Indymedia Server Raided by FBI

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by mfh · 2004-10-07 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

... 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.

Yeah that freedom of speech thing is a real pain, isn't it?

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.

Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by caseydk · 2004-10-07 09:51 · 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! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 09:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's different because no one's threatening to kill RNC delegate, you partisan asshole.

Sheesh. Get a clue, or buy one.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by AK+Marc · 2004-10-07 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

They also published the personal information of the delegates which included home addresses, phone numbers, and places of work.

...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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by eliza_effect · 2004-10-07 10:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because when anti-abortion groups post that information, the implication is that it is to be used for less-than-legal activities (including murder). Posting the address and phone number of someone, without advocating harm to them isn't a problem in most cases (because if it were, the companies who mantain your local Phone Book would be in some serious trouble).
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by caseydk · 2004-10-07 10:16 · Score: 3, 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! by Temsi · 2004-10-07 10:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

When anti-abortion groups post this information on doctors who perform abortions, it is considered a threat. Why is this any different?
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.

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by ZB+Mowrey · 2004-10-07 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

I always love it when people confuse LiberAL with LiberTARIAN. It must be convenient to ignore the extra letters on the end. FYI - I can't think of a single Libertarian who would vote for Shrub. Not to say they don't exist, but I've not met one.
I'd bet about anything that most of the 'against' votes on Slashdot came from Libertarians, be they Big L or Little L.
Love,
A former conservative, who jumped ship when he realized there was no one at the helm.

--
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by FredFnord · 2004-10-07 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

There were numerous reports from NYC of delegates to the RNC being accosted.
Yes. In New York, when going in and out of the meeting. That's part of life; protests are, at least in theory, still legal.

(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.)
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.
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?'
If these were Communists, people would be screaming about "black listing".
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

--
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Solstice · 2004-10-07 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Bwahahaha... That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard here. Perhaps you haven't heard of ELF, Black Bloc, or Ruckus? Maybe not, but perhaps the Black Panthers and BAMN may jog your memory. These groups aren't necessarily known for their peaceful tactics.

Oh yeah, what about the recent ransackings and shootings at Republican campaign headqurters? Lest we forget that Indymedia itself was born out of the "peaceful" demonstrations at the Seattle WTO conference.

There are radical kooks on both sides of the aisle. You cannot possibly devine that the intention of the the folks who posted that info is entirely peaceful.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by techsoldaten · 2004-10-07 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I was unaware anyone had conclusively identified the party affiliations of any of the people having taken part in these events.

A popular technique in engineering consent to an issue is to generate a sympathetic response to you candidate. One way to do this is to stage an attack on the candidate, not necessarily a physical one but one where people will feel sorry for him / her.

It is entirely possible these attacks were staged as part of an effort to generate sympathy for GOP candidates. No one should pretend to know any different.

M
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by snark42 · 2004-10-07 10:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

The definition of libertarian is one who is for minimal government intrusion in both personal and economic life. A person for personal freedom and more government programs is a liberal. A person for minimal government intrusion in economic life and more intruusion in personal life is a conservative. Of course the dems and repubs here in the U.S. don't fit those definitions. The repubs used to be libertarians before the Christian "Right" got so involved.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by sg_oneill · 2004-10-07 10:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

And then some....

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".

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Jelloman · 2004-10-07 10:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is entirely possible these attacks were staged as part of an effort to generate sympathy for GOP candidates.

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.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by FredFnord · 2004-10-07 11:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I find it ironic that a bunch of anti-violence, anti-gun, peacemongers, like Democrats would behave this way. The anti-Bush crowd is foaming at the mouth. Have you all had your shots?
That's SO funny to hear.

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

--
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by tazan · 2004-10-07 11:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Did you read the web page? It starts out with this quote "The earth is not dying, it is being killed. And those that are killing it have names and addresses." One of the goals is "Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit." And ends with "Shut down the RNC!" Shutting down a parties convention is not voter intimidation? And since when is someone's email address and hotel they are staying in public information? If this is all public information why did they have to break into a server to get it?
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by benzapp · 2004-10-07 11:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

What did these stuffed shirt Red Staters expect, showing up in the toughest Democrat constituency in America with dazzled stares?

