Indymedia Server Raided by FBI 1150
jaromil writes "Today at about 18:00 CET FBI raided the indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace both in US and England. At present, the italian indymedia and numerous other local IMC websites are obscured, while the reasons why the hard drives were taken are still unknown."
Nothing known, but political motivation possible (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody's exactly sure why or how the FBI got warrants to take Indymedia's HDs, but their speculation tends to center around the fact that the Feds were spooked by the fact that Indymedia was able to publish RNC delegate names. This unfortuantely means political motivations are going to be questioned no matter what reasoning is brought forward.
Not much we can do at this hour but hold our breath and wait for more info to be released.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah that freedom of speech thing is a real pain, isn't it?
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Insightful)
They also published the personal information of the delegates which included home addresses, phone numbers, and places of work.
There were also numerous hacks around that time (protestwarrior for one) in which personal information was posted on Indymedia sites.
When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sheesh. Get a clue, or buy one.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I don't assume, when I hear of another abortion doctor being killed execution-style, that 'Republicans' in general are responsible. It's a lunatic fringe, who have as much right to call themselves Republicans as I have to call myself a martian. When I talk about Republicans did this and Republicans did that, I don't include things that the Republicans can't be proven to have done, and that most Republicans would be deeply ashamed of.
And, amusingly, neither do most other Democrats that I know of. They accept that mainstream Republicanism isn't all about shooting abortion doctors. But then, when some whacko drives by a RNC HQ and shoots at it, not only do the Republicans start yelling at the Democrats about it, as if Kerry somehow planned it, but you actually start hearing Democrats apologizing, as if they thought they were actually responsible!
Puh-leeze. Catch the bastards and get on with life, and don't tell me I'm responsible for their stupidity. (Well, actually, I'm not a Democrat. I just agree with a whole lot more of their platform than I do with the Republicans'.)
-fred
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the demonstrated electioneering competency of the Democrats and Republicans in recent years, I would say that the above is actually the most likely explanation.
Pre-screening crowds for campaigns (Score:5, Interesting)
I just heard a report on NPR this morning. A reporter went to a Bush appearance wearing a Kerry T-shirt. He was told by the secret service he would be arrested if he didn't leave. He went to a Kerry appearance wearing a Bush T-shirt. Nothing happened.
I thought - big whoop. They then went on to interview and describe many others who had been removed with the threat of JAIL from Bush appearances because they were "questionable". One woman had a small Kerry pin on her jacket. One guy had come from a Kerry rally and had a Kerry T-shirt on, which he had covered up with a long-sleeve shirt. At one high-school, several students were removed in tears by secret service officers for having Kerry items on. The list went on and on. One guy complied, and took off his Kerry item, and was still ordered to leave. Some people were put in jail for 2 hours, then charges dropped. The local police said they were following the orders of the secret service, and the secret service said they were following the orders of the white house.
So now you aren't allowed at a Bush event unless you support him? I guess it is all about the image of having support. It must be pretty easy to have a chanting mob of supporters if you pre-screen the crowd. It sounds kind of like a tent revival for an evangelical con-man.
I didn't see the report on NPRs website yet, so I can't link to it. But I did just hear it this morning on the way into work.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.wftv.com/news/3786807/detail.html [wftv.com]
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Insightful)
9/11 worked out alright for the Project for a New American Century...
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
...which was already publicly released elsewhere. If you are going to take down the caches of "private" information that was previously published for all to see, then there are a lot of Google cache servers that the FBI needs to seize.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
In australia, a typically pro-us country, my grandfather told me that he cant remember a less liked us president. Nixon was kinda up there tho.
Not to put too fine a point on it. George bush is ONLY loved by about half the us population and almost none of the worlds population.
But you get that when your foreign policy is "Fuck the earth".
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
>Your misconceptions about the Bush Administration are astounding.
Yes, the foreign policy isn't "Fuck the Earth." The foreign policy is "You mean there are places outside the US, really?" And the net effect is that a president that couldn't find London on a well marked map of England just makes arbitrary decisions with no thought to the consequences, but won't ever reconsider them because changing your policy when new information is revealed is being wishy-washy, and that is left for senators.
Bush (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know much about what's going on with Iraq, but if Kerry wins theres a good chance of having war here... China won't happily tolerate Chen Shui Bian () much longer. Mainland Chinese been threatening to attack for years, and if the US abandons, they will.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose we should quite legislating anything in the Bible right, I mean thats what Fallwell is going off of for what he wants.
No, we should quit legislating things on the grounds of one random bible. Under the constitution your choice of bible has no more and no less standing than the Torah, the Koran, or even the Satanic Bible.
So, alright, yay! Murder, theft, rape, incest, etc. are all back in. The entire criminal code is legislated morality stupid.
No, you're the one failing to realize that you can establish the foundation for our entire legal system (at least for the legitimate laws) without refering to religion at all. If you steal my stuff, or stab me, you have violated my constitutionally guaranteed rights. I can use force to protect my rights. The government can also use force in the form of armed policement to capture and imprison you in defense of my rights. It can do so on my behalf. On the other hand you have dumb-ass laws like prohibiting the sale of beer on Sunday. That is a purely religiously motivated law (to promote/protect church attendance), and constitutionally prohibited. It is no more valid than a Jewish or Islamic law prohibiting certain things only on Friday or Saturday.
