Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indymedia Server Raided by FBI

Posted by samzenpus on from the need-to-know-basis dept.

jaromil writes "Today at about 18:00 CET FBI raided the indymedia servers hosted by Rackspace both in US and England. At present, the italian indymedia and numerous other local IMC websites are obscured, while the reasons why the hard drives were taken are still unknown."

30 of 1,150 comments (clear)

  1. Hmph...well- by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Suspicious indeed....Possibly linked to RNC delegate identification? See this link from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04264/382137.stm

    This in from Argentina Indymedia, which has a different view -

    FBI took the hard drives of IMC servers in the UK
    por Mat ((!)) Thursday October 07, 2004 at 06:10 PM
    -
    The US authorities issued a subpoena to Rackspace's office in the US ordering them to physically remove Indymedia hardware located in London. Rackspace is one of Indymedia's web hosting providers with offices in the US and London. Rackspace complied and turned over Indymedia's hard drives/servers in the UK. This affects some 20+ Indymedia sites worldwide.

    Since the subpoena was issued to Rackspace and not to Indymedia, the reasons for this action are still unknown to Indymedia.

    At the same time a second server was taken down at Rackspace which provided streaming radio to several radio stations, BLAG (linux distro), and a handful of miscellanous things.

    The last few months have seen numerous attacks on independent media by the US Federal Government. In August the Secret Service used a subpoena in an attempt to disrupt the NYC IMC before the RNC by trying to get IP logs from an ISP in the US and the Netherlands, last month the FCC shut down comunity radio stations around the US, and now the FBI is shutting down IMCs around the world.

    The list of affected local media collectives includes Ambazonia, Uruguay, Andorra, Poland, Western Massachusetts, Nice, Nantes, Lilles, Marseille (all France), Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Liege, East and West Vlaanderen, Antwerpen (all Belgium), Belgrade, Portugal, Prague, Galiza, Italy, Brazil, part of the Germany site, UK Radio, and the global Indymedia Radio site.

    Micah Anderson of the global imc-tech collective said, "We suspect it has to do with an FBI request that we take down a post on the Nantes IMC that had a photo of some undercover Swiss police. They claimed there was threats and personal information, but there was nothing of the sort. The undercover police that were photographed on the page were photographing protesters. Rackspace is a US company, but have colocation in the UK where these servers are (err, were) located. So this is about Swiss police, on a French site, on a server in England, taken away by American federal police."

    However, according to information from IMC Nantes the pictures in question were already removed a week ago.
    Link to Argentina Indymedia
    http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/227693 .php

    and one more to NYC Indymedia, which is still up

    http://nyc.indymedia.org/

    --
    My MythTV HowTo
  2. Fanatical Support™ by NatureBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess that's what Rackspace means by Fanatical Support(TM)

  3. Raided? by bdesham · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but I thought the servers were RAIDed already?

    --
    Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
  4. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by mfh · · 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.
    1. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by eliza_effect · · 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).

    2. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Temsi · · 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.
    3. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Funny

      The facts are clearly biased against Bush.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by snark42 · · 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.

    5. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by sg_oneill · · 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.
    6. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Jelloman · · 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.

    7. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by FredFnord · · 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.
    8. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by aminorex · · 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-
    9. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Andux · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The definition of libertarian is one who is for minimal government intrusion in both personal and economic life.
      Not exactly. Capital-L Libertarians hold those beliefs, true, but small-L libertarians (AKA civil libertarians or social liberals) are much more varied when it comes to economic policy.
      A person for minimal government intrusion in economic life and more intruusion in personal life is a conservative.
      Eh, "conservative" has so many definitions piled on it that it's essentially meaningless by itself. Social conservatives (e.g., Jerry Falwell) are the ones who want to legislate morality. Paleoconservatives (e.g., John McCain), on the other hand, are essentially moderate (capital-L) Libertarians, idealizing smaller government.
      --
      (Do not sign anything.) -- Fell, Planescape: Torment
    10. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by ktakki · · Score: 5, Informative
      Black Panthers
      Weather Underground
      Earth Liberation Front

      The first two of your examples haven't been heard of in over thirty years. The third (ELF) are not much more than vandals.

