Activism Efforts

Freedom of Information Act Requests

These are suggestions that might be useful when making F.O.I.A. requests.

I think it would be a good idea to request freedom of information act information. Not only trying to obtain personal records, but also systeimic records.

Eg. 1. How many cases do Threat Assessment Teams have open and actively being monitored?

2. How many females vs males are currently and activily being monitored?

3. What is the cultural and or ethnic make up of those currently being monitored on these lists?

4. How many cases over the years ended up in institutionalizations? How many in arrests? How many in suicide? How many in homelessness? (They must have these figures if they are actively monitoring the cases, even if someone becomes homeless, the files would stay open.)

5. How much funding do these threat assessment teams get?

6. What is the guidelines for the remote monitoring and information gathering?

7. Where are the local monitors collected from? Are they local community members or others?

8. Who oversees the local monitoring? What guidelines are in place to ensure abuses do not happen?

9. What measures are in place to ensure that the privacy of the individual is not being trampled upon?

These are some of the Freedom Of Information Act Requests, that I would like to see directed to these threat assessment teams and any other agencies that they interact or liason with.

Human Rights Organizations

Some basic suggestions that might work.

For the human rights appeals, I think those should be redirected at local and other levels, but in addition to your other efforts, you might also wish to ensure that you point to these Threat Assessment Teams and their active and open case file monitoring.

Eg. I am what is known as a Targeted Individual. I am writing in regards to some ongoing surveillance and monitoring that I am currently experiencing. I believe that it is a possibility that I have been placed on a monitoring program at some point in the past by what is known as a Threat Assessment Team or similar entity, as per their case file monitoring guidelines.

http://rems.ed.gov/docs/EMHETraining_SATX08_ThreatAssessmentTeams.pdf

Under this program I have experienced human rights abuses that i woudl like to bring to your attention.

I have experienced community monitoring, stalking and harsssment.

I have been terrorised and stalked within the communities where I reside, and my belief is that it’s in direct corrolation to the monitoring associated with this program.

I have experienced what our Targeted Individual community has coined Electronic Harassment.

The individuals who are taking part in the monitoring are using a variety of items which are remotly causing great physical pain, and discomfort. Though I have not visually seen the items being used, it has been suggested, and it is my belief that items such as:

Police radar guns are being used. -I have been advised that these might be getting used as part of the monitoring to remotely identify the targets location in their apartment. This casue a great deal of pain and discomfort.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213849

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/03/nyregion/connecticut-is-first-state-to-bar-hand-held-radar-guns.html

Laser guns -I have been advised that laser guns such as the ones sold via the wickedlaser company might also be employed as part of the stalking. -According to the companies website these might be able to burn holes in items. It is my belief that these may be getting employed and used on Targeted Individuals.

Accoustic Weapons -I have been advised accoustic weapons that are capable of remotely manipulation of the nervous system might also be employed and used upon targets to assist with the monitoring. According to the current research this is capable of causing emotional disruptions of a nervous systems as well as placing individuals into unwilling states, such as relaxation, and drowsiness, and others.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6017302.html

Bass -I have been directed to the fact that times the sound compnent such as speakers with the sound component removed might be getting used. The vibrations are felt, and experienced, but no sound is heard. This also causing ringing in the ears, disrupts sleep, and has other ill health effects.

Transducers -I have been told and lead to believe that transducers might be also employed below the drywalls of apartments to cause heat and vibrations. Which create a great deal of pain and suffering as they disrupt sleeping patterns for days, weeks, months at a time.

RFID -It is my belief that RFID items in my possession are being illegally used to monitor my location while out in public. It’s a well proven fact that warrentless surveillance of some targets has been allowed in the past by some governments. RFID surviellance can include cellphones, door passes, passports, any communication device or other item that uses RFID to monitor and track a targets location.

(At this stage targets can add their own research to what they believe is being used upon them. Other forms of assault, such as sexual. I have left off things like satalight in this example, but if you have a compelling case, or good information, feel free to include it. A lot of what I have listed might not be things known to these agencies, things that are 100% proven, but the things that I have listed, should hopefully be within their realms of possibilities, and hopefully might prompt someone to open an investigation, or at least take the claims seriously.)

You may also wish to include a link to sites such as this
http://www.amazing1.com/ultra.htm which have things that might be designed to cause pain and discomfort. Tangable items that a human rights agency could be directed to.

Will this make a shred of difference? With enough letters, and the finger being pointed at these threat assessment teams, maybe it will lead to a review of some of these practices. Some of the things they are doing in my opinion seem to be just at the border at what some of these laws allow, and I am sure many other things are quite outside of the border of what the laws allow, and would disgust some if the dirty dealings came to light, but my recommendation is stick to the tangable.

