Slashdot Mirror

heavy censorship on Wikipedia and edit wars. there's a large body of 'trolls' and for pay shills, and insiders who police Wikipedia to control the information on the site. they're attempting to control the types of information that are on the site and spin it positively for corporations, government, police, and military interests. the site is no good if you're interested in anything factual as such and it's mostly industry propaganda. this is also the fault of the way Wikipedia is set up because the site prefers to use propaganda as sources for information, for example they'll use largely company provided sources for information on mental health drugs and the scientific studies on the subject will be edited out as "conspiracy theory" or not fitting the standard of a "good source."

the whole site is in shambles.

expert information and scientific information is therefore lacking on the site.

one time I decided to try to beef up the articles on mind control and electronic warfare weaponry, citing government articles and psychiatrists who were experts on the issue. because the information I was posting painted the government in a negative light, the information was edited out quickly by troll user who edit wars the pages and is friends with all the administrators. I was quickly banned for attempted to undo his reversals of my edits. a look at the talk pages and logs and I find out dozens of users had been banned and had problem for years with this one troll editor who keeps the pages void of real information and pro-government. he attempts to paint the issue as "not real" or "conspiracy theory" or the product of people's delusions and mental health issues.

nothing you can do about it ..

and the issue isn't new. going back to 2010 users attempted to have a page on synthetic telepathy and that year increasing edit wars to remove and censor the information forced Wikipedia to close the page entirely. even though the technology is real and factual, backed by patents and dozens of victims and police officers who've all used it. and now Facebook has announced the technology is coming to facebook eventually, and IBM did predictions in 2011 that it would be coming to consumer grade technology within 5 years.https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/451768.html

The internet is not void of dozens upon dozens upon thousands of reports of Wikipedia censoring pages and peoples content being removed.

Wikipedia is the defacto "psychological warfare" weapon. It's very valuable. Governments and companies seek to control the knowledge base of society, and that includes hiding negative information, spinning negatives as positives, and making up positive information. They invest and use Wikipedia to control what information you'll find readily available if you do a Google search. You'll walk away misled on most subjects. Entire sciences can be hidden and kept from the publics views by censoring the site as can trade secrets and things that harm the public.

obamasweapon.com

besides notability the other problem is that editors tend to flip out and delete content that is well sourced but to which they don't want others to read or to which they don't "agree with" personally. this means that not all views are covered on Wikipedia and often times topics are lop sided and don't feature what some editors prefer to call "fringe" information.

Here are a couple of examples:

The pages are completely void of information on the Department of Defense doing brain hacking of civilians and using satellite to image peoples brains remotely, however huge whistleblowers like Dr. Robert Duncan and various DOD scientists like Dr. Fred Bell and Thomas Bearden have confirmed aspects of the system in place. Patents cover the technology, as do books. These whistleblowers have been on TV/radio about it. Pages in question that are devoid of the information due to edit wars: synthetic telepathy article was deleted in 2010 due to edit wars and censorship, the page now redirects to brain-computer interface. But the brain computer interface article after 4+ years is devoid of the information, and one blurb about it and the Department of Defense developing it has been edited out and back in several times. It currently remains but it was removed after 2011/2012 for a time period. the old Wikipedia page on synthetic telepathy is here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en...

The psychotronics webpage covering psychotronic weapons is devoid of information about the USA government targeting civilians even though books and whistleblowers have disclosed it is happening and real and very possible. When edit attempts are made or suggestions made, information gets removed by "warring" editors who claim verified public information is fringe (also see discussion on the talk page; previously I got banned for merely bringing up a discussion about it). See Dr. Robert Duncan's Dec 5th 2006 interview on Coast to Coast AM and his books sold on Amazon.

