Indymedia Server Seized By UK Police, Again 528
timbrown writes with word that "On 22 January 2009, Kent Police seized an Indymedia server hosted by Manchester-based colocation facility UK Grid and run by the alternative news platform Indymedia UK. The server was taken in relation to comments on an article regarding the convictions in the recent Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) trial. Seven activists were sentenced to a total of 50 years in prison."
The complete story is worth reading; timbrown continues: "I'm posting this as a concerned UK administrator who hosts a number of sites. The message appears to be clear: the UK establishment does not want political content, legitimate or otherwise, hosted from these shores. The message has been noted, however free speech must be supported even where it may not be agreeable."
so much for (Score:5, Interesting)
freedom of speech..
btw I run a site along the lines and I have an interesting setup, the database server is in one country and the web frontend is in another with secure tunnel between so if someone does a traceroute to the site and then goes datacenter and pulls the server out of rack all they get is a proxy, its far from perfect but at least the database is safe
And Here is the Problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the UK I have been seeing how a 1984 situation is being established:
1) Speed cameras to the wahzoo....
2) Camera's to watch people to the wahzoo...
3) Rights being taken away and people sent to jail on issues that would otherwise seem "ludicrous.."
It has been proven that the cameras do squat to stop crime. Yet there they are and more are coming. Why? It is an issue of the establishment in the UK wanting to control the people. 1984!
The result of Indymedia and the posters is a direct reaction of the restrictions. No more no less...
All that has to happen in the UK is that they start loosening up! Though I doubt that will happen, until a "revolution" occurs. You might think it is funny and cannot happen. I on the other hand say, sure it can happen, but we have gotten so used to "law and order" that we think it cannot happen.
Re:More of the same crap (Score:3, Interesting)
On the flip side.
I run a website explaining photography, I provide links to loads of other photographs sites but I get loads of hits on my site because of a lens I reviewed a few months back. It isn't even a professional review, just me explaining my new lens type of review but with loads of pics. Next to the lens review link is another page with details for photographers explaining their civil rights as photographers to what they can and can't do with cameras. Since it's been up, 5 people have clicked the link.
I guess people are just not interested and want their head in the sand or they know their rights?
Re:Police regarded it as a threat to the trial jud (Score:1, Interesting)
I know everyone is going to jump up and down about the right to free speech, but that isn't really the topic here.
Oh really
The police regarded the comment as an implicit threat to the trial judge, which would not come under "free speech" laws in many (most?) countries.
Which is one of the reasons why Indymedia removed the comment
They seized a *mirror* of the main server (the main site is still up a running just fine), in order to try to trace the original poster, and requested that the comment was removed from the site, which it has been.
Yet the original poster can not be retrieved from the "mirror" (or from the main site for that matter).
The main issue I see here is one of oversight, who's there to check that the police only look for forensics on the original poster, and don't start a fishing expedition on the seized server?
The main issue here is what was the intention of the police. Obviously it can't be to trace the original poster (why seize a mirror, or anything at all since Indymedia does not log ips), nor can it be to remove the comment (this had already happened). Would it just be a form of punishment for a "critical" organization? Indymedia is entirely volunteer-run and depends on donations. Taking a server offline and a potential court case will seriously increase the workload and will have financial consequences too.
But, it's not journalism (Score:1, Interesting)
It's like being a scientist in a way. At the end of the day, you want the answer to be right. In pursuit of that goal, scientists and journalists have developed a certain ethic and certain procedures that more or less work.
It's easy to be a pretend scientist: all you have to do is mix pretty solutions in some test tubes. Likewise, it's easy to be a pretend journalist. Easier, these days. But, in either case, the difference between real and pretend is not the web site or the test tubes, but whether or not someone is digging away, really trying to get at the truth.
Now, when Indymedia posts that kind of personal information that could reasonably imply a threat and isn't relevant to the story, it's the equivalent of a chemist blowing up his/her lab. At the very least, it doesn't give you confidence in their competence.
Re:Freedom of the press? (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that indymedia were uncooperative with the investigation, I have to concur completely.
