OPSEC Part 1: Why Should You Care?

Why you should actually stay off the radar of people who hate you

Operational security, or OPSEC, is a pretty misunderstood term. That misunderstanding, which spans both what it is and what it’s for, means that a lot of people don’t know how to apply it—or worse, they think it’s unnecessary.

In future issues, we’ll be talking about how to “do OPSEC” properly. Today we’ll be talking about why you need to understand it, even if the concept of “operating” isn’t something you consider yourself doing.

We’re going to take this down to 101-level, and even if you think you’re pretty well-versed in it, I encourage you to read on. You might just be surprised.

What is OPSEC?

You can find all sorts of OPSEC definitions on the web, and while they all mean generally the same thing, most of them came from some death-by-Powerpoint presentation, which means they use way too many words and generally confuse people while putting them to sleep.

OPSEC is a pretty simple concept. At its core, it’s a process to make sure that you aren’t giving people who want to do you harm, the ammunition to do it. That’s true whether you’re a company trying to protect your new proprietary concept, a military unit trying to protect its movements, or Jane Public trying to evade a stalker ex. For the purposes of political activism, preparedness, and other such pursuits, OPSEC is crucial, and while each type of entity might alter the process slightly to fit their own needs, the basics remain the same.

Plot Twist: You’re already using it!

Even if you’re not military, don’t have a company, and managed to avoid ever having a stalker ex, you’re already using a bit of OPSEC in your life and don’t even know it.

If you’ve ever shielded the keypad to hide your debit card PIN from prying eyes, you’ve used a form of OPSEC. If you’ve ever put a fake email in an online form to protect your inbox from getting spammed, you’ve used it. If you’ve ever chosen to meet someone in a public place so they don’t know where you live, that’s a kind of OPSEC too. We all use it already in several forms, because we all have information about ourselves that we don’t want others to use to harm us.

At this point, you might be asking, “Well, if I’m already using it then obviously I understand it.” Not so fast—now let’s talk about the places you’re not using it and should be.

The threat has evolved.

You might be used to being pretty open about what you think, who you are, and what you believe. It’s a pretty standard trait for people who live in a country where freedom of speech, worship, and assembly are considered sacred. Slap on some bumper stickers, wear the T-shirt, go to the rallies and speeches, raise awareness, preach your belief, identify with groups of like-minded folks, even argue online about it. These are all things that many of us have gotten comfortable doing because the thought of being punished somehow for what we think didn’t really occur to us because…Bill of Rights.

The problem is that the concept of free speech doesn’t really apply anymore. Like the proverbial frogs in the pot, the water has gotten slowly warmer and warmer until suddenly we find ourselves getting burned from all angles, and half of it happened while we weren’t paying attention. Here are just a few examples:

• The American Library Association has been tracking banned books in libraries since 1990. You’d be shocked to know how many books are already banned, both revered classics and more modern works.

• Getting fired for your political or religious views sounds like something that happens in other countries besides the US, but you’d be surprised that it can and does happen here.

• It’s not just your job, either. You can be subject to harassment, bullying, lawsuits, and even violence against you or your family in some cases, just for what you believe or are involved in politically.

The list goes on and on, and it’s only getting harder. Why make it easy for people to harm you or derail your activities in support of your cause?

But it’s cowardly to hide, right?

There’s a pervasive belief among many that using discretion constitutes hiding…which equates to cowardice. That’s not always the case. Although certainly the discretion point is used by some as an excuse, it’s not necessarily an indicator. Unfortunately, there’s a propensity to write off people who choose to exercise discretion as “not committed enough” or even just as cowardly people with no backbone.

Let’s think about that. The people saying this are invariably the ones rushing headlong into every risk they can think of or find. Saying that anyone not like them is a coward isn’t designed as an insult to those showing more discretion. It’s a way for the risk-takers to boost their own self-image. In other words, they need to trash people who aren’t treating their cause like Omaha Beach so they can reassure themselves of their own bravery. In reality, they’re missing out on the large contingent of any resistance support that is not out in the open.

