[SUT.14.01.03] The struggle for transparency is only beginning:

The Movement will be the Proprieter of Information

To protect the movement: we have a responsibility to zealously protect the identities of other activists from exposure.

On Feb 8^th 2014, there was a published leak of ISO “internal bulletins” by one of their members. These unredacted bulletins are secret newsletters for ISO members only. While the leaks don’t appear to be putting anyone’s lives in real danger, the practice of making private information public, without carefully reviewing and redacting that information, could compromise the safety of political activists. The activist responsible for publishing the leaks, was admittedly lazy and careless in his role. Consequently, due to this lack of professionalism were the release of: first names and last initials of ISO members; and the hotels stayed in during their conference, as well as the dates stayed. These unnecessary disclosures should have been prevented with only a few hours of work.

Whistle-blowing carries with it the responsibility of protecting the identities of others, because if one cannot publicize information in a manner that is responsible and of service to the movement, then nobody will want to work with them. Political Exposure more often than not, better serves the movement when it is focused on both the correct and misguided politics of activists and not the specific individual activists themselves.

We have the responsibility protect the identities, addresses, credit card numbers etc. of the activists being exposed; from the police, landlords and bosses. This vetting may mean redacting a document, or selecting quotes from a document to emphasize what is most important, and omitting irrelevant information. Furthermore, just as the identities of those mentioned in leaked documents and recordings should be protected, so should the whistle blower’s. The purpose of publicity and exposure, is to push the movement forward politically and not to bog it down in witch hunts.

We can have both Security and Transparency

Some activists like Lois Proyect have taken a position that protecting identities is unnecessary. Their position is that there is not any danger now, nor will there ever be danger for political activists. But this is a terribly mistaken position. Presently, the main concern of most activists in the US may be bosses and landlords, who have a class interest to make our political work and lives very difficult. However, there may come a time when the primary concern as a movement will be state repression, and the history of mass struggle supports the case for this possibility.

The leaks of the Internal Bulletins have stirred an intense amount of debate in recent days between a false dichotomy of Security v. Transparency. Challenging activists who belittle the need for security like Lois Proyect, are political advocates who belittle the need for transparency. The proposed solution to this need for security is called security culture. But quite often, when activists talk about security culture: they are talking about the need to keep their incompetence, hypocrisy, and opportunism from seeing the light of day. There is another problem with making a fetish of security culture: activists will be left in the dark. With structured information restriction, they are often unable to learn what is happening in their own organization, let alone other organizations. These activists will not be exposed to the experiences and lessons learned of others, and cannot work to their fullest potential. Sometimes these experiences can be difficult to revisit, or the accuracy of events may come into question, but if these experiences are buried and censored then there will be little or no opportunity to study them or form a deep opinion.

Mike Ely, the godfather of the Kasama Project is perhaps the most well known of the security advocates. His recent piece, Leaking internal ISO docs: A question of revolutionary ethics, was republished internally by the ISO Steering Committee in their Internal bulletin #27 with praise. Ely is correct when he says that activists need to be able to communicate privately, and they need to agree to keep communication private at times. Although, in the case of the ISO, several activists did not see the need to keep all information private.

In the internal bulletins leaked, the ISO takes a position that all of its members should learn from its mistakes. For example, the lessons learned from mishandling of sexual misconduct in San Diego. Wouldn’t other organizations struggling with similar situations benefit from the ISO’s written experience? How can we expect to provide clarity on the correct positions to take; when we restrict this kind of useful information that would benefit the movement to a select few, and keep the majority of activists in the dark?

Information Wants to be Free

Although activists have the right to make agreements to communicate privately and keep some information secret; activists also have the ability and right to publicize what doesn’t need to be kept secret.

While Mike Ely would like to put the genie of information back into the bottle, this is proving to be impossible. When a group of activists come together for political activity, and form a political organization, growth is often an objective. As a political organization grows, structured information restriction becomes increasingly difficult. Human beings enjoy having access to information, and they enjoy sharing information. One reason for this is because it can make work easier, and they can become more productive. As the saying goes, two heads are better than one. If the case for restricting information is not accepted by a complete consensus–there will be little stopping someone from publicizing what is secret. Therefore, information restriction can be done voluntarily with a strong case for it, but there are no guarantees.

Even legal political work sometimes requires privacy. One of the reasons for this is because activists need to be able to communicate with each other without constant worry of scrutiny. They need a safe space to unleash their creative energies and thoughts without knee-jerk condemnation. There is a solution to this need by creating semi-public spaces for work not ready to be publicized. This would mean that information restriction would be voluntary, and the work would be published in an unpublicized public space. Consequently, the private work of activists would be left open for inspection and scrutiny—but it isn’t the end of the world if the work is mistaken. The bourgeoisie cannot allow the masses to see what goes on inside of their sausage factory or it will mean their destruction–but we must be confident enough to open our doors and windows!

While we sometimes need privacy, we also need transparency, because it will be the much needed, honest, critical information in the  public sunlight that draws in the masses to build a revolutionary movement of millions! [A] We will deliver the maximum amount of political honesty and transparency in our political work that the masses yearn for so that they can learn about our political unity and differences of opinion, our programme, policies, and principles. Only in this fashion, can they rest confident in our unconditional service and love for them.

Notes: continuity of newsletters edited for accuracy. [A] Addenda added 14.3.3.

Tags: Security, Transparency