SHAC, PETA, and SPEAK are all basically different wings of the ALF. None of these groups are 'pro animal rights' and are all just anti science. I get annoyed as the next person when the WI (or some other harmless group) gets put on the list of terror organisations, but these people are sick barsteds hell bent on sending us back to the dark ages and sacrificing (literally) scientists who conduct vital research on the altar of 'animal rights'.
We are NOT talking about organisations like the BUAV here. These are not legitimate protest groups exercising their right to free speech. They are terrorist groups who undermine our democracy by taking the right to make decisions away from the people by intimidating our elected officials and civil servants.
If indymedia did offer to co-operate with the police, or the police didn't seek thier co-operation first before getting a warrant then this was heavy handed and the police are in the wrong. If the reverse is the case and indymedia just refused to help the police then the police have done exactly what they are supposed to do. Get a warrant!
Re:Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
"You updated a website protesting animal cruelty vs drug companies. Now we're gonna smack you with a conspiracy charge for 4.5 years in prison."
Try, "you were basically CIO of a terrorist organisation."
SHAC/ALF are not a group protesting animal cruelty. They are a bunch of anti science luddites hell bent on hurting scientists and engineers.
You're a fucking idiot (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:But, it's not journalism (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that you must somehow be a "legitimate" journalist to benefit from freedom of the press is patently absurd and further more is dangerous in that you are willingly giving up not only your own freedoms but others' as well in your attempt to redefine the majority of the population as no longer having rights they should.
Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a bit of a difference between "this is how you make a bomb", and "This is where he lives, let's get him".
So... did they say "This is where he lives, let's get him" ?
Nothing in the post or article mentions a death threat... if the person made a death threat then that is a completely seperate issue, or do you think the medium that the threat was made through is somehow relevant.
If he sent a death threat in the post would you expect all the postal trucks to be impounded ?
Everyone thinks they are objective, nobody is.
I'm more concerned about the EU directive... (Score:3, Interesting)
SHAC members [...] threatened people with violence and otherwise intimidate people, they'd print out leaflets saying that contractors working with Huntington animal research were paedophiles and put them through their neighbours letter boxes.
Christ, John Grubor did worse than that to me back when he was ranting his way through Usenet. It never even occurred to me to call in the cops. We're talking tens of thousands of hate messages. I should have demanded Google's servers instead of just asking them to turf the spam?
If the site doesn't log IP addresses, then it doesn't log IP addresses. A mirror of the site will *certainly* not have IP addresses on it even if the original server did... so this doesn't seem to have been taken to gather information, it was taken to punish them for not being able to provide the IP address of the poster. And the expectation that the IP address *would* be logged because there's an EU directive requiring it is disturbing.
It was not even employees who were harrased. (Score:3, Interesting)
The toughs now in jail were not even bright enough to harass employees of the company doing the animal testing. They were not even bright enough to harass employees of companies doing business with them.
They would find names of big conglomerates doing business (in ways that often were extremely derivative, like messaging companies), choose a company from the group (that had nothing to do with animal testing) and then start harassing lets say the janitor.
Anything the police does to put those individuals in jail should be applauded, freedom of speech has nothing to do with this,
Re:Freedom of the press? (Score:1, Interesting)
I think it's a bit incorrect to say these groups aren't "pro animal rights". They are, but they do it with such fevour and are blinded by their goals that they do not see the hypocrytisism in their actions.
I wish more responsible groups like the BUAV would organise protest marches against the new animal lab in Oxford, for example. I went on a couple of the SPEAK organised ones. I very much agree with their _stated_ aims, but the speakers were very clearly inciting illegal behaviour, disrespecting the police, and generally trying to acheive their objectives by any means neccessary. I can't support SHAC/SPEAK any more.
It's a shame. There are good ethical and scientific reasons for abandoning vivisection, but these are lost in the press behind the unhelpfully polarising actions of these more extreme groups.
Re:But, it's not journalism (Score:2, Interesting)
Indymedia doesn't log ip numbers, there is nothing to obtain from the servers
If your posters are indulging in a campaign of intimidation against scientists and judges, not logging IP numbers is not a morally neutral choice. I also wonder what the legal implications are of knowing an IP address and deciding not to record it.