Sure other things are going on like the V2k, or audio spotlight, but they are harder to prove. If you really need to include this element include information about the audio spotlight and how it can send sound to one person at a distance.

FAQ's

Below are some questions, comments are popular believes that the aveage person often has to overcome in order to believe that Gang Stalking is happening to other citizens.

It’s Costly. Who has the time?

1: When you think about it, gang stalking is illogical. First, it is costly. Secondly, who has the time, unless they’re paid a lot, which brings us back to “it’s costly.”

(Skipp Porteous. http://www.Sherlockinvestigations.com)

A: The reality is that Gang Stalking is not costly. The network for surveillance and monitoring a Targeted Individual is already in place. When a name is added to the notification registry all that has to be done is send out the targets information. Resources are simply reallocated to keep the latest target under surveillance.

The Stasi were successfully able to control and monitor East Germany society using this method. The citizens have the time to monitor their communities, and to protect their communities from what they believe are dangerous, or unstable people in their neighborhoods.

The listings work the same way that listings do for violent offenders, in the U.K. Jane Clift was placed on the exact same list for violent sex offenders, she was listed as medium risk only to be seen in pairs, even though her offense was primarily writing an unkind letter, with strong wording.

http://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/jane-clift-case-highlights/



Someone would blow the whistle

2. If my own files were tagged “violent individual, only approach in twos or more” I know that my GP would be questioning it, sor starters.I don’t believe that we yet live in a world where some ‘entity’ could contact everyone I know and make them believe that I’d flipped my lid and must therefore be watched and reported on 24/7 without SOMEONE saying something directly to me about it, or querying it with authorities sufficiently to raise questions about the origin of the flagging/notification.

(marrya. http://www.message.snopes.com)

A: The reality is that if you recieve a notification letter you are bound by a none disclosure agreement and are forbidden from saying anything to the person the letter is pertaining to or discussing the details with everyone else. Think of it as the same way others have found themselves bound to secrecy due to the national security letters. When the request is from an authority figure, and it comes with a possible penalty, people will keep silent.

In the scenario above your GP would be bound by law to not give you the details. Though your GP may have questions, they may not be able to do anything other than trust the system to conduct it’s own investigation. If you were flagged as medium risk, only to be seen in pairs. Your GP would simple ask an assistant to accompany them during your visit.

Many targets falsely believe that friends and family would disclose something like this, but the reality is many do not. Many follow the directions that they have been given.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/where-are-the-whistle-blowers/

Targets are narcissistic to believe that groups would track them.

3. But seriously…who are these stalkers? How are there large, organized, groups of people that set out to just go after YOU. Do you think you are so important that a whole squad of people spend their waking hours (getting paid, I assume) to stalk and harass you? It’s a very narcissistic attitude. How could anyone even justify the expense of maintaining such surveillance?

(Milky: Godlikeproductions.com)

A: Targets are often accused of being crazy, narcissistic, or wanting to be the center of attention to believe that groups of strangers would spend 24/7 tracking them. The citizen informants are just average community members in some cases, while others might be paid informants with very specific agendas.

Targets are not narssaistic. Most targets do not believe they are that important that groups of people would follow them around, that is why it often takes years for the target to clue in and believe that this is happening to them.

Again there is no expense when you have a network already set up to monitor individuals in a community. It simply becomes a matter of shifting resources. Monitoring an additional person is no more difficult than setting a place at the table for one more, when you have everything already in place.

Targets are making it up.

4. Gang Stalking and being targeted is just in the mind of the targets.

A: This is also not true. Not only are these notification lists true, but individuals such as Jesus Mendoza have filed lawsuits in federal court to have the harassment stopped. They have presented video and photographic evidence of their harassment, and some lawsuits have successfully revealed information that was not available before, such as the fact that some forms of electronic surveillance has been approved for the monitoring of targets.



http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/court-to-defendant-stop-blasting-that-mans-mind/

Targets are mentally ill

5. I have heard that Targeted Individuals are mentally ill?

A: Many Targeted Individuals are being portrayed as mentally ill. They are being remotely assessed, and people that they have never meet or come face to face with in many cases are listing them as mentally ill.

http://www.Harassment101.com/Article5.html

In many cases something that was used in the former Soviet Union is being used in many democratic countries. The psychiatric reprisal. This practice was used to list innocent members of society that the state did not like as mentally ill. They would often then be sent to a state psychiatric facility. The practice continues today in many democratic countries.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/the-psychiatric-reprisal/

Why would a stranger go along with this?