You gotta remember there was no such thing as separation of church and state until this century. Read the 1st amendment it says: CONGRESS shall pass no law. So that means anything not performed by congress or that isn't a law is legal. 10 commandments in a courthouse is not congress passing a law.
Ah, a Constitutional scholar! Not!
If you want to talk about their original intent I suggest you read James Madison's own writings on the subject. He was the one who wrote it so he damn well ought to know it's intended meaning.
The intent of the first amendment is that the government is prohibited from showing favoritism of any religious belief over any other. As a government empolyee you are welcome to include the 10 commandments amongst the personal knick-nacks on your desk, but you cannot put up an official ten-foot engraving of the ten commandments on the government building itself. If you COULD do that, then all religions also get that same freedom. The principal of your children's school would have every right engrave a Satanic prayer on the school entrance.
You are welcome to engage in personal prayer as you please. However you may not abuse your offical position to impose your prayer and religious beliefs on others while acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government. As a government employee you can take personal time to pray, but you cannot abuse your official government powers as teacher or principal to subject students to your prayer. If you attempt to claim you do have the right to do so then I merely need point out that the govenrment cannot grant that right exclusively to your religion - some other teacher would then have the exact same right to subject your children to his Satanic prayer.
Individuals have religious freedom. The government itself has no religion. The government itself has no religious beliefs. The government itself has no religious freedom. Note that saying the government has no religious freedom is NOT in any way Atheist - the government is equally prohibited from in any way promoting the religious belief that there is no god.
-
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Funny)
So what, a sinister plot to give Dick Cheney a heart attack by forcing him to look at lesbians with hairy legs?
What about the riot groups that have broken into RNC campaign centers throughout the country?
Yes, they left some $2000 Sony laptops in plain view through a big store-front window in a shitty strip mall in Bellvue, and they got stolen! And not just by any black teenagers, black teenagers that don't like Bush! What are the chances of that! Call the motherfucking Secret Service, the President's been fucking shot!
You are confused (Score:5, Informative)
Not operation rescue. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... I'm gonna go out on a limb here.
Perhaps it has something to do with the reasoning behind the publication, and the history of those who publish this information.
Let's look at the history first.
Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types (just ask any Republican), and are more often than not pigeonholed as hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and even cowards by the more militant right wing.
Anti-abortion groups on the other hand have a long history of stalking the doctors who perform abortions, which very often leads to physical violence. Many abortion doctors have been murdered for doing their jobs. I don't think a delegate has ever been given so much as a black eye.
Next, let's consider what the reasoning is for the publication in each instance?
When an anti-abortion group publishes the names and addresses of private citizens (doctors), they usually follow it up with "make sure they get the message" or "do what you have to to help save another fetus".
For the most radical of those groups, that can be a very dangerous proposition.
When activists publish the names of delegates which are pledged to their opponent, who are constitutionally not supposed to be secret anyway, they're doing so in order to make sure their supporters use letters and phonecalls to put pressure on them to do what the activists consider to be the right thing, whatever it is.
Now, if you keep these two things in mind:
1) the identities of delegates are not secrets and in an open government that information must remain in the public domain.
2) the intent of the activists is not violence, but peaceful communication.
Compare that with:
1) the identities of doctors are private, although they can be found if you take the time to look for them.
2) the intent of the activists is not peaceful communication, but prevention at all costs.
With those things in mind, I see plenty of reasons as to why publishing the names of delegates should NOT be considered a threat of any kind. In fact, I believe it is protected by the first amendment.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Informative)
Except for when they shoot up Republican campaign offices [usatoday.com] and burn swastikas in Republicans' yards [channel3000.com]...
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless, of course, you were in on it
Stop being such a Cassandra.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Informative)
The first two of your examples haven't been heard of in over thirty years. The third (ELF) are not much more than vandals.
And you'd probably cringe at the thought of the World Church of the Creator, the Klan, or other denizens of the radical Right held up as examples of American conservatism.
The Panthers and Weathermen were Leftists, not liberals (in fact, they scorned liberals for participating in a system that they considered bankrupt and corrupt). Some '60s leftists held decidedly illiberal views (e.g., Maoist communism).
k.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, first of all.. when you preface something with "In fact", please make sure what follows actually is fact.
This is a neocon distortion of the truth, and you're very likely to hear that diatribe from Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
Liberals, (a word and a definition which is not synonymous with leftists) are peaceful, but will use violence in self defense. Violence and militarization is and shall always be the last possible option when settling a dispute of any kind.
Leaders are more effective when they lead by example and by being respected, than if they use force and/or fear. The first option may take a little longer in some cases, but it's better for everyone in the long run. Ruling by might is a silly and naive idea.
It's apparent from your post that you don't see a difference between leftist and liberal, which is really a shame, because those two ideals are so different, and it wouldn't make you look so ignorant.