The entire website is devoid of everything except general articles on how surveillance can be conducted with space and ground based long range interferometry and tomography, enabling them (patented DOD contractor technologies) to read and alter brain waves and see through entire buildings, and this is left out as a capability of the NSA on all NSA articles despite whistleblowers and magazines like the 1996 Nexus article describing "Remote Neural Monitoring" and "Electronic Brain Link" aka synthetic telepathy and people discussing HAARP's ground and building penetrating tomography. NSA whistleblower Russell Tice confirms space capability has been used to spy on Americans in American soil including top government officials, lawyers, judges, and others under authority of the Executive Branch, while Dr. Robert Duncan a DOD surveillance system architect confirms the practice of remote brain reading and alteration has been included in all DOD/NSA radar/satellite systems since 1976 based on Robert Malech's 1974 patent.

http://www.oregonstatehospital...

The 9/11 page is devoid of information from Dr. Judy Wood and when I attempted to discuss this on the talk page it was repeatedly deleted within 15 minutes by any number of trolls who falsely claimed it wasn't real or a reliable source. Dr. Judy Wood is only person to perform a forensic investigation into the World Trade Center's destruction. Not even the 9/11 commission did so; She had access to building material, photography, and video footage previously not released until 2010 when she released her book, "Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed free energy on 9/11." Essentially the forensic evidence proves that directed energy was used to control demolition the World Trade Center, essentially dustifying it by destroying the molecular bonds with directed energy. She is supported by a White House insider and others in the scientific community.

Also, why would anyone think that you would hear about political dissidents being jailed arbitrarily? The media ain't too fond of dissidents either. But believe me, if you're part of the wrong ideology they'll get a warrant to raid your house for books and put you in front of a secret tribunal...

article about how the comments were detected http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472622.html full list of comments http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472619.html

article about how the comments were detected http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472622.html full list of comments http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/01/472619.html

Assange had a financial inerest in how and when it was released.
No surprises here! I'd respect Assange if he lived up to his hype about "open access." Now we know why there are alternatives to WikiLeaks.
(and yes, I did read the WLCentral.org item before posting. Shamir himself is not without controversy: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309818.html

OK. Try these:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/360674.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War

We have moved to a service economy, therefore people have to justify their jobs in government.

We have a bloated civil service that commands too much power because they're not on top of their current workload thus submitting stupid proposals based on improper or myopic research is a career move and gives the illusion of competence.

I've met several councillors: they tend to be idiots with some form of aspergers (one is now a registered sex offender!)... Most are more concerned with controlling the incompetent voices rather than getting work done. It's a PR nightmare when you sack someone in public office - more so when you can't say how bad they are without further revelations about the state of the office ("So how long has it been that bad?") - so we're stuck with idiots in charge. But idiots surely wouldn't hide their incompetence would they?

The cabinet members don't have degrees or experience in their roles. There are too many cabinet changes (posts should be for the term of the cabinet, considering the first year of a politician's job is literally getting used to the backlog). If the Government killed some of the BS cabinet posts and put two ministers in charge of the really important stuff, things *might* get done.

In my opinion the problem is career politics and disrespect for the House of Lords and the peerage system (now stopped via the constitutional reform act), because they're too slow and considered, and the last bastion of hope for those pesky civil rights.

A good example is the no right turn sign that's recently appeared outside my flat in Nottingham, in order to make a road bus/bicycle only. There are several thousand people living here in a central city location. Go left and you hit traffic causing chaos (it's also a dangerous left). Go right, and you can ease into traffic via a route predominantly used by buses (coming from the town centre). From what I can tell, someone simply decided to add the no right sign. There was no consultation. We didn't get letters regarding the planning change. And they've added a number plate camera to catch people who continue to use it. If they expected people to continue to use the road (in order to justify the co-installation of the camera), perhaps there was a good reason *not* to make it a bus only route in the first place?

Another example is the decision of Oxfordshire council to change *all* their derestricted roads (national speed limit 60mph) to 50mph. Why?! Because it looks good.