6. Why would a complete stranger do such harmful things to complete strangers?

A: Obedience To Authority. When reserchers tried to understand why the citizens of Germany went along with the Hitler agenda to remove their neighbours, or to do horrible things to them, many had just been following orders, doing what they were told by an authority figure. People find it hard to believe that strangers would do horrific evil things to strangers, but the reality is as long as they believe it has the blessing and approval of an authority figure, people are willing to do horrific things.



http://gangstalkingworld.com/obedience-to-authority/

If you watch the video above, you will see that strangers are willing to steal the wallet, drug, and kidnap the child of a complete stranger. They are willing to do this simply based on the word of an authority figure. In the video it was not even a real authority figure, just a stranger pretending to be one, the target in the video was a complete stranger.

Targeted Individuals in their communities are listed as a possible danger to themselves or others, they are possibly listed as mentally ill, or other unwarrented labels. How much more easy would it be for strangers to do horrific things to targets, when many might see them as deserving of such treatment?

Who funds these vigilante gangs?

7. Who are these Vigilante gangs? Why would they go after targets?

A: It is the opinion of Gang Stalking World that the Vigilantee gangs was a myth perpetrated by those who wanted targets to appear mentally ill when they went to the police for aid and assistance. It is the opinion of Gang Stalking World that words such as Gang Stalking, Targeted Individuals, were originally created by those who wanted to keep the information about these occupational health and safety notification lists secret. Thus when targets went to the police they could just claim that Gang Stalking did not exist and continue to list the Targeted Individual as mentally ill.

Today what has happened is that Gang Stalking World and many in the Targeted Individual community have adopted these terms. Through proper research, the terms much like the term mobbing, has now been given the correct connotation. In many circles the finger is now being pointed correctly at occupational heatlh and safety laws, mental health laws, and the official policies used by the state to place individuals on notification lists.

There are individuals that do follow targets everywhere they go, for the most part they are just the average citizens of the state, who are going about their everyday lives. They have been trained under these occupational health and safety programs how to communicate with the one handed sign language, and many recieve notifications if there is anyone one a notification list in their area. They they will place the target under surveillance, monitor them, and report them if an incident happens. Within this structure there are illegal elements who go out of their way to provoke targets. It is the opinion of Gang Stalking World that these deliberate elements are often used for the express purpose of making the target appear to be mentally ill to the eyes of society, ensuring that they will not be believed when they do go for help.

I don’t believe that Gang Stalking is systemic.

8. Gang Stalking is not systemic. It’s only being done by a few people, not the hundreds and thousands some of these sites claim.

A: The reality is that these listings are systemic. They are used for various situations in many cities, town, companies, universities, and communities.

A recent example of such a system being used, was when Colton Tolley recently brought a gun to school. The emergency text messaging system which most students are signed up for went into effect. It was credited with saving lives.

The sad reality is that similar warnings are going out about targets, and they are either on the exact type of listing used in the Tolley case, or similar. These systems are being used right across the board. Targets are being listed with a variety of designations such as: “Medium Risk, only to be seen in pairs.” or “May be a danger to self and others”, plus a variety of other designations.

When a target goes into a community, and a similar warning is issued saying the person has a possible mental illness, or other label, then those who get these phone calls, or text messages, naturally go into a state of panic, or frenzy. The target is then followed around. The average citizen does not have the time to find out if a target has been falsely labeled, or if they are a true danger, they just react. Once the identity of the target is established, and they travel the same route daily, they are then easier to identify. If a target changes routes, they might have a slightly easier time of traveling, until they once again become easy to pick out of the crowd.

http://www.atu.edu/psafe/textalerts.shtml

Text Warning System

Arkansas Tech University has an early warning text messaging system as an additional means of communicating with the campus community during emergency situations on the Russellville campus. Students who register for the service will receive a text message warning in the case of a serious campus emergency. Signing up for the system is optional, but it is strongly encouraged.

http://www.popfi.com/2010/09/29/warning-system-fast-action-saved-lives-at-ut/

Police informed campus officials, and in 15 minutes the entire campus was alerted via text messages, warning sirens, and Twitter updates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2007/04/24/colleges_seek_text_message_alert_system_after_attack/

As outrageous as it sounds, all Jane Clift did was write an unpleasant letter and she ended up on such a system as medium risk, which is a high risk warning.

Intelligence agencies don’t stalk average citizens.

9. Why would intelligence agencies want to target average citizens?

A. Various agencies including intelligence agencies and police share information via a process called deconfliction. This allows them to share information at a local level with federal forces. They take a holistic approach to policing, believe that today’s petty criminal, could become tomorrow’s terrorist, or assist with funding terror, drug, or other federal level criminal activities.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/social_network/20100303__crim_socialnetworking.pdf

Why would the government stalk you?