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.

--
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by aminorex · 2004-10-07 11:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Idea that people who have positions of *public responsibility* are the ruling class and therefore exempt from the norms and standards that apply to us *little people*, such as being tracked by our enemies in databases containing private information, is pernicious, antipathetic to democracy, and morally absurd.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by 0x0000 · 2004-10-07 12:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Could it be that the anti-Bush-haters have overtaken the Bush-haters? Does that leave anyone who actually like Bush?

No. The plain fact is there are no Bush supporters - only people who hate Kerry are voting for Bush. Of course, only Bush-haters are voting for Kerry, so the rest of us - those that don't hate - are just screwed.

The 2-party system has got to be torn down. Especially since it is now a 1-party system since the Right has succeeded in enforcing their control over the setting of the agenda, and e.g. Kerry can only react. As near as I can tell there is no Democratic platform this year. And probably no Democratic Party, either. Just a loose coalition of "People Against Bush". There are a lot more of them that is getting reported, of course, but it's still all just bullshit as long as the Demopublicrat system stays in place....

--
"The Internet is made of cats."
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by thrillseeker · 2004-10-07 13:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its also not against the law to fail to stop a crime. Its just not a citizen's job. Thats why we have the police in the first place.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by AK+Marc · 2004-10-07 13:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

>>But you get that when your foreign policy is "Fuck the earth".

>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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Temsi · 2004-10-07 13:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

"In fact, the liberals are only non-militant when it comes to defending *this* country"

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

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Alsee · 2004-10-07 19:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Try learing what seperation of chuck and state ACTUALLY means, rather than the straw man you've been feed that it is some attempt to exterminate religion.

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.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by glesga_kiss · 2004-10-07 21:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Reichstag fire anyone?
9/11 worked out alright for the Project for a New American Century...

Re:Why is this "my rights online" by thewldisntenuff · 2004-10-07 09:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because it wasn't "some website raided by the FBI". It was an independant media source that was taken down by the FBI for reasons unknown....

The regular media doesn't get taken down so easily...Sounds suspicous....Politically motivated? Possibly...

But kiddy porn ring, no....

--
My MythTV HowTo

due process? by to_kallon · 2004-10-07 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rackspace was given no time to defend against the order before it was acted upon and turned over the hard drives from the nyc imc server
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?

--

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde

Re:due process? by actiondan · 2004-10-07 10:04 · Score: 4, 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? by pclminion · 2004-10-07 10:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well...
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...

Kinda short on information by hidden · 2004-10-07 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I realise that if it just happened there may not be a huge amount of information available yet, but surely you could link to something a little better than well...nothing.

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?

Huge mistake by the feds. by mcc · 2004-10-07 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

This event will legitimize IndyMedia in a way that none of their reporting ever has.

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Re:Huge mistake by the feds. by Fnkmaster · 2004-10-07 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

I tend to agree. It just makes them look like an oppressed victim of an overzealous right-wing government (which they are), instead of a whiny radical left wing semi-news outlet (which they also are).

"They hate us for our freedom!" by Cryofan · 2004-10-07 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Umm....can someone please remind me how this is the greatest and most free country in the world?
(No fair modding me down based on your warped "political" leanings...).

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon

Re:"They hate us for our freedom!" by Leebert · 2004-10-07 11:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

This may not be so protected anymore, thanks to Diebold. For all we know, it doesn't matter who people vote for, because Diebold could be making sure that only their favorite candidates actually win the elections.

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!" by 10Ghz · 2004-10-07 18:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

America's bourgeois nature (life, liberty, and property ownership) is what sets it apart from the European model where power is held at the top and it trickles down to its subordinated 'chattel' population.

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.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Re:Freedom of speech is a noble thing by arose · 2004-10-07 10:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's called terrorism because the reason isn't to kill people, but to make them fear. But it seams that while people are all for it to make "war on terror", they don't want to fight their own fear.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

Clarification Please by White+Roses · 2004-10-07 10:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

If I understand this correctly, this sort of says to me that if it's me in public, I don't have a right not to be photographed (i.e. traffic cameras, security cameras), but if it's the police, they do? If that's not a step on the way to a police state, I don't know what is . . .