For the record, I'm a liberal, not a leftist.
Just like there are conservatives who are not right-wing.
John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger and many other Republicans are not right-wing, but are actually conservatives.
If you don't know that there is a difference between those ideals (liberal vs leftist, right-wing vs conservative), then you simply have no place participating in this discussion.
All the groups you mentioned are not liberal groups, altough I'm sure Hannity or Limbaugh would call them that (a further display of their complete ignorance about these groups, liberalism and the left).
So... in short... your answer is not really an argument, it's just a rehashing of old and tired diatribe.
"So, when Leftist organizations start posting names, locations, and other personal information of people who oppose them, the first and only logical conclusion is that the poster expects the people on the list to be at least harassed and potentially physically attacked."
I think you're projecting quite a bit here. To you it might be the first and only conclusion, but that tells me more about you than it does about the people who posted the information.
As you can see from my original post, my first assumption is that they're trying to put political pressure on them, not incite violence.
Now, seeing as you seem to be on the right-wing side of things, do you consider Freedom of Speech to be a right or a privilege afforded to us by the State?
Think about it for a moment.
A right is something which the government cannot take away. A privilege is something the government, as an extension of society, can limit and reduce or even revoke.
So, since freedom of speech is a right, the government cannot limit its usage in any way, shape or form, without violating the 1st Amendment.
Ponder for a moment what the words 'unalienable Rights' mean.
Ponder also the notion that the Constitution gives powers to the government, and not vice versa. The government is an extension of us, not our owner. We tell the government what it can and cannot do on our behalf, not the other way around. Remember: "Of the People, By the People and For the People"?
We're all members of the same club, called The United States of America. We have basic club rules which we use as the basis for other rules we come up with to make the membership more enjoyable. Those basic club rules are what we call the Constitution and its amendments (the Bill of Rights). Those rules are what we must always go back to whenever there's a dispute or confusion about what other rules can and cannot dictate. They are also what we use to control how much power those we've chosed to enforce the rules, get to use in their efforts to enforce them.
The laws of the games being played, cannot violate the basic rules of the club, nor can the enforcement of the laws of the games.
This is very clear and simple to me. Either you believe
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Insightful)
The delegates and users of protest warriors are not public figures.
There were numerous reports from NYC of delegates to the RNC being accosted. There are many reports of campaign headquarters being shot at, ransacked and stormed in the past few days. I would say that this information was posted with the explicit purpose of targetting those people.
If these were Communists, people would be screaming about "black listing".
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Interesting)
And these "reports" of campaign HQ shootings: let's see some citations. You're not talking about the one attended by the serial baby-crying sign dropper, Republican agent provocateur, are you? If you really believe this crap, you better change the channel from Fox News, maybe go outside and talk to some humans. Maybe someone would explain you that "Communist blacklisting" was the rightwing authorities secretly locking out unpopular workers from legitimate jobs. Today, it's known as "no fly lists" and "terrorist watch lists", and "Florida voter purge lists" - all created by Republican authorities to suppress the fair representation of Democrats and other opposition to their fascism. That doesn't make their opponents communists.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:4, Insightful)
Being a New York City resident, I can tell you that New York is far less democratic than probably all of the top 100 cities. There are some places, like Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, New Haven, Bridgeport, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia where there are NO republicans on the city council and they haven't had a republican mayor since before the depression.
New York has many, many districts that are strongly republican, such as large parts of Brooklyn, all of Staten Island and most of Queens. We haven't had a Democrat mayor since 1993, probably when you were still in grade school.
Further, I can tell you that the vast majority of protestors were not city residents. Most were students from all over the country, indoctrinated by communist teachers at surrounding universities. Most New York residents who had the opportunity LEFT the city to avoid the mayhem. The rest have jobs that make it a little difficult to go on a rampage on city streets.
I unfortunately did not leave, but one thing I can also tell you, as I chose to ride my bike during these times as it is the quickest way around during disasters, 90% of the protestors were White and between 18 and 30. These protests were nothing more than a generation educated by communists looking for something to protest.
We don't have any oppressive laws anymore, so instead the only think left to do is villify people. Its not the law that's bad, but the people in government.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in New York City and that's the most ridiculous crap I've ever read. Many of my friend were arrested. Dozens if not hundreds of people I know were there. Dozens of New York City organizations representing thousands of people were there.
One of my friends were held (for well over 24 hours) with a family of French tourists who had made the terrible mistake of stepping out of their hotel while the police were rounding them up.
They were, apparently, very upset because they didn't speak English well and of course the police would not tell them what they were charged with -- or attempt to communicate with them in any way!
For some reason people think that the Republican National Convention somehow trumps the Constitution. I personally don't get it.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
(There are also reports of non-violent, LICENSED protesters being jailed for three days, then never charged with anything, just to keep them off the street while the RNC was in town. (And people who were just walking to the corner grocery store getting caught up and locked up along with them.) Which is illegal, but is something it looks like we're going to have to get used to.)Actually, there is one report of a campaign headquarters being shot at. Yes, a Republican campaign HQ, and yes, it is fairly well substantiated. It amazes me, because of course the dramatic majority of Democrats are pro gun-control. It looks like Rush -- er, that is to say, Bush -- has pissed someone else off besides the Democrats, eh?
