Colours are used in many ways by many different people. They can be used to communicate emotional or creative ideas. They can be used to communicate business interests and commercial ventures. They can be used to express spiritual philosophies and ideas.
Such ideas can be communicated over any medium that includes colour as a channel for visual information. Product packaging and print materials. Television and video media. Movies and theatrical media. Live stage performances. Paintings, graphics and other still media. The possibilities are endless.
Everything is branded in one way or another with colour so using colours for communication is a simple and non-trivial idea. Colour might even be used to indicate branding although this branding is not apparent unless you have a Rosetta stone through which to translate the definition of such colours through for a definition.
Every ideology has such ideas about the representation of colour including the arts, media, business, civic identity and services, education and social groups.
Imagine that different groups fight over the control of such channels for colour definitions for every possible medium by how they express them in the presence of someone viewing such a medium.
So if such a group or gang wants to control what a colour means in a specific area, they only need affect it for other people who use colours to communicate ideas to one another.
For instance if they want to prevent two people from using a colour to communicate ideas according to their own group or ideology, the gang trying to prevent the communication in the first place might subject either of the people using that colour to communicate to verbal hatred every time they see it.
Sooner or later the people using that colour to communicate are not going to use it to communicate any more because when they do, the gang or group close to them subjects them to constant verbal hatred. The gang is therefore preventing two people from communicating based upon the colour of the communication medium.
Say that the same group or gang doing so is a criminal gang. They have control of a number of underground goods in a specific area and a number of customers for those goods. The goods have one thing in common and that is that they are all illegal. Their market in the area is large enough that their customer base is considerable.
In the area, a large number of people look up to a community leader and in doing so they support whatever the community leader does. They buy what the community leader does. They even follow that person's voting habits. They donate to specific charities supported by that leader.
A political party that is running for election wants to change the illegal market by cracking down on the market for those illegal items via law enforcement.
A company as well is trying to cut down on the illegal market for those goods in an area by selling their legal goods at a comparable price to those available on the underground market.
Maybe the same company is also funding investigations into the distribution of the illegal market goods.
So the criminal gangs running these illegal market goods strike back.
They buy illegal monitoring equipment that allows them to monitor the output from select televisions, computers, cellular phones and other such items for a given area. In other words the criminal gangs can now see without the use of a network the output of a person's computer monitor, television screen or cellular phone through walls for a short distance. Not an expensive purchase and much less than the fines they'd be subject for the possession and sale of contraband goods.
Using this illegal monitoring equipment they monitor the community leader whose buying and voting practices everyone copies or tries to mimic. Combining the use of the monitoring equipment with communications using their own computers and cellular phones (which are unmonitored by anyone and therefore secure).
The criminal gang keeps a close eye on the viewing habits of the community leader and every time the community leader sees the colours associated with the political party who is going to stand against their illegal criminal market, the gang subjects the community leader to verbal hate and harassment using their members or allies nearest them to do so.
Sooner or later the community leader is going to avoid that political party after being exposed to this kind of repeated pressure and everyone who follows that person's voting habits are going to follow. They have conditioned the community leader to avoid that colour when in relation to politics. The criminal gang has successfully affected the vote and as such the democratic process.
Using the same eavesdropping technology, every time the community leader sees the colours associated with the company that is trying to stop the illegal activity of the criminal gang by underselling similar products legally and by funding investigations into the criminal gang itself. Every time the community leader sees the colours associated with this company, the gang members harass the community leader with verbal hatred once again.
The community leader then avoids that company and their products and the criminal gang has effectively undermined the economic value of a large company and their possibly their stock value.
In a democratic and a free market system these are a scary circumstances that could undermine democratic and due process and collapse a company's value and affect thousands of jobs if such a thing were allowed to continue or kept hidden and unchecked.
Hiding You Despite Your Exposure Of It
One more scenario to underline the whole thing. What if someone investigated this and attempted to expose it but because they were being monitored by the very people they were trying to expose (or they were being monitored by both the good and the ones they were trying to expose). The people being investigated have much advance warning and could even steal the effort of the person exposing it and discredit them in order to keep it hidden.
Furthermore they could just steal credit for it because they can see it with the same eavesdropping technology and have more allies close to them to help cover it up, using all of the investigative work of the person who put the real effort in and apply it to one of their members, hence the person who exposed it goes completely unrecognised for their effort and it is then erased by the criminal gang at a later time when the attention has died down.
Investigating From Plain View
In such a case, the safest course of action would be to reveal such information as it was discovered so that the real investigator left a public audit trail that was much more difficult to erase or attribute to someone else. In that way when civil investigators eventually followed up they could take up the trail from there.
If you are conducting an investigation from inside of a fish bowl and are unsure of who to trust, just be consistent and reveal your leads as you go because both the right people and the people you are investigating will see you and your leads.
The people you are investigating would never get rid of you while you are in a fish bowl because the right people would know. The right people will eventually find you as it will become apparent through your leads and too difficult for the wrong ones to hide you or get rid of you without exposing themselves.
The worst case scenario is that what you do might be transferred and accredited to someone else by a corrupt person on the right side that is feeding your leads to another person on the side of the people that you are investigating so they can at the end of the process swap the two of you and give the credit to the other person.
The most important thing is that the information gets to the right place and that it serves to protect and prevent the risk that is implied by the investigation.