Imagine a chess board. Each piece has a purpose, strengths and weaknesses. Even the lowly pawn can serve an important function, but even the powerful queen can be brought down with one wrong move.

The current battlespace is a form of chess. Each move needs to be carefully considered, not just in the moment but in terms of the secondary and tertiary effects of that move. Putting a bumper sticker on your car, for instance, means announcing to the world that the person in it holds a certain belief. While you may see it as a brave stand and refusal to be silenced, to someone who hates your belief, that may mean you’re a threat to be followed, surveilled, or confronted—even if it’s just your wife and kids in the car.

When a chess piece makes a wrong move, it’s removed from the game. It’s gone. It can’t contribute to the cause of winning anymore. The same can happen to you.

If you’re in jail because you chose to push that boundary in a reckless or thoughtless way, you’re out of the game. If you’re dead like LaVoy Finicum, shot on the side of the road during the Malheur Refuge standoff, you’re all done contributing to your cause. If you’re having to spend time looking for a new job because your employer didn’t want your “bad” beliefs in their workplace, how much time and stress is that on you and your family? How much less time will you have to contribute to your cause at all? And who wins if you’ve been removed from the chess board? Not you, and not your cause.

Being “on a list” isn’t proof you’re doing good work—it just means you are more limited in what you do and how you do it.

Wait, I thought we were talking about OPSEC.

We are. Let’s tie it all together.

The whole point of fighting for a cause, is to see that cause furthered. Otherwise, why bother? If you’re incapacitated, sidelined, jailed, removed from the ‘game’ somehow, or even dead, what good are you to the cause you love? Short answer: you’re not. In fact, in some cases you’re now dead weight, because others in your cause now have to help support your family, pay for your legal defense if necessary, and otherwise donate to or help you, instead of the cause you’ve all been working on. That’s a secondary effect you may not have thought of. Tertiary effects include eroding the public support component so critical to a resistance movement. If the public absolutely hates you and sees you as a problem, they won’t help you, and that help is also critical.

OPSEC, when applied properly, allows you—to some extent—have your cake and eat it too. You can “operate” for the good of your cause, doing maximum work, while also maximizing your chances of being able to keep doing so. That translates to your cause actually going further than it would if you were suddenly out of it.

Contrary to the romanticized notions many activists have, dying for your cause (or being jailed, vandalized, assaulted, etc.) is not somehow a badge of honor. In fact, it works against you and your cause, and in most cases, means you screwed up somewhere. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself how effective the resistance groups in Europe during World War II would’ve been if everyone in them was announcing their membership.

If you’re bringing “contraband” to a place where it’s not allowed, does it help you to drive up in a car announcing your beliefs?

If you’re engaging in an activity that people don’t want you to do and are willing to physically stop you from doing, should you be wearing a T-shirt at the time loudly proclaiming that you like doing it?

If you’re doing something illegal in support of your cause (or engaging in the use of a right that has been made illegal), should you be telling everyone you did it?

If you’re in the process of amassing food and supplies to help your family survive a Bad Event(tm), should you be telling everyone what and how much you have?

In short, it comes down to this: If your goal is cause first, then OPSEC will help you do more. If your goal is personal validation, or being seen doing the work instead of just getting it done, then OPSEC is pointless for you. What’s your motivation?

If you don’t make yourself a target, you can move a lot more freely and get a lot more done.

That’s an unpopular notion, but it’s fact. There was a place for the loud and proud; in fact, I used to be one of them. The problem is that it’s not 2004 anymore, or even 2016. It’s a whole new ballgame now, and the rules have changed.

Does this mean you have to slink around and pretend to be something you’re not? Absolutely not! It’s all about two little things called cover for status and cover for action.

In the next issue, we’ll talk about exactly how to get set up to do maximum work for your cause without making yourself a target and decreasing your effectiveness. Subscribe now to make sure you don’t miss it!