guide to secure organizing. However, experts offer valuable approaches, guidelines, and tools. WIRED consulted technologists, activists, aid groups, and cybersecurity specialists. Their collective insights provide a roadmap for navigating this complex landscape. The core challenge is building movements without compromising safety.
The Surveillance State and Grassroots Resistance 🕵️
The modern surveillance state presents a significant hurdle for grassroots movements. Federal agencies possess advanced capabilities to monitor communications and activities. This includes digital footprints left on various platforms. The cooperation of tech giants further amplifies this challenge. Companies like Google and Facebook hold vast troves of personal data. This data can become accessible to authorities through legal means, such as subpoenas.
This situation creates a risky dilemma for activists. How do you foster mass participation while safeguarding individual privacy? The stakes are particularly high when dealing with agencies like ICE and CBP. These entities have been described as having “paramilitary ambitions.” They also receive funding comparable to some national militaries. Their broad mandates and operational tactics raise significant civil liberties concerns. Protecting vulnerable populations, especially immigrants, becomes paramount.
The dilemma extends beyond technical security. It impacts the very nature of movement building. Fear of surveillance can deter potential participants. It can also stifle open communication within groups. This makes it harder to build trust and cohesion. Organizers must consider the psychological impact of constant monitoring. They must also develop strategies to mitigate these fears. This is crucial for maintaining momentum and expanding reach. The goal is to empower people, not to expose them to undue risk.
Mastering Threat Modeling for Secure Activism 🛡️
The first critical step in surveillance-resistant organizing is threat modeling. This involves proactively identifying potential adversaries. Organizers must assess what information these adversaries might seek. They then determine what absolutely needs protection. This process requires clear distinctions. Some information can be public. Other conversations must remain private. A blended approach is almost always necessary.
Matt Mitchell, CEO of Safety Sync Group, warns against excessive security measures. He notes that encrypting “every single thing” creates barriers. It makes mistakes more likely. Over-complication can alienate new members. It can also hinder efficient collaboration. The key is to be strategic, not exhaustive. Focus resources on truly sensitive data. This allows for more accessible methods for general communication.
Galperin suggests thinking about what information will become public organically. For example, a small planning meeting needs initial secrecy. However, organizing a large public rally is different. Details like time and place will eventually be public. Permits are often required from city officials. In such cases, intense secrecy around basic logistics is less critical. This pragmatic approach helps prioritize security efforts.
Too much secrecy can inadvertently harm a movement. It can make new members feel unwelcome. It can also be self-defeating for advocacy. Galperin emphasizes that much activism is about sharing information. It involves “casseroles and phone trees.” This work is often “deeply unsexy” but inherently public. It is about community building and outreach. These activities thrive on transparency and accessibility.
Balancing Openness and Opacity in Digital Organizing ⚖️
The tension between openness and security is a constant challenge. Organizations must decide where to draw the line. Taylor Fairbank, cofounder of Distribute Aid, offers a practical perspective. His group connects supplies with communities in need. Much of this work requires open communication. It often uses platforms that could be surveilled. Fairbank explains his personal need to remain accessible. He uses platforms like Facebook to connect with donors. These platforms facilitate crucial logistical coordination. They help bridge geographical boundaries for aid distribution.
This highlights a critical point: accessibility often trumps perfect security for certain functions. For broad public outreach, organizers need to meet people where they are. This often means using popular social media platforms. The trade-off is recognized. However, the reach and ease of communication are invaluable. The goal is to maximize impact while minimizing unnecessary risk. This requires careful judgment about what information truly needs protection.
The power of organizing is rooted in numbers and solidarity. This necessitates a degree of public engagement. Activists must inform, persuade, and mobilize. These actions are inherently public. They involve sharing messages widely. They require visible demonstrations of support. While some internal communications require strong security, external messaging benefits from openness. This balance is dynamic. It requires constant re-evaluation based on specific goals and threats.
Ultimately, the choice of tools and platforms is strategic. Organizers must understand their vulnerabilities. They must also leverage the power of collective action. This means using secure channels for sensitive discussions. It also means utilizing widely accessible tools for public outreach. The future of grassroots organizing depends on navigating this complex digital terrain with wisdom and adaptability, especially as we enter a future of public safety increasingly dominated by autonomous surveillance.
Key Insights for Resilient Organizing ✨
- Strategic Threat Modeling is Essential: Proactively identify adversaries and prioritize what information needs protection. This prevents over-securing trivial data and under-securing critical information.
- Balance Security with Accessibility: While digital security is vital, excessive secrecy can hinder recruitment and broader outreach. Find the right mix of secure and public platforms for different activities.
- Understand Platform Vulnerabilities: Be aware of how different platforms handle data and their potential for cooperation with authorities. Make informed choices about where sensitive conversations occur.
- Embrace Public Solidarity: Recognize that the strength of grassroots movements lies in numbers and visible collective action. Many organizing tasks inherently require openness and broad communication.