"The criminals, who you really want to capture, are the very people who will take the trouble to know how to get around this, so although they will possibly leave digital footprints, it could be extremely difficult to find them"

Why do the government need to spy on us to protect us from the terr'ists? Clicking here may adversly affect your employment prospects, as well making any kind of public protest ..

--

"Without privacy, there cannot be freedom, and without freedom, there cannot be personal or social growth, freedom of speech without freedom of response is meaningless"

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 and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/privacy.html

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.

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 and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/privacy.html

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.

If you read the article you'd have seen that the personal details were removed by an Indymedia moderator as soon as they were aware of them.

Indymedia UK privacy policy does not condone publishing personal details

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/privacy.html#Personal_Information

Indymedias policy of not logging IP addresses is well known to the Police.

Its difficult to see what reason they could have for pulling this machine, other than low level harrasssment.

Luckily we live the the most democratic place on the planet. Where free speech and freedom to public protect are enshrined in the constitution. Except outside Parliament Square and American military bases and drug testing labs and .. anywhere else for that matter. You also risk getting arrested if you try and talk to any of the protesters. Try it if you don't believe me. One other method of intimidation is the mass photographing of protectors by the Police Forward Intelligence Team and ironically the seizure of photographs by legitimate journalists.

--

"Freedom of speech without freedom of response is meaningless"

"Without privacy, there cannot be freedom. And without freedom, there cannot be personal or social growth"

I praise that you have defended it so well and my statement of Briton stating they dont need it is unfounded. Someone like you is certainly ready to defend their rights.

However, i am frightened when i read articles where the government (at least by the american bill of rights standards) seems to be overstepping, or at least trying to overstep (in the us, while controversial, police often get away with saying anything to try to make arrests.) the peoples rights such as thesse:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/14/ripa_encryption_key_notice/

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385589.html?c=on#c184457

Where is the outrage? Those posting don't seem to understand the implications of requiring citizens to furnish, by law, that which could lead to their arrest. (If the prosecution/government didnt believe it would why would they be asking for it?) In my book that is self-incrimination.

With things like this in place there is nothing preventing anybody (police/government or over-wise) from creating files of random data (which encrypted data is indecipherable from) that contain nothing, labeling them in alluring way, and as the defendant (whom the files were laid on) cannot come up with encryption keys, putting them in jail.

This is a clear overstepping upon citizen's rights and it needs to be seen clearly as such.

Have you considered running a Tor node instead ?

I've already set up nodes several times in the past, but neither Tor, nor Freenet are currently worth the legal risks for me. Where I live, someone has been in prison for the past 3 months because he showed animal rights' activists how to encrypt their PCs... Therefore I'd rather wait for out-of-the-box support in mainstream browsers so I don't need to explain why I am using Tor or Freenet (I'll just tell them it's built into my browser like SSL).

Yeah, I'm paranoid, but wouldn't you be when people in your neighbourhood get thrown in jail because they've encrypted their e-mails and hard disk?

Here's the thing: a bunch of people were protesting by chaining themselves to gates and generally impeding operations at a power station.

Your citation for this? Climate Camp was a peaceful legal protest from everything I have read.

Yes, you are right that this is more an issue of the protest than the board game - the article is rather misleading to miss this out. But last time I looked, police confiscating things because they don't like what you are protesting about is just as worrying a thing, if not more so.

The actions of the police have been criticised by politicans (one MEP was at the event)

Also see:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/405874.html

http://www.hippyshopper.com/2008/08/climate_camp_a_report_from_the_front_line.html

Unless you have evidence that the board game was seized as part of crimes committed, please refrain from spreading misinformation about "shutting down a power station", and making the "protester == illegal" assumption.

(Personally I don't have a strong opinion on the issues being protested either way, but I do have concerns about police action, and I was alerted to these events from a friend who was present as a Legal Observer and witnessed these events.)

all the USA spam servers are currently in use targeting Georgia so they can continue their anti-russia propaganda.