10. Who would anyone including the government want to put someone on a list to be stalked?

A. It is the belief of Gang Stalking World that individuals are being targeted and placed on lists via these Threat Assessment Teams. In the following report it details how the agencies use a four part process to determine if the target is eligible for case management monitoring.

Under these occupational health and safety laws Threat Assessment Teams have this capacity and ability. The threat assessment teams works in a four part process.

1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation

http://gangstalkingworld.com/threat-assessment-teams-gang-stalking/

http://rems.ed.gov/docs/EMHETraining_SATX08_ThreatAssessmentTeams.pdf

Some of these stories are too outrageous.

11. The stories range from very mundane to very outrages, why the variation in targeted stories?

A. It’s the belief of Gang Stalking World that the stalking and harassment experienced by the Targeted Individual is dependent on the area in which they reside. Under the Community Policing program, each area operates the way they see fit.

The harassment in this regard and capacity tends to be very territorial. Thus in one area a Targeted Individual might experience very urban level types of violence to their targeting, in another area the harassment may be more subtle. Each area operates the way they see fit, so you will get a variety of different targeting depending on where you go.

One part of the city could be very unfriendly, and you walk into another area a few blocks over and it’s a completely different atmosphere, that is because of the community police aspect.

I don’t believe that there is a network of criminals

12. Why do some targets claim that criminals are responsible for this targeting?

A. It’s the opinion of Gang Stalking World that there is a criminal level involved in this targeting, but the programs are still officially operated by law enforcement at the upper echelons. At lower levels, you can find a variety of different groups and members operating within this structure. That will include cults, religious groups, criminal elements, various sectors of society. There will be different networks operating within this element. Remember a large part of what this does, and how this functions is that it keeps people in line. On a lower level there are a myriad of illegal and unjust practices that are occurring, but since this aspect of the targeting is unofficially sanctioned, then it’s far more difficult to prove.

I don’t believe all the mind control claims.

13. Why do some Targets claim that this is part of MK Ultra?

A. That is because within the targeting itself there are illegal aspects that are happening to many targets, which are deeply reminiscent of past psychological operations, eugenics and behaviour modification programs that have been carried out on prisoners, the poor, mentally ill, women, and others. These past experiments have all been conducted by governments.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/where-are-the-whistle-blowers/

Gang Stalking. FOIA request.

Gang Stalking FOIA.

Is this specific FOIA request a ploy by the FBI to discredit targets and profile them as schizophrenic? Will this letter place targets on a watch list? Is it meant to be disinformation for targets? Is this letter actually helpful in anyway to targets?

http://asianvictimsassociation.ning.com/forum/topics/gang-stalking-foia-request

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/gang-stalking-foia-request

I came across this letter back in December. At the time I had major concerns about it. I posted those concerns as comments, so that if the user saw the letter they would at least think before they emailed or mailed off a document that could potentially send them to a mental institution or get them placed on a watch list.

Here is a portion of the FOIA request, and for those more familiar with good FOIA request, you can let me know what you think.

[quote]12. Any FBI records indicating coercion or bribery being used by gang stalking groups to force or bribe neighbors, local businesses and others in the community of a targeted individual to participate in the gang stalking methods/activities directed against one or more targeted individuals within a community.

13. Any FBI records indicating the motives behind the stalking of individuals such as personal vendettas, family vendettas, whistle-blowing (corporate and government), employment disputes/lawsuits, political views, sexual orientation, interracial relationships, gay and lesbian relationships, HIV status, business disputes, marital disputes, monetary disputes, and any other similar motives for gang stalking.

14. Any FBI records indicating the funding of gang stalking groups including, but not limited to, narcotic and other racketeering funds, corporate funds, local business funds and government money (e.g. paid informants), monetary crimes by the gang stalkers, or, payment for surveillance or intelligence collected by gang stalking groups paid for by racketeers, narco-traffickers and/or other criminal associations made to the gang stalkers for services gang stalking groups rendered.

15. Any FBI records indicating the number of informants (paid and unpaid) under the control of federal, state and local law enforcement within these gang stalking groups. For instance, during the Civil Rights Era the FBI now acknowledges 20% of KKK members were informants.

16. Any FBI records relating to a List on which gang stalking victims are placed which initiates and/or maintains the gang stalking activities against them.