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.

--
Do not touch -Willie

Re:Clarification Please by susano_otter · 2004-10-07 10:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the way it works is, the police go to a judge. They show the judge documentation of the undercover mission, including various kinds of proof that the images do in fact show undercover policemen at work. The judge reviews the evidence presented, and approves or denies the warrant according to his own judgement.

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.

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

Uh... huh... by FredFnord · 2004-10-07 10:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

(leaks of the RNC delegates home addresses? How would we feel if it was the DNC delegates? Or your home address) until proven otherwise.

I would be annoyed. But I wouldn't call the FBI, because, of course, that is not in any way illegal. It may be harassment, if it was posted along with an exhortation to spam these guys into submission. It could even be conspiracy to commit assault (or murder) if it says, 'Here are the addresses, I want each group to move in at about 4 PM and watch the front doors until you see the target come home. Once the target is at home, you...' and so forth. But posting someone's home address, name, and phone number is perfectly legal, and is in fact no more than every commercial interest that sells lists of names does.

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

--
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.

Right or wrong doesn't matter... by Zed2K · 2004-10-07 10:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once hardware is seized like this, it and everything on it will never be returned. Whether you are guilty or not.

Re:What is there to know? by 14erCleaner · 2004-10-07 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I FULLY support the take down of any and all leftist, liberal propoganda sites like this, the more the better.

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.

--
Have you read my blog lately?

1984 was off by about twenty years by Audacious · 2004-10-07 10:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think that says it pretty well. :-/

--
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)

Re:And? by TummyX · 2004-10-07 10:33 · Score: 4, 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:Nothing WHAT BULLSHIT! by theLOUDroom · 2004-10-07 10:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is the type of thing that makes me really embarassed to be an American.

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.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Re:No jurisdiction by Squeeze+Truck · 2004-10-07 10:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Believe it or not, UK soil is subject to UK law, not American law.

Airstrip One is Part of Oceania, comrade.

--

"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

Re:Indymedia != Independent? by actiondan · 2004-10-07 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

why didn't they post both DNC and RNC delegate names?

indymedia uses an open publishing system - if someone wanted to post (and had) the DNC names, they could have posted them.

Re:About time! by Huge+Pi+Removal · 2004-10-07 11:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

There comes a time when +5, Funny isn't good enough any more. We need +5 shit, this is actually happening.

--
- Oliver

The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...

Re:And? by dtfinch · 2004-10-07 11:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

It might have something to do with the fact that they have a habit of not pulling illegal material from their site.

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.

Another possibility. by Onan · 2004-10-07 11:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think there's another important possibility: that the slashdot crowd is significantly anti-Bush. No, that's not the same thing as being pro-Kerry, pro-Democrat, or pro-Liberal, though of course some people will be those things as well.

So far as I've ever been able to determine, Bush is so sodding incompetent that I would expect the range of anti-Bush people to approximate "everyone". Even if you happen to have exactly the same set of goals, values, and priorities which Bush claims, I would imagine that you'd at least want a remotely intelligent and competent person to pursue them.

Independant Media? by stu72 · 2004-10-07 11:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is it that a site so proudly "independant" is so rigidly uniform in it's content?

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. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-07 12:31 · Score: 4, 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?

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.

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

Re:No jurisdiction by multiplexo · 2004-10-07 12:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

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.

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.

Oh, awesome! by Fantastic+Lad · 2004-10-07 14:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Great link! The Road to Serfdom comic is what the internet is all about. (Though the fact that it was published by an American auto giant is rather telling.)

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.)

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

god bless america by br00tus · 2004-10-07 18:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

When the elected Nicaraguan government did the same thing to newspapers for the same type of reasons (actually the newspapers down there were much more flagrant than Indymedia is being accused of), Reagan said Nicaragua was becoming a totalitarian regime, and the US should invade the country.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Indymedia Server Raided by FBI

53 of 1,150 comments (clear)