The American Society for Industrial Security has a Code for Professional Responsibility that applies to anyone seeking to be credentialed as a Certified Protection Professional (CPP). On their website, it says:
"ASIS board certified security professionals and applicants for certification must adhere to the Code of Professional Responsibility, agreeing to:
–Perform professional duties in accordance with the law and the highest moral principles. --Noncompliance includes any acts or omissions amounting to unprofessional conduct and deemed prejudicial to the certification.
–Observe the precepts of truthfulness, honesty, and integrity.
–Be faithful, competent, and diligent in discharging their professional duties.
–Safeguard confidential and privileged information and exercise due care to prevent its improper disclosure.
–Not maliciously injure the professional reputation or practice of colleagues, clients, or employees."
The last item of the code is particularly noteworthy: “Not maliciously injure the professional reputation or practice of colleagues, clients, or employees.”
Something similar should apply to military personnel who train others in the craft of counterintelligence. To abuse the trust that the US government has placed in them should have consequences.
If they were to report through a chain of command, here are some questions that an investigator might ask an identified participant in this target and track scheme (whose objective would appear to be to deter a target’s continued presence within the facility):
Have you been asked to support an activist cause in the workplace?
Have you been contacted by anyone outside of the workplace to target a specific individual?
Has anyone in the building been accused of discrimination against another person?
Have you been asked to join a network of like-minded colleagues to target and defame an individual as being homophobic, trans-phobic, misogynistic, racist, or holding politically incorrect views?
Have you ever been asked to use the surveillance cameras to monitor someone’s location inside or outside of the building and to send out a text message to alert network participants?
Have you ever been asked to just walk by anyone as they approached a particular area inside or outside of the building?
Have you ever been asked to linger in the parking lot and then get out of your car once a targeted person gets out of their car (mirror effect)?
Have you ever been asked to stand and wait inside the main lobby of the building and wait for someone to come through the door from outside and just stand there until they have walked by and then walk away immediately after they pass by?
Have you ever been asked to follow someone into the bathroom about one minute after that person has entered?
Have you ever been asked to time your appearance with someone who enters or exits a hallway door?
Have you been instructed in how to deny any involvement in case you are directly confronted by the target?
Have you been instructed to deny the accusation and then call the person making the accusation paranoid and insulting for asking such a question?
This statement pretty much sums up what is going on. The fact that they only resort to psychological measures would indicate a deliberate attempt to conceal their true intentions and motivations under the guise of plausible deniability. Their true intentions being to target those with differing beliefs or those who simply they do not like. It sounds like to me a group of people who hold strong ideological beliefs combined with fragile egos and lots of insecurity.
I will ask, though. If they are held to secrecy, what gave you the thought that they are engaging in these acts because of a “CI operation” where they are trying to detect “intruders”? Have you already confronted some of them and that’s what they said or did you hear that through the grapevine? Because if you have that admission in writing, you could escalate it by saying a “CI operation” is being conducted that’s creating a hostile work environment. See where the chips fall after that and adjust accordingly. The trick being, as mentioned somewhere in this thread, is escalating to the right people.
There is an “alliance” profile that is evident. They are trying to disguise workplace activism and protest as a “CI operation.”
This may have been fun and games within the bubble of the pandemic, but this pattern of behavior has consequences. An investigation is needed to review and determine how much of an insider threat may actually have been created by this brazen and irresponsible frat house behavior.
The game these people play is what we could call “eye tag,” where the objective is to score points by forcing the target to see the passive aggressor run a move by them. And that move is one in which they intercept the target by walking in front of them (the target) or somewhere near where they (the intended target) can see the person taking the offensive action. The idea of “eye tag” is to let the target know that they are being actively watched and with this knowledge comes a perverted sense of satisfaction by projecting an ambiguous sense of intimidation.
What these people are actually doing in essence is sabotaging the workplace. It’s cancel culture that is connected to ostracism. They want to ostracize anyone who they feel goes against their group interests. To them, though, it’s a game. And they don’t care because it seems to be a game of retaliation against an opposing force (OPFOR) on behalf of all those who have ever been chased out of the military, as in the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” These people have an agenda that they think is clever and plausibly deniable. They have been practicing against easy targets to perfect their newly discovered system of non violent harassment (CI + PSYOP). This is a tribe that wants to control people using elements of PSYOP to intimidate and manipulate psychologically. It sounds a lot like the PSYOP Army specialists who worked as interns at CNN and NPR in 2000. The revelation caused a major stir at both organizations when they realized what had happened. See story here:
There are seven assumptions upon which counterintelligence rests. Further to these assumptions are two forms of counterintelligence: defensive and offensive. A key aspect of offensive CI is deception. Aspects of defensive CI include deterrence and retaliation. The people in question are engaging in a combination of both defensive and offensive CI and they are doing it on US soil on a US military installation against US personnel.