One report of a Republican campaign headquarters being 'ransacked'. That is to say, someone broke into it and stole three laptops, possibly some office equipment, and possibly some money (this is in dispute). The assumption is, although the HQ was a juicy target and the laptops were out in plain sight, it must have been Democrats who did it. Well, possibly it was; it's hardly like the Democratic party can make any claims to sainthood, and I'd find it MUCH more likely that they'd stoop to stealing than they would attempt a drive-by shooting.
And the usual random assortment of graffiti, vandalism, and silliness on both sides. Which is almost certainly just drunk partisan college student asshats.
But hey, you notice that with the information out there, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and all that stuff, for all the RNC delegates... with the information STILL out there... with the information still out there and READILY AVAILABLE... there haven't been any serious incidents?
I mean, hell, if I were one of them, I would be terribly disappointed. 'What, am I not important enough for a few death threats?'Nope, that screaming would start when someone interviewed for a job and was told that they couldn't be hired because they were on 'the list'.
Lists of names don't kill people. People kill people. With guns and lists of names. Why do you want to outlaw the lists of names?
-fred
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:5, Insightful)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! (Score:3, Insightful)
>
>Yeah that freedom of speech thing is a real pain, isn't it?
Yeah, that privacy thing is a real pain, isn't it?
Supposing for a moment that the speculation is correct: If they were publishing DNC delegate names, or bank/credit card customer names, or even the
Re:Nothing known, but political motivation possibl (Score:5, Informative)
obody's exactly sure why or how the FBI got warrants to take Indymedia's HDs, but their speculation tends to center around the fact that the Feds were spooked by the fact that Indymedia was able to publish RNC delegate names.
Another theory is around some pictures of undercover Swiss police (photographing protesters) that were posted on an IMC site (IMC Nantes) - Indymedia got a request to remove 'identifying information' from the site (apparently the FBI got involved 'as a courtesy' to the Swiss authorities). Since there were no identifying details, Indymedia didn't do anything in response.
It would seem strange for an American agency to get a warrant to seize information relating to Swiss undefcover police from a French website, but it's the most solid theory I've heard so far.
Clarification Please (Score:4, Insightful)
How do we know it was the police anyway, if they were supposedly undercover? If they were, and someone photographed them, the undercover police shouldn't have had identifying marks. If they're that easily identifable, they're not really undercover, are they? And if they aren't identifiable, then the Swiss themselves gave away the whole shebang by raising a stink about it, no? If the police wanted to remain anonymous, maybe they should have taken the pictures from a long way away with a telephoto lens the size of Hubble, or from behind a one-way mirror in a van or something.
Sorry, this just all seems really messed up to me in general.
Re:Clarification Please (Score:4, Insightful)
The theory being that undercover police work is necessary for a secure society, and that it can't be done if the information about undercover missions is available to the public. Therefore, a sensible citizenry will devise some system by which a trustworthy, individual is appointed to a position of responsibility, where he reviews such warrant requests in private, and makes a judgement on behalf of his fellow citizens, without opening the information to disastrous public review.
Note that judges have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years, quite often in countries that have made little or no significant progress towards fascism in that time. So there's probably not much causality between closed deliberations of government and fascism.
Re:Nothing WHAT BULLSHIT! (Score:4, Insightful)
These people should have been shown a warrant and that warrant should be public.
We should know the EXACT reason those hard disks were taken for NOW. This type of crap really, really disturbs me.
What's left to prevent fishing expeditions against people the gov't doesn't like?
They show up search the place, find something illegal, and make up the warrant afterwards?
This is lunacy. The executive branch has been breaking constitutional law left and right and no one is on trial.
Re:Nothing known, but political motivation possibl (Score:5, Informative)
Hmph...well- (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04264/382137.stm [post-gazette.com]
This in from Argentina Indymedia, which has a different view -
FBI took the hard drives of IMC servers in the UK
por Mat ((!)) Thursday October 07, 2004 at 06:10 PM
-
The US authorities issued a subpoena to Rackspace's office in the US ordering them to physically remove Indymedia hardware located in London. Rackspace is one of Indymedia's web hosting providers with offices in the US and London. Rackspace complied and turned over Indymedia's hard drives/servers in the UK. This affects some 20+ Indymedia sites worldwide.
Since the subpoena was issued to Rackspace and not to Indymedia, the reasons for this action are still unknown to Indymedia.
At the same time a second server was taken down at Rackspace which provided streaming radio to several radio stations, BLAG (linux distro), and a handful of miscellanous things.
The last few months have seen numerous attacks on independent media by the US Federal Government. In August the Secret Service used a subpoena in an attempt to disrupt the NYC IMC before the RNC by trying to get IP logs from an ISP in the US and the Netherlands, last month the FCC shut down comunity radio stations around the US, and now the FBI is shutting down IMCs around the world.