Bush and the Georgia-Russia conflict

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/406684.html

for starters i watch /.feeds, others are ecogeek http://feeds.feedburner.com/EcoGeek, idmtrade http://idmtrade.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss and UK indymedia http://indymedia.org.uk/en/newswire.rss these are my regulars of sort. enjoy

If they do, they open themselves to investigations resulting in disciplinary action and/or lawsuits for harassment.

Indymedia has a good article about this. The protester, ironically, was objecting to "Fair Play", which is essentially harassment of any and all perceived foes. The citation identifies him and now he faces the same retaliation he objected to.

Very True. State Secret is a twisted analogy.
The State comprises of its citizens. (Roman definition).
So State Secrets really means the Citizens' Secrets. In which case the cameras, etc., are to be removed when WE as citizens invoke the State Secrets privilege.
Some lawyer should take up this argument in a small sympathetic court and make one council remove cameras because it violates Citizens' Secrets.
Once the precedent is established, then it becomes easier to challenge it island-wide.
Although i guess the lawyer would be Kelly-ed http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368064.html/ long before he is able to make a success out of it in city courts.

they do have large pay checks and bonuses. regardless of the statement being incorrect the links are an interesting read. i have noticed many top stories missed by the bbc including anti war demo's the destruction of our civil rights.

what the bbc are good at is the scaremongering of paedophiles, terrorists and pirates, just to make sure we will all give up our rights to protect our children.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396197.html

great documentary exploring the rape of our civil liberties over the last 10 years by the labour government.


FTA: TAKING LIBERTIES is a shocking but hilarious polemic documentary that charts the destruction of all your Basic Liberties under 10 Years of New Labour. Released to coincide with Tony Blair's departure, the film and the book follow the stories of normal people who's lives have been turned upside down by injustice - from being arrested for holding a placard outside parliament to being tortured in Guantanamo Bay.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T READ IN THE PAPERS! THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T SEE ON TV! AND IT'S HAPPENING TO YOU!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3351275215846218544&q=Taking+Liberties&total=235&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Here in the UK, all ISPs have had to sign up to Cleanfeed. Like the Finnish system, it's intended to block only child porn - to be fair, unlike the Finnish system there doesn't seem to be evidence that it catches more stuff. But then, since the list is secret, and blocked pages silently return a false "page not found" error, there's no way to be sure.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/391376.html?c=on claims that the list has been expanded, but it's not clear what the evidence is. We already know though that the Government want criminalisation of possession to start including consensual adult porn.

The world has noticed the situation in Burma, but we have not actually done anything to stop the oppression.

They just got some PR that they didn't need.

I would have thought that the issues raised by this are a lot more important (especially given that he has shut down blogs belonging to MP's, a candidate for Mayor of London etc.), but Slashdot is too US centric to care about what happens across the Atlantic (even though you can be sued for libel in the UK, if just one person in Britain views your website based anywhere in the world - so slashdot better not libel me!).

The
investigators believe H. is the intellectual mastermind behind the group
because his dissertation on urban renewal features the word
"gentrification," which also appears in the communiqués of the
"militante gruppe."

Apart from when you said this...

Just listen to them bleating about how Muslim people don't 'integrate' and how the Muslim community doesn't denounce terrorist attacks loudly enough.

I wasn't complaining about them making generalisations, I was complaining that the generalisations were incorrect. There is a big difference. Saying that the majority of people in the UK are right-wing is a fact, as I have shown above. When Rupert--right wing--Murdoch says jump, the Labour Party asks: 'how high would you like Mr Murdoch?'

who voted for a Left Wing government

Wow, you think Labour are a left-wing government?! No. They're more right-wing than the Conservatives. Tony Blair privatises more than most Tory governments have done. Look at how the real left-wing gets along with him.