There is a real strategy at work here. The more you call these people out for their bad behavior, the more they double down on said bad behavior. These people have created an apparatus through encrypted text messaging networks like WhatsApp. There is a level of dedication that belies their zealotry. Do you see a pattern here? Patriots or fanatics in the SCIF?
Not paranoid. It comes down to behavior by a group of social justice warriors who have decided that it’s “missionable” to bully and retaliate against someone who they deem as an outsider. Us vs. Them. Gaslighting is a favorite tactic to deny that they would ever do such a thing. “Who me? No, why would I want to follow you to the bathroom when you come out of your office? No, that’s ridiculous. How insulting to suggest that I’m waiting around, even though I have nothing better to do with my time while the pandemic is raging. You sound really paranoid. How could you ask me such a question? Can you hear what you sound like? Wow, you might want to see someone about that. How delusional,” And that’s how we gaslight. Mic drop.
If you elevated this several times…if it has been investigated several times…HR…security office…IG…and every entity denies it is substantiated…it is possible everyone is involved. If its happening…easy to document.
Then again…maybe not. Just because you think everyone is out to get you…doesnt mean they aren’t.
It’s not about being “out to get someone.” It’s about harassing someone. No one is vandalizing or stealing anything other than the dignity that they take from someone who has been targeted for harassment. One thing is for sure. We now have more sympathy for how a victim of sexual assault feels when the victim is blamed for the offense. “You did it to yourself. Your skirt was too short. Your pants were too tight. You wore perfume that was way too sexy. You asked for it. There’s no one to blame but yourself. Prove it.” So much lip service to harassment. April is Sexual Assault Awareness Prevention (SAAPM) month. And there’s Sexual Harassment Assault Response Prevention (SHARP) that pays tons of lip service to prevention. So is sexual harassment the only kind of harassment that counts?
The military has a history of harassment and they just keep getting more creative about it. It’s a mindset that is hard to break. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand wanted to have cases of sexual assault removed from the chain of command because the chain has a tendency to protect their own, especially against the “other.” “We’ll “investigate” and get back to you.” So transparent. What happens in the SCIF, stays in the SCIF.
Could someone call Beetlejuice? We need a real intervention.
You talk about getting mental health help. You might be on to something. Fact is, there has been a trend over the years of bullying and harassment in the workplace.
And then there is something known as MOBBING. Here’s a book called: “Mobbing: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions,” by Maureen Duffy and Len Sperry
"This book is about mobbing—a form of interpersonal abuse that occurs in all of the major institutions and organizations of human life—school, work, religious organizations, the legal system, and in communities where people live, such as condominium and homeowners’ associations. Mobbing casts its victims in a negative light to either force them out of the organization or to render them as suspect and unworthy while remaining within the organization. Mobbing is not the same as bullying, in that it involves the interaction of individual, group, and organizational dynamics. The book provides a cogent analysis, drawing from research beginning in the 1970s, of what mobbing is, its destructive consequences, and strategies for individual and organizational recovery and prevention.
You’re not being stalked or followed. You’re being MOBBED. And the people who engage in this unethical behavior should not be allowed to have a security clearance. They are a true insider threat.
Hi all, so I don’t want to be alarmist here. But I would be very wary about replying to Klaxon765. There are certain tell tale signs that immediately jump out at me that signal that this person and their question, is not only not earnest; but reeks of a foreign intelligence person lurking on a forum to extract information from people close to the intelligence community. His/her use of “social justice warrior” verbiage is one of the tip offs. He is using it out of context completely, quite like how Russian disinformation bots do online. I see it all the time. As many of us know, there aren’t many SJW within the IC and they certainly wouldn’t be employing these mind games. Secondly this person slips up in this sentence "The game these people play is what we could call “eye tag,” " …Hmmmm “we”??? we call this eye tag?? I predict this person will delete this in response to my post. My advice to all of you is to be on the alert for posts like this and limit your “advice” I think you are all being played.