Justice Dept. Asked For Broad Swath of IndyMedia's Visitor Records 244
DesScorp writes "In a case that tests whether online and independent journalism has the same protections as mainstream journalism, the Justice Department sent Indymedia a grand jury subpoena. It requires a list of all visitors on a day, and further, a gag order to Indymedia 'not to disclose the existence of this request.' CBS reports that 'Kristina Clair, a 34-year-old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena,' and that 'The subpoena from US Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.' Clair is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
That's change I can believe in (Score:2, Insightful)
Say hello to the new boss.
Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Insightful)
I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena? Delete the fucking shit already and be done with it. Then, when the feds come knocking, you simply reply, "I'm sorry my http.conf is setup to direct logs to /dev/null. Have a nice day."
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, Indymedia is the sort of outfit that would be ideologically opposed to just knuckling under and they got actual legal help from the EFF(even then, though, once they dropped the initial request, the EFF's lawyer had to push to get them to back off from threats around disclosure). How often, though, do you think that that demand for secrecy, completely without legal basis, is simply obeyed by outfits with less spine or worse lawyers?
This can't be the only time that that demand has been made.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not interested in seeing your rights eroded?
That's right, just close your eyes.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would anyone be shocked by something like this? It's not like it hasn't happened before. One thing about LIberals and Conservatives, they both like control. Their idealogies may not be the same but their methods aren't that different.
I would argue that everyone likes control, but if there is one thing conservatives and liberals can agree on, it is that republicans are not conservatives and democrats are not liberals, despite our flamewars to the contrary.
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
How often, though, do you think that that demand for secrecy, completely without legal basis, is simply obeyed by outfits with less spine or worse lawyers?
Considering most of the major telecos went along with wholesale spying on the American public, I'm guessing the number of organizations even challenging a request like that is going to be pretty small.
I thought the courts already vacated the secrecy demands, except in terrorism related cases. Either I'm mistaken or the Justice Dept. figures there's no downside to bluffing.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they're separate. That's why it's sheer coincidence that criminal charges against Obama supporters (Bill Richardson, the Philadelphia voter-intimidating thugs) were dropped in spite of objections by career DOJ lawyers.
Re:This is change (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that, at present, all but one of the states has at least one "fusion center"(and that last one may have gotten one in the meantime) where state and local police forces voluntarily get together with their Fed, military, and private sector buddies for general surveillance state fun, I'd say that the odds of secession over excessive state surveillance are ~0. With the exception of libertarians that the republicans don't listen to, and civil libertarians that the democrats don't listen to, there is broad support, in government and among the public, for pretty much anything that promises "security".There are occasional disagreements over who is sub-human enough to be the public face of the terrifying enemy; but that is largely cosmetic.
With few (and politically irrelevant) exceptions, there are basically no actual "states' rights" enthusiasts. There are plenty of people who reliably take up the "states' rights" banner when they aren't getting what they want at the federal level and then drop it as soon as they are; but that isn't exactly the same thing
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:1, Insightful)
The irony is, if the left wing actually supported the right on some of their basic rights issues, they would get another break on government power.
(note the Left's current guffaws over the non-prosecution of the white guys who brutally beat a black man in St. Louis 3 months ago)
Re:Holy old news-A summary in disguise. (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.
Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:3, Insightful)
>> The irony is, if the right wing actually supported the left on some of their basic rights issues, they would get another break on government power.
No. The irony is that the right wing and the left wing are identical.
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you then post anonymously expecting that they don't know exactly who posted it?
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the irony is that you guys don't have a left wing, or even a middle of the road party, its all far to the right.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1, Insightful)
Depends on how 'liberal' the judge is. To think that liberals are no less likely to attempt to supress free speech is an act of youthfulness or naivete.
Re:And why are websites still keeping this info? (Score:3, Insightful)
... and your firewall and access logs aren't on the tape backups either ....
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish y'all would stop bashing Obama's Justice Department.