The list of affected local media collectives includes Ambazonia, Uruguay, Andorra, Poland, Western Massachusetts, Nice, Nantes, Lilles, Marseille (all France), Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Liege, East and West Vlaanderen, Antwerpen (all Belgium), Belgrade, Portugal, Prague, Galiza, Italy, Brazil, part of the Germany site, UK Radio, and the global Indymedia Radio site.
Micah Anderson of the global imc-tech collective said, "We suspect it has to do with an FBI request that we take down a post on the Nantes IMC that had a photo of some undercover Swiss police. They claimed there was threats and personal information, but there was nothing of the sort. The undercover police that were photographed on the page were photographing protesters. Rackspace is a US company, but have colocation in the UK where these servers are (err, were) located. So this is about Swiss police, on a French site, on a server in England, taken away by American federal police."
However, according to information from IMC Nantes the pictures in question were already removed a week ago.
Link to Argentina Indymedia
http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/22769
and one more to NYC Indymedia, which is still up
http://nyc.indymedia.org/ [indymedia.org]
Uh... huh... (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't give me this garbage about how I would feel. I don't like the idea that someone could post my address and phone number on the net so that a group of dicks could harass me, but I like even less this whole 'nanny state' censorship issue. And I hate the idea that something like this can be done for a reason that isn't even actually illegal. What's good for the goose is damn well good for the gander.
Now, that said, I think the likelihood that 'RNC' appears in any way on the warrant is vanishingly small. If, in fact, this is in retaliation for the RNC names thing, it's going to have some actual legal basis that is nearly or wholly unrelated.
(And may well be fictional.)
-fred
Fanatical Support™ (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Indymedia press release (Score:5, Informative)
7 October 2004
FBI Seizes IMC Servers in the UK
US authorities issued a federal order to Rackspace's office in the US ordering them to provide Indymedia's hardware located in London to the requesting agency. Rackspace is one of Indymedia's web hosting providers with offices in the US and London. Rackspace complied, without first notifying Indymedia, and turned over Indymedia's server in the UK. This affects some 20+ Indymedia sites worldwide.
Since the subpoena was issued to Rackspace and not to Indymedia, the reasons for this action are still unknown to Indymedia. Talking to Indymedia volunteers, Rackspace stated that "they cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order." ISPs have received gag orders in similar situations which prevent them from updating the concerns parits on what is happening.
It is unclear to Indymedia how and why a server that is outside the US jurisdiction can be seized by US authorities.
At the same time a second server was taken down at Rackspace which provided streaming radio to several radio stations, BLAG (linux distro), and a handful of miscellanous things.
The last few months have seen numerous attacks on independent media by the US Federal Government. In August the Secret Service used a subpoena in an attempt to disrupt the NYC IMC before the RNC by trying to get IP logs from an ISP in the US and the Netherlands. Last month the FCC shut down community radio stations around the US. Two weeks ago the FBI requested that Indymedia takes down a post on the Nantes IMC that had a photo of some undercover Swiss police and IMC volunteers in Seattle were visited by the FBI on the same issue. On the other hand, Indymedia and other independent media organisations have been successful with their victories (thanks to the EFF), for example against Diebold and the Patroit Act. Today however, the US authorities shut down IMCs around the world.
The list of affected local media collectives includes Ambazonia, Uruguay, Andorra, Poland, Western Massachusetts, Nice, Nantes, Lilles, Marseille (all France), Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Liege, East and West Vlaanderen, Antwerpen (all Belgium), Belgrade, Portugal, Prague, Galiza, Italy, Brazil, UK, part of the Germany site, and the global Indymedia Radio site.
About time! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:About time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time! (Score:5, Funny)
Face it, life for us will be much better when we all have mandatory implants and the government can track us wherever we go, and can make sure none of us are doing anything that's not approved. Anyone who doesn't go along with this will be sent to a re-education camp, where they'll be turned into happy, productive workers who spend their free time watching Survivor XXIII and attending the official government Church.
Keep America Safe, no matter the cost. Bush Cheney 2004.
Maybe the FBI... (Score:5, Funny)
Not everything is a conspiracy.
Gag? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that Rackspace seemed reasonably communicative about the Swiss Secret Service issue, I wonder if the "no comment" implies some invocation of the Patriot Act [aclu.org].
due process? (Score:5, Insightful)
now i'm no legal expert, but i was under the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions like threatening the president, you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
also by law aren't federal agents, any agents for that matter, required to show the warrant? so *some*body must know what's going on, right?
Re:due process? (Score:5, Insightful)
now i'm no legal expert, but i was under the distinct impression that, with a few exceptions like threatening the president, you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
Yes, you have missed something - the national security laws passed in the last few years.
Re:due process? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order
How do you "defend" against something like that? You can't dispute a warrant/search order. When the cops show up with paper in hand, you don't get to say "Hey, wait a sec, let's talk this over." They have the warrant. Period.
you were innocent until proven guilty and had the right to defend yourself. have i missed something?
Just because they were searched doesn't mean they've been assumed guilty. (Guilty of what, I have no idea...) That won't be known until the evidence is assessed. And the evidence can't be assessed unless the government has access to it. That's sort of the point of a search order.