17. Any FBI records indicating a hierarchy within the gang stalking groups including a chain of command.
[/quote]

Here is a link on my forum to my concerns about this letter, which I have now seen on YouTube, and posted in other places.

http://gangstalkingworld.com/Forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226891452

When I saw the letter I spoke to the originator of the letter directly to find out what was going on. He claims to have experience with this stuff, claims to be a lawyer, but based on this FOIA request, I had very deep concerns. I believe my comments have been deleted from the thread and the plan has gone forward, so that's why I am highlighting this in several places.

Before sending off a FOIA request you might want to run it past a lawyer. I am taking the time to post about this because I have a few concerns, specifically that this could get a target put on a watch list, or the letters could be used to profile targets as mentally unstable and could be a problem for activists in future. Just think of this letter arriving in multiple forms for all their behavioural specialists. It seems to have been designed that way. I don't claim to be an expert, but I did take the time to find what others had done, and how they had requested FOIA requests.

http://www.rcfp.org/foiact/index.html http://www.rcfp.org/foiact/guide_h.html

[quote]Your addressDaytime phone number
Date

Agency AdministratorAgencyAddress

FOIA Appeal

Dear Administrator:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

On (date) I made a FOIA request to your agency for (brief description of what you requested). On (date), your agency denied my request on the grounds that (state the reasons given by the agency). Copies of my request and the denial are enclosed.

(When the agency delays:) It has been (state number) business days since my request was received by your agency. This period clearly exceeds the 20 days provided by the statute, thus I deem my request denied. A copy of my correspondence and the postal form showing receipt by your office are enclosed.

The information which I have requested is clearly releasable under FOIA and, in my opinion, may not validly be protected by any of the Act’s exemptions.

(Here, insert legal and "public policy" arguments in favor of disclosure, if you wish. You are not required to make legal or policy arguments to support your appeal; if you simply state “I appeal” the agency will review the documents and the justifications given in the original denial. However, it is usually a good idea to try to persuade them to release the information. See the Federal Open Government Guide (www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?i=ex1) for further information on any of the specific exemptions cited by the agency in their denial of your original request. The descriptions contained there should suggest arguments you can make to counter the agency’s assertions.)

I trust that upon re-consideration, you will reverse the decision denying me access to this material and grant my original request. However, if you deny this appeal, I intend to initiate a lawsuit to compel disclosure. (Don’t include this as an idle threat. But if you do intend to follow up with a lawsuit, say so. Often the agency will more closely consider its position when it knows it will have to defend it in court soon.)

As I have made this request in the capacity of a journalist (or author, or scholar) and this information is of timely value, I would appreciate your expediting the consideration of my appeal in every way possible. In any case, I will expect to receive your decision within 20 business days, as required by the statute.

Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

Your signature
[/quote]

http://epic.org/privacy/fusion/VA_FOIA021208.pdf

The first two links above are for generic requests, and the pdf is a link from a group called epic and how they went about requesting info for a fusion center.

It really important how you approach the issue. Based on events that happened during Cointelpro, I am worried that this letter might be another Cointelpro like tactic, that's why before sending in this letter, I would recommend targets check with a lawyer, or someplace that's familiar with FOIA requests to see if this letter would be helpful, or if it's more likely to get them put on a watch list, be deemed as mentally ill, or if this letter would actually be helpful to them.

You can always use the generic letters provided. Those should be safe and pretty effective. I think to the new target on line who wants to be active this letters might be detrimental to them. Again I don't claim to be an expert. I would just encourage targets to review this before putting themselves in jeopardy.

Extreme assessments and paranoid conclusions

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.

http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf

Extreme communities
One feature that has garnered relatively little
attention in the clinical research literature is the existence of what might be
termed ‘extreme communities’. Owing to the difficulty with which material can be
effectively censored or suppressed online, views considered extreme or
unacceptable to the mainstream can be expressed relatively freely, with online
communities often formed by those who share similar opinions. Some of these are
of particular interest to mental health professionals, as they attempt to
reframe what would otherwise be classified as ‘mental disorder’ in an entirely
different light.

According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?

Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.

The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.

According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of that do not agree with this.
http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly%202.5%20Million%20Adults%20Participated%20in%20Online%20Dating%20in%20Last%2030%20Days.pdf

World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971

Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081114/world/lifestyle_britain_family_divorce_internet_offbeat

A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That's right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081023/koddities/japan_avatar_murder

It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.

The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/007graphic1_468x1052.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-559123/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-559123/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2342364.0.how_local_counay%20cils_use_antiterror_laws_to_spy_on_ordinary_people.php

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpHitaKk1s

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559130/Why-didnt-just-knock-door-ask-couple-tailed-weeks-council-spies.html
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080214_snitch_state.htm

I think it's fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what's considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today's modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It's been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.

Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.