What immediately comes to mind is that if Iran were to blow up a pellet bomb in orbit, that would eliminate space research and satellites for a long time. And it will likely be the first defensive action they take when USA attacks them. As for the general bullshit that many believe about Iran, please check your facts from multiple sources. For example, Iran has no nukes or nuclear weapons program. USA has a long history of demonizing countries and people they want to destroy and spreading false facts and paranoia about them:

Answering the Charges against Iran: Dispelling the Demonising Myths
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/360674.html

"On a personal note, I've met some folks in Arizona that are armed better than a small National Guard unit. In many states it's not very hard to obtain a Class 3 Firearms license. I wish you luck trying to take away any of these folks rights..."

Um, if Martial law is declared, a small posse of helicopter gunships could quite easily wipe out just about any citizen, no matter how they were holed up or armed. The citizenry can have ground-to-air missiles or rocket-propelled grenades and it makes no difference if the gunship is over the horizon with an AWACS up-top.

And if you want to see what an Apache can do against individuals, just look at this. I'd warn you about clicking on that link if you're squeamish, there's no doubt what's happening is the ruthless and efficient killing of men (even those wounded and trying to get away), as well as the destruction of vehicles. In that link, they didn't even use any air-to-ground missiles or cruise-missiles, just the Apache's cannon. If you don't think US soldiers would do this to US citizens, think again. Under martial law, they can be executed themselves for not performing their "duty".

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't grok this basic fact: you are at the mercy of your government - that's why it is important to choose it well. Even if (by some miracle) you managed to repulse the first-wave of government soldiers, they can escalate WAY better than you can, and they will. The only solution would be guerrilla warfare, and for that you need organisation, supplies, intelligence, and purpose - a lot more than can be expected by a few Arizonian gun-lovers.

Simon.

Some points:

1. The British authorities have a record of attempting to conjure 'terrorist threats' out of nothing in order to increase public support for unpopular foreign and domestic policy decisions.

2. If the UK really is under threat of "imminent attack" and there really is credible intelligence on which to base that belief, then shouldn't the PM be in the UK and not on a Caribbean beach?

One cannot be certain at this early stage that this is a mere PR exercise - but neither is it appropriate to suspend scepticism entirely. Especially given the track record of this goverment.

The police have been playing this game for ages now!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/331363.html

Rare, yes. But not unheard of.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/fbi_indyme dia_raids/
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/298741.html

I grew up in the 70s in London when the IRA were fairly routinely blowing stuff up. At no stage did anyone suggest compulsory ID to deal with this. Mainly the bins were taken off the trains and eventually a 'ring-of-steel' (meaning police checkpoints at increased presence) around the City Of London (our Wall St). Then somehow by the end of nineties we had become the most surveilled people on Earth.

Post 911 the talk of terrorism never went away. And then 7/7 came along and the paranoia and suspicion just went sky-high. Now we too lived in a country where any change of law could be carried off with the mere mention of the T-word. (Either that or the other one, the P-word, the Glitter-crime). This year Blair has is own little version of the Patriot act coming into force, one where he can issue laws without recourse to Parliament as long as they don't include tax increases or a prison penalty greater than 24 months.

Electronic sniffers are be trialed on a few parts of the underground smelling for explosive traces and there is a scheme in planning for a countrywide network of number plate recognition cameras recording all vehicles on a gigantic DB. Most London Transport users use RFID (oyster) in replacement for the old tickets and all this data is recorded. We will have RFID national ID soon at a cost of around £90 per person, compulsory. I could go on but here's a link or two to go on with.

http://www.no2id.net/

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/

So, as Orwell (real name: Eric Blair) predicted, we really are heading for a BB state. It's obvious that the UK is the USs puppy dog and we are in the 'endless' war just as long as you are. Really the UK is just another state of the USA. Maybe even quite a powerful and important one at that.

There is a saying in England "Watch America that's what here will be like in 10 years time" - now it seems we've just about caught up or even exceeded what's going on in the US.

I think it would be a little worrying if it recorded political protests or other citizen-sensitive events.