Unfortunately, as things currently are, the government can confiscate property under certain laws with no obligation to return it or provide compensation. Drug property forfeitures work the same way -- if you're suspected of transporting cocaine on your yacht, for example, you forfeit the yacht, even if it later turns out you were innocent of everything.
If I were Indymedia, I wouldn't count on ever seeing those hard drives, ever again.
It's the definition of "due process" which has been changing in recent years. The constitution says that we can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, but that isn't clearly defined. And I definitely don't like the direction that definition is evolving toward...
more info (Score:4, Informative)
has more information, they suspect it is related to the posting of pictures of undercover police officers. Oddly enough the officers were photographing protesters.
Kinda short on information (Score:4, Insightful)
And I have to question what little info you have given... after all, I'm pretty sure the FBI (an AMERICAN organization) can't directly raid a rackspace location in ENGLAND... don't they have to arrange with their friends in the relevant British agencies to do something like that?
Re:Kinda short on information (Score:5, Funny)
If the British people don't like this, they should be doing something about it such as voting appropriately.
what about diebold? (Score:4, Interesting)
Diebold threatened the italian indymedia website, along with other
IMC hosted there, one year ago, for hosting documents discussing
the numerous scandals about their voting system.
This case was taken up by the EFF and they WON in court.
Now, just before the elections in USA, Diebold is coming back
under cover to strike back.
Of course they will never declare Diebold is behind all this.
Then who would be next, slashdot? just search "Diebold" in the archives if you
don't remember well wassup...
of course, just my 2 cents
Huge mistake by the feds. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huge mistake by the feds. (Score:4, Insightful)
"They hate us for our freedom!" (Score:5, Insightful)
(No fair modding me down based on your warped "political" leanings...).
What better way to stop them from hating us (Score:4, Funny)
It's a brilliant move on President Bush's part and I for one support him 100%!
Re:"They hate us for our freedom!" (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is really true, and if the checks and balances in our system of government turn a blind eye to such a thing were it ever to be uncovered, then it's time to pull out the ammo box and have another revolutionary war.
Personally, I don't think it's gone quite that far yet. So vote in people who will correct the election system.
Re:"They hate us for our freedom!" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm from Europe. And I must say that finding out that I'm part of "subordinated chattel population" is certainly news to me!
I think there are two possibilities:
a) Their brainwashing is excellent since I haven't figured this out yet, despite living here 27 years.
b) You are just talking out of your ass.
Have you ever been to Europe? For a longer period of time? Do you even own a passport? What is your source of "news"? Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?
So, Americas "borgeuos nature" (which includes stuff like life, liberty and property ownership) sets it apart from Europe (which presumably doesn't have those things). Funny, I'm alive so I obviously have life. I have all the essential freedoms a person can have. And I sure as hell own my car, my house, my television, my computer etc. etc. etc. so I obviously have property!
Knowning all that, I'm placing my bets on the B-option.
at what stage does identification become scary? (Score:5, Interesting)
if you stood outside the entrance, took photos of the people going in and published them, would that be the same thing? if its a public place whats the problem?
has there been intimidation? or is this just fear because its the republicans in power?
there are plenty if privacy concerns just by being a voter, your details are available to be seen locally (speaking as a UK citizen myself). and if you don't tick the right box then hell its available to anybody who wants it, anywhere, possibly for cross referencing with the phone book so burglars can find your phone number if if looks like you are out. well having a pretty rare name and being involved in something where a lot of people know i've got a load of expensive gear - i don't register to vote. I know people who have been repeatedly hit and vanloads of equipment nicked.
as another point, really is there any need to go? its on the telly. like all political conferances its just preaching to the converted and you are just there to applaud on cue to make the pictures look good.
Wayback machine to the rescue? (Score:3, Informative)
Better than nothing, though.
No jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)
They wouldn't be obliged to take down the server in a foreign country. Believe it or not, UK soil is subject to UK law, not American law.
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Airstrip One is Part of Oceania, comrade.
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.creators-not-consumers.co.uk/poluk/b
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got some bad news for you sunshine, Tony Blair, the British PM, is G.W's bitch. I don't know what Tony gets from sucking Bush's ass but it must be something good given the way he does it.
some background (Score:5, Interesting)
See link [wired.com] for more info.
Right or wrong doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
1984 was off by about twenty years (Score:4, Insightful)
How will this affect US based companies? (Score:4, Interesting)
The sooner OPEC switches to the Euro and isolation of the US world bully begins, the better IMHO.
subversion (Score:4, Interesting)
One only has to look at the sesuire of CNN's equipement after Robert Novack revealed that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent to conclude that indymedia is being treated equally.
Oh hold on... that never happend! Oh well So much for Freedom of Press!
That any media organization whatever would have it's harddrives, presses, or any other method of publication seized without explaination or public discourse is an afront to a free society and should be seen as a crime against the people.
Bush 1895!
