To @pdxfieldoffice:
It has been brought to our attention that certain behaviors of your Affinity Group (AG) are disconcerting, per Operational & Security standards established by activists.
This thread will enumerate these issues.
It has been brought to our attention that certain behaviors of your Affinity Group (AG) are disconcerting, per Operational & Security standards established by activists.
This thread will enumerate these issues.
First: it has been discovered that PFO was founded and established by Tan Davies, formerly known as police informant, "June Davies." That your AG was founded by this person casts serious doubts on the PFO account as a whole.
oregonlive.com/portland/2017/…
wweek.com/news/2017/12/2…
oregonlive.com/portland/2017/…
wweek.com/news/2017/12/2…
After exposure of Tan as founder of PFO (), PFO released this statement, claiming Tan/"179" has been let go () - as the community is unaware of who comprises the PFOag, we can neither confirm nor deny this assertion.
HOWEVER...
HOWEVER...
The above statement claims multiple people have been posting to PFO account. This cannot be confirmed, and posts indicate that there is a singular author. On 06/06 a Patreon had been established. The link came down from their account but it is still live.
patreon.com/PDXFO
patreon.com/PDXFO
As a new AG, establishing a Patreon is worrying on many levels. Firstly, as an unproven actor, asking for a monthly donation, without any proof of where that money actually goes, is suspect. Most AGs that operate in the way that you claim simply don't ask for money, at all.
Those that do seek donation generally use Venmo, CashApp, and similar apps that do not automatically generate a list of donors, which could become compromised and endanger the contributors to the cause. There is further evidence that the PFO network is comprised of bad actors.
@protestupdate has been documented as not only a frequent RT by PFO, but as actually a part of the network. (). Portland Police switched their comms to encrypted channels only, as early as 06/03 ().
@protestupdate opened chat w/a trusted activist by claiming that PFO has hacked police scanners (on 6/6). If this information IS true (practically impossible), then it at the very least indicates poor OpSec, negating trust. More likely is that PU & PFO have access through PPB. 
Also documented is PFO's recruitment process, which requires confirming via photo one's self, several forms of social media, and to verify place of employ (). This presents an incredible breach of protestor's personal security. No other AG requires this.
Additionally, there have been incidents where PFO has declared routes clear, only to be found by protestors on the ground as being obstructed by police. This is perhaps one of the most dangerous findings, and have potentially lead to arrests that could have been avoided.
A good actor would see all these concerns, delete these accounts, & go about helping people in other fashions.
A bad actor would dig in and come up with explanations and excuses, and do much hand waving at valid concerns of the community.
Which will it be PFO & PU?
A bad actor would dig in and come up with explanations and excuses, and do much hand waving at valid concerns of the community.
Which will it be PFO & PU?
