The FBI May Accept Information Voluntarily Provided ...

That sounds entirely reasonable, doesn’t it? You may recall that that phrase appears in the FBI’s Guidelines for National Security Investigations—it’s #7 in the listing of actions that the FBI is allowed to take when conducting Threat Assessments. To review:

THREAT ASSESSMENTS (U)

The FBI may, without opening a preliminary or full investigation, engage in the following activities to investigate or collect information relating to threats to the national security, including information on individuals, groups, and organizations of possible investigative interest, and information concerning possible targets of international terrorism, espionage, foreign computer intrusion, or other threats to the national security:

1. Obtain publicly available information. (U)

2. Access and examine FBI and other Department of Justice records, and obtain information from any FBI or other Department of Justice personnel. ( (U)

3. Check records maintained by, and request information from, other federal, state, and local government entities. (U)

4. Use online services and resources (whether non-profit or commercial). (U)

5. Interview previously established assets, informants, and cooperating witnesses (not including new tasking of such persons). (U)

6. Interview or request information from members of the public and private entities (other than pretext interviews or requests). (U)

7. Accept information voluntarily provided by governmental or private entities. (U)

The foregoing methods may also be used, without opening a preliminary or full investigation, to identify potential assets, or to collect information to maintain the cover or credibility of an asset or employee, in connection with activities related to a threat to the national security.

Those are the actions the FBI can take if you are “assessed to be” a potential “threat to National Security” or to be “of possible investigative interest”. Those are actions that can be taken without formally opening a Preliminary or Full investigation—in other words, the justification for doing this is quite low in legal terms:

7. Accept information voluntarily provided by governmental or private entities.

Now, it’s entirely possible that there are policies in place within the government that rules over you that would limit or define when or the manner in which such information may be accepted by the FBI. Or there may not be. I don’t know, and you don’t either. As it stands, it’s a blanket statement. Provisions like this one have a tendency to take on lives of their own.

From time to time in urgent cases you may see the FBI appealing to the public for any information pertinent to their investigation. In the old days, accepting information voluntarily provided would have quickly overwhelmed the FBI's capabilities for storage and retrieval of such information. Not so in this digital age of databases and virtually limitless storage and retrieval capabilities. The FBI—I don’t say your FBI because it’s not—has entered the information age. It’s very much in the information business.

Here’s an example of the kind of information that’s “out there” in digital form and can readily be provided to the FBI. There is so much of this “stuff” out there that the human mind literally boggles when attempting to extrapolate and estimate amounts of data—if “boggling” is something the human mind actually does. The example is drawn from a comment on an internet forum by a government school teacher. You thought government teachers spend their days “teaching”? Guess again:

On Monday evening, the CTU [Chicago Teachers Union] sent a letter to its members reaffirming their commitment to „safety” protocols earned thru a collective bargaining agreement. I wish they had been this concerned about my safety when I had kids bringing weapons to school. But I digress…. Included in the letter was a link to an „Anti-Safety Reporting Form”, which is exactly what it sounds like – a way for members to secretly report „overt or egregious acts of ‚anti-safety’ behavior” committed by colleagues, students, parents, or visitors. Quote: „Against what policy is your school experiencing significant or increased resistance?” You can indicate whether you believe it is an individual instance or a more organized effort. You can also opine on the manner in which the violation should be dealt with. My favorite? „Sign a letter to those resisting explaining the need for safety policies.” ROFL! My friend and I decided that should I receive a „strongly-worded cautionary letter”, I will arrive at school the next day wearing, not a scarlet letter, but an image of a coronavirus pinned to my shirt. Just so everyone knows that I am to be feared and despised… You bet your heinie I am.

In other words, a permanent record of persons who are believed to resist or even to harbor thoughts of resistance to official policies. And that information is retained by an “entity” that is allowed to provide as much or as little of that information to the FBI. Indeed, the FBI might subtly encourage such information—and, by the way, this comes in the context of the Attorney General setting up an apparatus to deal with “discord” and/or “societal friction” at local school board meetings—parents expressing resistance to official “safety” policies. Do you get the idea that in the American Security State resistance to or even questioning of official policies are unwelcome, and that government teachers and their unions haven’t really learned and internalized the provisions of our Constitution and its Amendments?

Of course examples of these types of data collection by all sorts of public and private organizations—with the potential for sharing with law enforcement—could go on virtually endlessly—your mind might well boggle should you attempt to define some limit to it all. Note, too, that according to #3 above, if such data is entered into the records of other federal, state, or local “entities” those entities can share those records with the FBI. Which is natural and reasonable, since the data being collected is of individuals or groups with a tendency to “resist” official policies, to cause “societal friction” or “discord”—something that any serious National Security State certainly wants to limit or eliminate in the name of combatting “domestic terrorism”. Who knows? These individuals or groups may be in contact with “malign foreign powers”, or unwittingly under the influence of such powers. They need to be investigated. Perhaps they’ll receive a “strong cautionary letter,” perhaps just a visit from police or FBI—who are increasingly in partnership to control “resistance.”

This is where America is going. The process is pretty much relentless. Public unrest may lead to a relaxation of the process, but the process will resume. Because it’s in the interests of the rulers.