Yes there are problems, but he's aware of them, and he's doing his best to solve these problems in his own way. He doesn't need us criticizing him, so just cooperate with the subpoena instead of making a fuss about it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RETAIL spying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it were illegal, calling it "wholesale" is a flamebait...
Oh, jeez, I'm sorry. They monitored every mode of electronic communication running through the US. Phones, email, web, everything. And there's evidence the monitoring occurred regardless of the origin of the calls.
Would that be "retail" spying then? I'm not sure what label to attach to such a massive invasion of privacy. You're right that "wholesale" just doesn't do the scope justice. Perhaps "universal" or "galactic" might fit better?
It may be flaimbait but at least I'm not apologizing for scumbags who cooperated to spy on their fellow citizens or trying to minimize the scope of the problem...like you are.
Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats (Score:4, Insightful)
A battery backed RAM disk (DRAM not SRAM) with a large red button to interrupt power to the PC and the RAM disk!
Ooops! I musta kicked out that pesky wire again, damn!
You could call it a patriot act HDD.
Re:RETAIL spying... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government is tracking who I call, how many times I call them, when I call them, and for how long, it's still "spying" on me, even if they don't record the actual content of the phone calls.
So, yeah, "wholesale" spying is still the appropriate term here.
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a long shot and a conspiracy theory, though.
There's another word for it: "absurd". There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this? Cuz Obama has, um...no power over the Justice Dept, right? This is as bad as the theories that Obama was just placating white conservative voters in the election campaign, only to "unmask" himself the day after inauguration as a progressive...
I know you made it clear how silly what you were writing was, but then there's no need to entertain the idea. Unless some small part of you believes it could happen...
Re:That's change I can believe in (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really, no, if he wants to keep the next guy from doing it, too. Besides, if it got out that he was forbidding warrants like this, Republicans would scream bloody murder and claim that he was putting the nation at risk to protect the rights of dirty hippies.
If you wanted to ban these warrants for evermore, and you are the president, this is the only way in the US system you can do it; the only other modality is by getting Congress to pass a law, but it's questionable he'd have the votes for it, and he'd put himself at significant political risk.
from a saudi's perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
the american left and right wing is far to the left
what makes his perspective any less valid than yours?
or rather, with what arrogance do you suppose your ideological perspective is a valid perspective?
the truth is, ideology is a bell curve in any country, and within the usa, which is a democracy, the right and the left compete over the middle of this bell curve for support. this keeps the left and right wing in the usa from becoming too radical, because if they do drift too far right or left, they would lose support, and therefore power. we saw this with the election of barack obama because the republicans had become too beholden of ideological purists form the far right. and we see the continuing soul searching of the republican party now between ideological purists (who represent republican defeat, but they don't know it, because their appeal is on the fringe of the bell curve) and pragmatists who wish to moderate the republican party to regain power
in other words: dmeocracy works. it moderates and stabilizes left and right wing forces
of course, someone from outside the country (or on the fringe of the bell curve within that country) would see everyone to be vastly left wing or vastly right wing... but who cares? what validity does that person have to criticize? the validity of right and left wing is objectively and coherently defined as what lies to the left and right of the middle of the ideological bell curve of the country in question. all other perspectives are simply invalid and pointless, because they do not represent the actual middle ground of the will of the people
the ONLY valid ideological point of view is that of the middle of the bell curve of a population. what makes this point of view of paramount validity is that this is the point of view that determines maximum political stability for that population. since in a democracy, parties are constantly scrambling to maximize their influence, their platforms are constantly being tweaked to seek out this moderate ideology as best as possible
in other words, democracy works, despite invalid snark from the fringes of the bell curve and from outside the country, and you should be happy that this process is healthy in the usa as demonstrated by the last presidential election
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be modded Insightful not Funny. I was so pissed that people were saying exactly that when Obama voted for immunity against the telecoms.
Re:Not to disclose the request (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad part is I'm quoting a Babylon 5 episode from 1995 (a Nightwatch guy defending EA President Clarke). Nothing really changes