Rackspace has been instructed not to comment. (Score:4, Informative)
Independant Media? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the National Post (rigidly right wing Canadian paper) will publish Linda McQuaig and others, why aren't there any divergent viewpoints on Indymedia?
The National Post. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples and oranges.
Indymedia definitely has an agenda. There is no question about this, and that agenda is to tell those stories which the National Post will never, ever touch. Linda McQuaig, as admirable as her socialist/Marxist thinking is, remains little more than a showpiece to give a lousy paper some legitimacy. (They call it, 'controversy' and they use it in a large part to sell ad spots.) Indymedia doesn't need to do this. Their primary concern is not money-making or winning false legitimacy.
Linda McQuaig is also carried in the National Post for another reason; so that people can ask exactly the question you asked; so that they can feel as though there is a legitimate reason to scorn and ignore alternative news sources.
But I think that this is unwise. Linda McQuaig will not, for instance, be allowed to report on the true events happening in Israel. Canwest Global, (which owns the National Post), has been caught re-wording stories about the war on Palestine so that unaware readers will want to favor the Israelis [www.cbc.ca].
Indymedia and other alternative news sources are needed exactly because they do not fall beneath the control of such influences. Or, at least, that was true until the FBI entered the scene.
-FL
Oh, awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, I can see what it had to do with Germany, but I don't think it's at all fair to use that example to condemn socialist thinking. I very much doubt that the con-job which went down in Nazi Germany would have met with Marx's approval!
Basically, what I mean in regards to McQuaig is that she appears to abhor greed-motivated social policy. (See for example, this piece of hers on economics and the homeless [straightgoods.ca].)
I think people who work against greed and injustice, deserve respect, and that those who deliberately ignore the lessons of kindergarten, (ie., how to share and play fairly; things we all instinctively know are right), are not worthy of respect. It seems to me that the primary thing which angers those of the conservative mind-set is simply their being told that they should not be allowed take and self-serve without limit, without regard to others or the world they live in.
I've yet to meet the diehard conservative who, with all else stripped away, is anything more than a selfish kid struggling to make-believe greed into something wholesome-sounding.
Anyway, with regards to Indymedia not being balanced in its view. . . This is true, but my thought is that Service-to-Self thinking is fundamentally structured in such a way that it is incompatible with Service-to-Other work, and after a point, it becomes in fact impossible for the two apporaches to accommodate each other at all.
--This is certainly a reflection of my own take on how reality works, and I don't expect everybody to agree with me. I see reality as a war zone between those who are seeking their higher selves and enlightenment, and those who are seeking their lower selves and the ultimate dissolution of the soul. I see the black hole as being the physical metaphor for self-service.
With these two types of people, as they say, "Never the twain shall meet".
-FL
important enough to fire up your mail client (Score:5, Interesting)
so, let's force the people with access to start asking questions.
nytimes [mailto]
newsweek [mailto]
o'reilly [mailto]
msnbc [mailto]
plus you can go to various other websites and fill out their forms--CNN, for example.
again, no sides taken, but let's try and cause a stink--this is a big deal. I'll even make it easy for you--copy'n'paste!
The FBI has effectively shut down Indymedia.org (IMC) by issuing an order to RackSpace US to hand over server hard drives located in London. As a result, over 20 local Indymedia sites have been shut off. At this time, no one knows why the FBI wants the drives or what they are investigating. It is also unclear why Rackspace US complied with a demand for materials held by Rackspace UK. Indymedia is a vocal critic of the Bush Administration, and also of the mass media. There is some history of this administration's dislike of Indymedia: before the RNC, there was a Secret Service order to shut down nyc.indymedia.org, which was organizing protests. More information can be found at the general Indymedia site, http://www.indymedia.org.
Background information. (Score:5, Informative)
I asked them what the US government's interest was in Swiss police and French websites. They informed me that no law had been violated but they were just requesting on behalf of the Swiss government that the identifying information be removed. I clarified that their concern was with the identifying information, and not with the photographs, because taking pictures of someone in a public forum is not objectionable. They agreed with me and said that their only concern was the identifying information.
I asked them for the URL of the offending post. They did not know what a URL was. I asked them what the address was for the post-- "the address you would type into your internet browser." They looked confused, consulted their notes, and stated that they weren't sure, but they thought it was http://natz.indymedia.org (in fact, the correct address is nantes.indymedia.org). I informed them that it would be very difficult to track down the post considering that there are thousands of posts on indymedia sites everyday.
I told them that the Seattle Indymedia Center has no authority regarding the Nantes Indymedia Center and that they should probably direct their request directly to the Nantes Indymedia Center. They left.
I pulled up the Nantes site. On the front page of the site, at the very top, was a large logo of the FBI, and an article regarding how their ISP (Rackspace) had received a request from none other than the FBI to remove a certain post...