Nah, it's OK, they just turn them off if there's an anti-government demonstration (https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/03/30677 2.html)

Jeremy

Did you see the Coke Can at his desk, that's how m$ are paying for all the bandwidth.........Product Placement. :-)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghams hire/2005/11/328667.html

Nestlé union leader murdered

Leader of striking workers of food and beverage giant Nestlé gunned down in Philippines.

Saturday September 24 2005 - CALAMBA CITY -- THE LEADER OF STRIKING WORKERS of food and beverage giant Nestlé Philippines was gunned down in front of a plastic factory in Barangay Paciano Rizal this city late Thursday afternoon.

Saturday September 24 2005

CALAMBA CITY -- THE LEADER OF STRIKING WORKERS of food and beverage giant Nestlé Philippines was gunned down in front of a plastic factory in Barangay Paciano Rizal this city late Thursday afternoon.

The death of Diosdado Fortuna, 50, was quickly condemned by leftist labor groups, with one pinning the blame on Ms Arroyo as the killing came after the President talked tough against her political opponents.

"We are certain that the killing is politically motivated. Arroyo's hands are bloodied once more ...," said Elmer Labog, national chair of the Kilusang Mayo Uno.

"We will seek justice for his death and will send the evil perpetrators of this murder to hell where they belong," he said.

Fortuna died of two gunshot wounds in the back as doctors tried to save his life at the Calamba Doctors' Hospital.

Fortuna heads the 660-strong Union of Filipino Employees-Drug and Food Alliance (UFE-DFA), the coalition of employees of the Nestlé factory in Cabuyao, Laguna.

The group has been on strike since Jan. 14, 2002 after talks for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with management on retirement benefits bogged down.

Pedro Dy-Liacco Jr., director for communications of Nestlé, said in a statement that the Nestlé management was shocked over the killing of Fortuna.

"We condemn this act of violence and extend our sympathies to Fort's family and relatives. We are prepared to extend help to his family and to the Calamba police for a swift resolution of its investigation."

"He doesn't deserve to die like this. He did nothing wrong but to fight for what is due the lowly workers like him. What an injustice," his wife Luz said.

Luz quickly blamed Nestlé management for the killing.

"My husband has no other enemy except Nestlé management."

Supt. Nestor de la Cueva, deputy chief of the Calamba police, said Fortuna was on his way home in his motorcycle from the Nestlé picket line when gunmen shot him twice about 5:20 p.m.

A passing motorist stopped by and brought Fortuna to the hospital where he died.

Police said the gunmen wore helmets and could not be easily identified.

After news of his death spread, hundreds of people trooped to the Nestlé factory to denounce the killing.

Fortuna's wife said her husband's last text message to her, sent just 30 minutes before he was gunned down, was about their two-year-old grandson, who was suffering from diarrhea.

"He would tell me to remember the face of his would-be assassin. To remember the vehicle his attackers will use," she said. "It hurts me more to know that I wasn't there when he was killed. How can I help him get justice?"

Fortuna became president of the Nestlé union when its former leader, Meliton Roxas, was killed in front of the Nestlé plant in 1988. Marlon Ramos with Delfin Mallari Jr., PDI Southern Luzon Bureau

The workers at this Nestlé factory in the Philippines were on strike for a long time, Nestlé must have offered disgusting wage conditions for a strike to last that long. Now the 2 most recent workers union leaders are dead.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/325596.html

"Whats the psychology behind a crackpot conspiracy theorist? I mean is it some kind of mental disorder? Do you think there could ever be a treatment?"

So sorry, but trying to put me down with childish name-calling will not change reality.

If a plane had NOT hit the Pentagon that would be a huge story every network would want to get to the bottom of and scoop the rest of the news industry. The reason why no mainstream news sources dispute that a plane hit the Pentagon is because a PLANE ACTUALLY HIT THE PENTAGON.

This comment is also meaningless and close to slander. By the same logic, one must conclude that if a plane had hit the Pentagon it would not be a huge story mentioned on any news network.