Re:The Message Is Clear (Score:3, Interesting)
My main complaint with seizures is that they can often turn into a form of punishment without a charge even being filed. Simply siezing somebody's bank account for a few years and returning it can cause financial ruin. Siezing a critical server in a start-up that can't afford to replace it can have similar results.
Perhaps siezure should require immediate compensation?
You bust a suspected robbery ring and want to sieze $500k in cash as evidence. Fine, but go ahead and hand them $500k in newly minted bills. The purpose of the siezure wasn't punishment, but to use the money as evidence - so there is no need to deprive the person of property. If you're concerned about them using it to flee the country and have probable cause, then arrest them and make the argument to the judge at arraignment regarding bail.
In this case the server could be siezed, and compensation suitable to pay for the server, its installation/deployment, and a day's lost income could be provided. After all, the company hosting the server is a victim of the crime.
Expenses related to investigations should be recoverable from the accused (provided they fit the crime - if the government spends $47M busting somebody from shoplifting the criminal should pay the maximum statutory fine and that's it).
In this case as far as I can see the siezure was perfectly fine (provided a warrant was issued). The server could legitimately be considered to contain evidence useful in a criminal investigation (a serious one at that).
Re:SHAC are a bunch of self-righteous cunts (Score:2, Interesting)
Kent Police had e-mailed imc-uk-contact in the morning requesting that personal information about the Judge from the recent SHAC trial in the UK be removed from the site. However this information had already been quickly removed in line with IMC UK policy. The e-mail also requested information relating to the poster be retained. Indymedia as an open posting news service does not log such information about its sources.
The machine was handed to the Police by the management of UK Grid, a Manchester based colocation facility, without a warrant being shown. It is believed that a warrant for this one server may exist and have been issued by a Chief Inspector. As the server was a mirror of the site, it can be concluded that the validity of the seizure wasn't checked, and the police attacked Indymedia infrastructure in the UK.
...
Andy Robbins, the cop whose name is on the document posted here, is the main person behind the repression of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) over the past few years.
How about setting up a server that does not keep logs, allowing the SHAC to post on it and then claiming the whole operation was part of "the repression of SHAC"?
They've also blocked out the UK Grid's contact name on the warrant and left Andy Robbins' name readable despite their privacy policy.
Even though you and I think SHAC is odious, it seems like it's pretty clear where their sympathies lie. And that's the reason they have legal troubles.
Imagine if a right wing website hid anti abortion, KKK or Neo Nazi terrorists' identities from the police like this? Indymedia may not be terrorists themselves, though one Indymedia activist was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, but they're clearly acting as a forum for them.
Seems like if they want to stay in business they need to both disown these people and help the police trying to catch them.
Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose (Score:3, Interesting)
By seizing the server (and shutting down the service)
The service wasn't shut down. It was a mirror and its removal only caused some temporary issues (according to TFA).
the police blocked a potential source of further leads as to the identity of the person. In short, a panic reaction, rather than a reasoned reaction.
Yes, and no. It depends on your point of view.
If they felt the server might contain data relevant to the investigation, and that the hosters were sympathetic to the poster and might try to expunge that data, then quick seizure might be a valid attempt to preserve evidence.
I do agree with you, considering the police knew about their no logging policy. They would have been much better served by getting a warrant to make sure the next time that poster made a post, the IP was logged. Assuming the whole thing isn't anonymized to the point that there's no such thing as user names or accounts.
Now explain to me what law the server owners/operators broke, that resulting in their server (and service) being "thrown in jail"
I'm not much up on law, but if I took a picture of a crime in progress, I wouldn't be surprised if the police confiscated my memory card temporarily. I would be much more surprised if such a potential need isn't covered by law.
Such a law should, of course, also include provisions about limiting the impact on the owner of the seized property. Only time will tell if the police try to sit on that server for no good reason or not.
