I. Introduction
Illegal surveillance, harassment, and stalking by proxy are practices that infringe upon personal freedom, privacy, and well-being. These forms of misconduct involve various methods to monitor, intimidate, or harm individuals without consent or justification. Illegal surveillance is the unauthorized monitoring of a person’s activities through covert tactics, such as hidden cameras, tracking devices, or hacking into personal devices. Harassment entails repeated, unwanted actions meant to distress or intimidate the target, ranging from verbal threats to cyber harassment. Stalking by proxy uses third parties to monitor or harass the target, often by spreading rumors, encouraging others to surveil them, or fostering a community of harassment against them.
Addressing these issues is critical because illegal surveillance and harassment often result in severe emotional and psychological harm. Victims experience anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, and a compromised sense of safety. Additionally, these practices infringe upon fundamental human rights, including the right to privacy, freedom of movement, and protection from harassment, underscoring the need for legislative protections, public awareness, and support networks for those affected.
II. Facts about Gangstalking
Gangstalking, also known as organized stalking, is a disturbing form of harassment where multiple people coordinate to intimidate or psychologically harm an individual. This organized effort often involves “mobbing,” where groups harass the individual in public spaces, as well as tactics like spreading false rumors, tracking the person’s movements, and employing technology to invade privacy. Common technologies misused in gangstalking include hidden cameras, drones, and hacking into digital devices to track or monitor a target’s activities.
The psychological impact on victims of gangstalking is profound. Chronic stress, paranoia, and sleep disorders are common, as victims feel as though they are constantly watched and targeted. Research highlights that prolonged exposure to this form of harassment can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and social isolation. Victims’ trust in others often erodes, leading to isolation and a reduced quality of life as they struggle to feel secure in everyday activities.
III. Fusion Centers
Fusion centers were initially created after the 9/11 attacks to foster collaboration between local, state, and federal law enforcement in the fight against terrorism. These state-owned, federally supported agencies were intended to improve intelligence sharing and prevent future threats by monitoring for suspicious activities that could indicate terrorist plots. However, fusion centers have since broadened their focus, moving beyond counter-terrorism to include general monitoring of citizens.
Fusion centers now collect information on vast numbers of Americans, often gathering data from social media, public records, and reports from local law enforcement. Although these centers aim to improve public safety, they operate without clear guidelines, collecting information based on vague criteria. Behaviors such as “appearing nervous” or “photographing landmarks” can be deemed suspicious, leading to unnecessary surveillance of law-abiding citizens. Civil rights organizations argue that fusion centers infringe upon First and Fourth Amendment rights, collecting personal data on individuals without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. A Senate report criticized fusion centers for failing to uncover terrorist threats despite extensive surveillance and for gathering irrelevant information that infringes on privacy.
Additionally, some fusion centers have monitored activist groups, linking individuals with “anti-government” views to domestic terrorism, which raises serious concerns about government overreach and the chilling of free speech. For example, the Minnesota Fusion Center monitored activists involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, reflecting the broader potential for fusion centers to misuse surveillance powers based on political or social biases.
IV. InfraGard and Citizen Corps
InfraGard and Citizen Corps are two community-based programs that often intersect with surveillance practices. InfraGard is a partnership between the FBI and private sector leaders in industries such as energy, healthcare, and transportation. Members of InfraGard share information on potential threats with the FBI, contributing to the government’s ability to protect critical infrastructure. However, InfraGard’s partnerships with private citizens and businesses blur the line between legitimate security measures and potential privacy invasions.
Citizen Corps was established after 9/11 to encourage community involvement in emergency preparedness and safety. However, the emphasis on neighborhood vigilance can lead to overzealous or invasive surveillance practices. Community members involved in Citizen Corps may engage in “neighborhood watch” activities that cross into harassment or even stalking by proxy, especially when people report “suspicious” behavior without clear training or guidelines.
Reports of abuse within these programs are troubling. Some participants misuse their roles in InfraGard or Citizen Corps to surveil individuals they suspect without reasonable cause. Due to minimal oversight, there is potential for members to misuse their power to target individuals based on personal biases or misunderstandings, leading to unlawful surveillance and harassment.
V. Terrorist Watchlist and Due Process Issues
The terrorist watchlist, managed by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, includes individuals suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities. While the list is intended to protect national security, it can significantly disrupt the lives of those placed on it, often without a clear or accessible process for challenging their inclusion. Those on the watchlist face severe restrictions, including difficulty traveling, job disqualifications, and increased government surveillance.
The consequences of being placed on the watchlist without due process are profound. Many individuals report that they were denied rights without ever being informed of the evidence against them or given an opportunity to challenge the decision. In recent years, the Department of Homeland Security has been criticized for listing people with insufficient evidence, leading to violations of their constitutional rights.
Case studies demonstrate these due process issues. For instance, Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen stranded abroad due to his placement on the No Fly List, was only able to return to the U.S. after extensive legal intervention. In 2020, a federal judge ruled that the No Fly List violated due process rights because individuals had no opportunity to challenge their placement. Cases like these illustrate the lack of transparency and accountability in watchlist procedures, emphasizing the need for reform.
VI. Strategies for Reform
1. Legal and Legislative Approaches to Protect Civil Liberties:
• Strengthening privacy laws, including Fourth Amendment Protection Acts in several states, could restrict unauthorized government surveillance on citizens. The USA FREEDOM Act (2015) was an important step in limiting mass data collection, but further amendments are necessary to ensure stricter oversight and limitations on data sharing and surveillance authorization.
2. Advocacy for Transparency in Surveillance Practices:
• Public transparency regarding fusion centers and similar agencies is essential for protecting civil liberties. Advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and ACLU push for laws mandating oversight and public accountability. Requiring reports on surveillance activities would allow citizens to understand the scope of data collection and challenge potential overreach.
3. Community Awareness and Support for Victims:
• Community training programs that educate people on identifying and reporting unlawful surveillance or harassment would empower citizens to protect themselves and their communities. Nonprofits could provide resources and legal support systems for victims, helping them cope with and combat these violations. Community support can build resilience and encourage proactive responses to harassment.
VII. Conclusion
In sum, illegal surveillance, harassment, and stalking by proxy pose serious threats to personal safety, mental health, and civil liberties. These practices have a substantial impact on mental health and contribute to a breakdown in public trust. Lawmakers, community leaders, and citizens must collaborate to establish transparent, fair surveillance practices that prioritize human rights. Increasing funding for victim support, implementing public education campaigns, and imposing stricter regulations on surveillance methods are crucial steps in ensuring that safety is achieved without compromising fundamental freedoms.
Call to action: It is imperative that communities, advocacy groups, and policymakers unite to create comprehensive reforms that protect individuals from undue surveillance, harassment, and abuses of power. By doing so, we can foster a safer and more equitable society that values privacy, freedom, and accountability.