Nothing happened for a few days, and then today the server is gone. This is what we know for a fact:
Indymedia is working on a press release on this matter and is working with EFF [eff.org] to assess its legal options.
god bless america (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike other countries, it's very rare for Americans to come together and work in a way that might be perceived a threat to the power of the powers-that-be, specifically the idle class that lives off the profit generated by American workers. This type of repression is uncommon because American workers so rarely come together to form our own media, organize in unions and so forth. One reason is because of a sort of Catch-22 that a society of isolated, individualized people has less of a foundation to come together to do so. Another is the massive machine - the world's largest army, prison system, intelligence system, military-industrial complex, lobbying efforts, corporate media, PR industry, fundamentalist churches, corporate law firms and so forth that attacks such efforts for workers to organize together and have their own voice. Faced with attacks by such, people become like Pavlovian dogs and go to their atomized lives of individualized exploitation, and buck the system less. Nonetheless, I think American workers will continue to try to organize together, but I pray that that the US machine continues to get foreign pressure, especially from workers organizing in foreign countries.
Indymedia is one of the few medias out there, one of almost the only medias out there that is not corporate owned and controlled, where anyone can file stories, and which is run and read by working people. Of course the corporate world and their government stooges would see that as a threat.
The charges are of course nonsense. If Chavez in Venezuela or Castro or Cuba or some other figure did this, Bush would be decrying the totalitarianism of their government right now and the rest of the corporate TV talking heads would nod their heads. Indymedia has open publishing but when "illegal content" is posted it erases it (unless it sues not to like in the Diebold case). I think that legally the idea that there is so much potential "illegal content" out there is ridiculous to begin with, and is something to be thought about. Most of the stuff posted was already floating around the net before someone posted it on Indymedia.
The problem I guess is Indymedia is a little too free for the corporate soft money bought stooges in Washington DC. They want Indymedia to be more self-censoring, letting any Tom Dick or John Q. Public have his unfiltered say is a little too dangerous. It's ironic that Indymedia is around the world, even in places like Palestine, Colombia and other places you'd expect these crackdowns, but it's the US security forces who are so often attacking this medium.
Re:Why is this "my rights online" (Score:5, Insightful)
The regular media doesn't get taken down so easily...Sounds suspicous....Politically motivated? Possibly...
But kiddy porn ring, no....
Re:Why is this "my rights online" (Score:3, Funny)
Today's moral of the story is to keep offsite backups...
Re:Why is this "my rights online" (Score:5, Informative)
(Source: Wikipedia.org. Released under the GFDL. See article [wikipedia.org])
Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)
We are dedicated to addressing issues that the mainstream media neglects and we do not conceal our politics behind a false objectivity. We hope to empower people to "become the media" by providing democratic access to available technologies and information.
Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)
They liked to live on the edge of annoying the establishment... they were the ones that broke the story of the statue of saddam hussen falling being a put-up job for the assembled press (there were only about half a dozen people there, there rest were reporters/press).
It's not surprising the US want to censor them... surprising they have the guts to do it so publicly though.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
They liked to live on the edge of annoying the establishment... they were the ones that broke the story of the statue of saddam hussen falling being a put-up job for the assembled press (there were only about half a dozen people there, there rest were reporters/press).
"Broke" the story? LOL. More like introduced a conspiracy theory. I watched the whole thing live and there were well more than "half a dozen" Iraqis there. IM's "proof" were pictures *after* the statue fell when most of the were busy dragging saddam's head down the street.
It's not surprising the US want to censor them... surprising they have the guts to do it so publicly though.
It might have something to do with the fact that they have a habit of not pulling illegal material from their site.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many many situations where illegal material is illegal illegally (violation of 1st amendment rights, of speech, press, or protest) and is therefore legal if you're willing to battle it out. The US government is way too involved in influencing public opinion, something they ought not to at all.
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
They are not owned by large media companies, and do not give money to politicians (AFAIK - they dont' have much cash). They operate on a shoe-string budget and need more computers.
And less legal problems.
There's a short answer
--LWM
Re:nothing in archive.org either... (Score:3, Informative)
Cheez, you're as bad as Dick Cheney. [factcheck.com]
Re:This doesn't look good... (Score:4, Informative)
Who is Indymedia you ask? click the link bellow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:What is there to know? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment guarantees the right to hold stupid, idiotic political opinions. If you don't like it, there are other countries with different constitutions, feel free to emigrate. Personally, I like the Bill of Rights just fine, thank you.
Re:all depends on your perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
That is complete, utter, biased, trolling, ideologist bullshit, and so is your +5, Insightful.
Instead of generalizing, why don't you get to know some real, non-radical right-leaning people? (Of course, I can judge the left based on the radicals but that wouldn't be fair either, no?) You'll find they are people, just like you. Most of the time, they even have the same concerns. They just differ on priority levels and solutions.
Oh, how convenient it is for you to dismiss "the right" as, apparently literally, animals. You are much, much more part of the problem than the solution.
Re:Freedom of speech is a noble thing (Score:5, Interesting)
If (a), what on earth does this have to do with terrorism or indeed the FBI. If (b), this is public info, they just collated it. Again, what does this have to do with the FBI, or indeed terrorists.
Re:Freedom of speech is a noble thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cou de Gras? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Indymedia != Independent? (Score:4, Insightful)
indymedia uses an open publishing system - if someone wanted to post (and had) the DNC names, they could have posted them.