Accept that you aren't going to always outsmart infiltrators and guard your information silos accordingly. Have processes for auditing threats, removing members. Avoid creating large group chats or exposing names/ contacts without consent. Keep working groups small, and don’t include people who aren’t actively participating. Use encryption, use pseudonyms. Use the basic tools available (Signal, GrapheneOS, Tails, Tor, etc). Don’t retain things like chat history or files you don't need. Give people basic training on social engineering techniques, cyber security (or honestly just how to use a computer 101), operational security, and how to recruit.
Ultimately, retain a good legal defense. You probably aren't doing anything illegal anyway, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a good lawyer and a plan… legal ground is shifting, and you will never have more resources than a motivated agency task force. Get a dash camera, and non-evil doorbell camera. Have a group of friends who will check in on you regularly. If you are discussing illegal shit, don’t do it around people or devices you don’t completely trust. Retain plausible deniability.
Makes sense. Terrorist people acting against a normal government would need the same precautions as normal people acting against a terrorist government.
"If you are discussing illegal shit, don’t do it around people or devices you don’t completely trust. Retain plausible deniability."
Or is it legal to discuss "illegal shit"? Maybe with a lawyer? Maybe with a lawyer present? Maybe "illegal shit" is legal jargon I'm unfamiliar with?
> "If you are discussing illegal shit, don’t do it around people or devices you don’t completely trust. Retain plausible deniability."
> Or is it legal to discuss "illegal shit"?
The answer to that question is extremely jurisdiction-dependent. That being said, in the US the statement you quote is almost certainly not illegal under current 1st Amendment jurisprudence. The main case of interest is Brandenberg v. Ohio [0], which held:
> Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
[0]: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
( probably a three letter agency plant )
Organized crime deals with this stuff constantly. Meet in person. Vet everyone. Being willing to keep lips tight and risk imprisonment.
Posting all over BlueSky is just snitching on yourself. It doesn’t matter if protesting is a cornerstone of our democracy when those in charge don’t care. As the water heats up, protestors will need to reassess how they view their own actions.
The primary downside is that operating like this sucks. It’s inconvenient at best. It requires modifying your own behavior.
There's also counter-protesters which will attempt to agitate (they might argue the protesters agitated them) and cause problems.
So, largely protesters cannot be disciplined because not everybody there is actually in agreement as to why they're there.
--
That said. It's a public roadway. The proper punishment for driving poorly is a police citation not a bullet.