So what else do you think is fake that the rest of the world accepts as fact?

By the logic everyone thinks it is true so it must be, I am forced to conclude that the world was indeed flat until someone realized it was round.

Please search the web and look at the available evidence that indicates if a Boeng 747 did or did not hit the Pentagon 11. September 2001. Please look into it and judge the available evidence yourself. http://www.terrorize.dk/ is a new Danish collection of available 911 photos and videos with real footate most people in the USA have never seen, the site will provide a great insight regardless of your current view.

"The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of 'X-Files' proportions and insidiousness."

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration's lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

-- Griffin Madison: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html

"With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher."

Is it not interesting that the Hearst Corporation http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp thinks a person from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is better suited to tell the truth than a real, educated journalist? (It is a good idea to visit cjr and educate yourself on what other media stations are likely only to publish what SDHS approves, like "National Geographic":
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon2/

Is it not also interesting that their article that is supposed to debulk the truth, read page 6 in that so-called "facst" article, in no way what so ever proves that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon, only provdes loose slander?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon1/

Is it not nice to know that most of the free world view it as a fact that the fires in the Pentagon were started by arson?

Is it not comforting to know that most of the, in reality, free world now - like 63% of Canada - now view it as a FACT proven beyond all doubt that WTF 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition?

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051026 163300114

I'm sick and tired of people criticising the US. I'm mean, what have they done that's so bad?

[Heckler]- Well they toppled democracies in Chile, Iran, Guatemala, and other countries.

Ok, but apart from those misunderstandings.

[Heckler]- Well apart from toppling democracies they have supported and continue to support brutal dictatorships around the world. These include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Suharto in Indonesia (hundreds of thousands were Slaughtered). Most recently of course is Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan who likes to have demonstrators mown down with machine guns.

Yeah, ok maybe there were some mistakes made. But apart from toppling democracies and supporting dictatorships, what has the US ever done? I mean, what about the Kurds, we've really helped them out haven't we?

[Heckler] - Yes they're in a strong position now. Let's just hope they forget US support for Saddam while he was gassing them. And lets hope they never realise that the US massively stepped up military aid to Turkey and looked the other way while they were bombing the Kurds.

Ok, but apart from toppling democracies, supporting dictatorships and screwing the Kurds, what is the US so guilty of? [Heckler] - Well how about the support for terrorist acts against Cuba, and other countries? For example, Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA agent was behind the bombing of a Cuban Airliner in 1976. The US refused to extradite him.Then there was the Cuban hotel bombings in 1997, also involving Luis Posada Carriles. And what about those poor Cuban pigs? CIA-Backed anti-Castro terrorists introduced swine fever into Cuba in 1971. This economic sabotage resulted in the slaughter of 500,000 pigs.

Hold on. Cuba is a special situation. It's a dictatorship, so we're just trying to topple it and bring freedom to the Cubans.

[Heckler] - Ok, forget Cuba. We must not forget the 1985 Beirut car bombing. That was a CIA-backed attempt to assassinate Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. They missed him but killed 85 civilians. Lets also not forget the support for terrorism in Nicaragua. It got so intense that the World Court made a decision in 1986 against the US, ordering it to terminate the unlawful use of force and illegal economic warfare.

Alright, alright, but apart from toppling democracies, supporting dictatorships, screwing the Kurds and supporting terrorism, what has the US ever done?

[Heckler] - Well lets not forget about the vast numbers of civilians killed by US military action. A well-researched article in the Lancet concluded that around 100,000 Iraqis have died since the war started, mostly as a result of "coalition" air strikes. Lets also not forget the several million civilians bombed to death in Vietnam. They weren't all bombed of course, we mustn't forget the My Lai massacre.

We also must not forget the thousands killed during the invasion of Panama in 1989, who's purpose was to removed another CIA-backed dictator, Manuel Noriega.