Freedom to speak anonymously (Score:2, Interesting)
It is important to be clear about how Indymedia differs from other news organisations. Indymedia provides a platform for people to speak freely at the same time as guarding their anonymity. It does this on principle, and its systems are configured to promote this by not recording IP addresses. See http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/security.html [indymedia.org.uk] and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/privacy.html [indymedia.org.uk]
The question is whether _this_ freedom should exist and be defended and if so, what limits should be set on that freedom.
I think the freedom is worth defending. Certainly if you live under a repressive government, this capability may be essential to protect people who want to report on that repression. Whether the UK is or is not repressive is disputed, but if this freedom is defended, it makes it harder for it to become repressive. For this reason, Indymedia should be free to provide the service that they offer without unreasonable interference - they should also have a duty to behave responsibly.
The downside of this open publishing approach is that the platform might be abused by some in ways that threaten the rights and freedoms of others (as in this case). There is a need to moderate and remove abusive content. Indymedia acted promptly to remove the offending post.
If Indymedia should be free to operate as they do (no-one has brought legal proceedings against their right to work in this way), and they behave responsibly in terms of moderating abuses (which they have), then they should be allowed to do so without interference.
I have no sympathy for SHAC, but I am glad that some people give up their time, energy, money and equipment to enable our right to free, anonymous 'speech'. I think these volunteers deserve similar protections against interference as do commercial journalists and publishers.
Re:lets make another analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
This is something I never get about animal rights protesters. They always want to equate some animals life with a human's life. Sure, you fight and even go to war to save unjustly taken human life but declaring a dog or cat's life to be equal to that of a human's is a but ridiculous.
Can you explain to me why you think animals deaths are just as valid as the Jews who were killed? Or are you just pointing to extremes without thinking it through? Because I don't consider any animal's life to be close to that of a human's. Most normal people would risk death to save an unjustly endangered human life given the situation but I don't know anyone who would do the same unless it is a pet or something they have a personal attachment to. Don't you think they are a litter but different situations?
Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose (Score:3, Interesting)
I would just like to point out that if you actually read the full article you will discover that Indymedia pulled the offending post themselves. They knew it was illegal and not something they wanted on their site.
This comes down to the fact that they allow people to post anonymously and do not log their IP address. The police have seized a single server to find out who posted the article.
Everyone here probably agrees that posting personal information about a judge is a pretty stupid thing to do. But should people have the right to post anonymously? I personally think people should have the courage to stand behind their convictions. If you do something illegal, you should be able to stand up and say why you did it in such a manner that a jury of your peers would understand.
I have always drawn the line however at violence against people. If you cannot convince them by peaceful means then trying to force your opinions on them is no better than them forcing their opinions on you.
The question remains though, should the police be able to wave a magic wand and disappear your right to be anonymous without even asking a judge for a warrant?
Would we all be so quick to condemn someone who posted information about scientologies weird rituals in the same way. They are known to have extensive contacts within the British police judging by the boy who was arrested for calling them a cult on a placard outside one of their churches. Should the police in this hypothetical example be able to turn up and find out who posted the information without ever going near the inside of a courtroom just because a senior officer happens to be a scientologist so will sign the warrant.
In Britain search warrants are no longer signed by a Judge, they are signed by a senior officer of the law, effectively rendering them a waste of time. The police just turn up without one, then say they can get one at the drop of hat if need be as it is largely true.
Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose (Score:3, Interesting)
Which they were absolutely correct to do — if there is, indeed, a fair hope of extracting such information this way. In either case, there is nothing similar to what the grandstanding "administrator" is alleging in their /.-submission:
They sure don't want the "otherwise" content, and, if someone posts it anyway, they'll try to find them, even if it means ceasing a server or two...
Re:SHAC are a bunch of self-righteous cunts (Score:3, Interesting)
Andy Robbins is a police officer, he's not (normally) entitled to privacy as regards being identified in connection with his work as a police officer. The British Police Force is not quite the STASI yet.
You think SHAC is odious, GP thinks SHAC is odious, I think SHAC is odious. Perhaps Indymedia doesn't think they're odious, the fact that you condone the police harassing them (and causing damage to their operation that costs real money to put right) because of that viewpoint is the exact problem that GP is complaining about.