Okay okay. We've made some past mistakes. But now we're setting it all right in Iraq.

Yes. That's exactly what I thought when I watched footage of a US helicopter slice several farmers apart while one of the pilots says "He's wounded. Hit him!". Or the F16 footage showing a crowd of civilians (not fighters as has been claimed) being bombed while the pilot says "Aw, dude!".

We'll you obviously just hate freedom!

-Jeff

No, they just happened to wind up with them. Do they still have copies? Where are they? What have they looked at?

Except they didn't. They asked for the logs; Indymedia violated the reasonable expectation of privacy by handing over much more than was requested. The targeted request for specific logs was not the issue IMO.

Indymedia violated privacy? Surely you mean rackspace here.

[content]

There were a few other things besides publicly available content on there. Some of my email, for one.

What if the FBI had hacked into Indymedia to secretly monitor their logs, so that Indymedia never had a second of downtime and got to keep all their hardware. Would that undermine our argument about privacy and freedom of speech?

BZZZT! Absurd slippery slope argument: -5 points. :-)

So you disqualify that based on "slippery slope"? But it's what the Italian government has done, and something tells me the US govt is probably more tech saavy. So were already at the bottom of the slippery slope you think will never happen. We know that the Italian government took the private key used by https of an activist server to monitor webmail using a man-in-the-middle attack. See:
Alternative Servers Attacked: "Not a Private Question: A Question of Privacy"

My point was that the foil-hat crowd soiled themselves when they saw the original story and were positive the FBI was a bunch of jackbooted thugs, etc; now that Indymedia has been identified as the reason for the excessive disclosure we shall hear nary a peep from /. [re: the behavior of the ISP]. That's all, really. Cheers!

The FBI isn't a bunch of jackbooted thugs? I guess you're right. In Guantanamo they were complaining that the military was being excessive. They're nice folks. Read their history and you'll see the great things they've done.

Again, you say "now that Indymedia has been identified as the reason for the excessive disclosure"--what the hell are you talking about? Do you mean rackspace again, or do you not know what's going on, or what? Indymedia didn't turn over anything. Indymedia wasn't asked either, FWIW.

-Jeff

The sample given is highly unrepresentative.

The indymedia guys do occasionally seem to give space to some whacked-out lefites, but most of their stuff is quite reasonable.
I've been espacially impressed with their coverage of Latin Ameircan issues.

If you don't want your news presented from a left wing angle, go elsewhere.
But dont' try to misrepresent indymedia's point of view. In the long run, you only do yourself a disservice.

And finally....
Here are some more representitive articles, taken from UK indymedia page today:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314908.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314733.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314391.html

The sample given is highly unrepresentative.

The indymedia guys do occasionally seem to give space to some whacked-out lefites, but most of their stuff is quite reasonable.
I've been espacially impressed with their coverage of Latin Ameircan issues.

If you don't want your news presented from a left wing angle, go elsewhere.
But dont' try to misrepresent indymedia's point of view. In the long run, you only do yourself a disservice.

And finally....
Here are some more representitive articles, taken from UK indymedia page today:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314908.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314733.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314391.html

The sample given is highly unrepresentative.

The indymedia guys do occasionally seem to give space to some whacked-out lefites, but most of their stuff is quite reasonable.
I've been espacially impressed with their coverage of Latin Ameircan issues.

If you don't want your news presented from a left wing angle, go elsewhere.
But dont' try to misrepresent indymedia's point of view. In the long run, you only do yourself a disservice.

And finally....
Here are some more representitive articles, taken from UK indymedia page today:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314908.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314733.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314391.html

Autistici is a bunch of tin-foil-hatters who run a privacy service for other tin-foil-hatters on server hardware they can't physically control.

This article has been posted to loads of IMC sites, for example the UK:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311774.html

(The UK site has a few mirrors so perhaps it won't fall over with a /.ing...)

More about Mandelson's activities: See "Mandelson and Mortgage Fraud", for example.