      And you'd probably cringe at the thought of the World Church of the Creator, the Klan, or other denizens of the radical Right held up as examples of American conservatism.


      Nope, no radical militant liberals here.

      The Panthers and Weathermen were Leftists, not liberals (in fact, they scorned liberals for participating in a system that they considered bankrupt and corrupt). Some '60s leftists held decidedly illiberal views (e.g., Maoist communism).

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    11. Re:Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press! by Alsee · · 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.
  5. Re:Why is this "my rights online" by thewldisntenuff · · 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
  6. Re:Why is this "my rights online" by MutantEnemy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Independent Media Center, also called Indymedia or the IMC, is a network of media organizations and journalists. It was started in late November, 1999, to cover the protests of the anti-globalization movement against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington. By 2002, there were 89 local IMCs around the world spread between 31 countries plus the West Bank and 6 continents. The country with the most IMCs is the United States with 39, followed by Canada with 11.

    (Source: Wikipedia.org. Released under the GFDL. See article)

    --
    Grr! Arg!
  7. Indymedia press release by zygut · · Score: 5, Informative

    Press Release

    7 October 2004

    FBI Seizes IMC Servers in the UK

    US authorities issued a federal order to Rackspace's office in the US ordering them to provide Indymedia's hardware located in London to the requesting agency. Rackspace is one of Indymedia's web hosting providers with offices in the US and London. Rackspace complied, without first notifying Indymedia, and turned over Indymedia's server in the UK. This affects some 20+ Indymedia sites worldwide.

    Since the subpoena was issued to Rackspace and not to Indymedia, the reasons for this action are still unknown to Indymedia. Talking to Indymedia volunteers, Rackspace stated that "they cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order." ISPs have received gag orders in similar situations which prevent them from updating the concerns parits on what is happening.

    It is unclear to Indymedia how and why a server that is outside the US jurisdiction can be seized by US authorities.

    At the same time a second server was taken down at Rackspace which provided streaming radio to several radio stations, BLAG (linux distro), and a handful of miscellanous things.

    The last few months have seen numerous attacks on independent media by the US Federal Government. In August the Secret Service used a subpoena in an attempt to disrupt the NYC IMC before the RNC by trying to get IP logs from an ISP in the US and the Netherlands. Last month the FCC shut down community radio stations around the US. Two weeks ago the FBI requested that Indymedia takes down a post on the Nantes IMC that had a photo of some undercover Swiss police and IMC volunteers in Seattle were visited by the FBI on the same issue. On the other hand, Indymedia and other independent media organisations have been successful with their victories (thanks to the EFF), for example against Diebold and the Patroit Act. Today however, the US authorities shut down IMCs around the world.

    The list of affected local media collectives includes Ambazonia, Uruguay, Andorra, Poland, Western Massachusetts, Nice, Nantes, Lilles, Marseille (all France), Euskal Herria (Basque Country), Liege, East and West Vlaanderen, Antwerpen (all Belgium), Belgrade, Portugal, Prague, Galiza, Italy, Brazil, UK, part of the Germany site, and the global Indymedia Radio site.

  8. Maybe the FBI... by Osrin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... just needed hard drives, Government budgets are tight.

    Not everything is a conspiracy.

  9. Gag? by More+Trouble · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "(14:20) Rackspace has issued a "no comment" response concerning the FBI's actions."


    Given that Rackspace seemed reasonably communicative about the Swiss Secret Service issue, I wonder if the "no comment" implies some invocation of the Patriot Act.

    :w

  10. due process? by to_kallon · · 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
  11. Re:And? by lilmouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    An "independent" media site. They tend to have left-ist articles (e.g., they cover goverment corruption, torture, protests against WTO, attacks on free speech, what the FBI is doing, etc). They allow readers to post comments to articles, similar to our favorite /..

    They are not owned by large media companies, and do not give money to politicians (AFAIK - they dont' have much cash). They operate on a shoe-string budget and need more computers.

    And less legal problems.

    There's a short answer :-)

    --LWM

  12. Huge mistake by the feds. by mcc · · 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
  13. Re:Nothing known, but political motivation possibl by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    IndyMedia doesn't claim to be unbiased... the site admits that it leans left.

  14. "They hate us for our freedom!" by Cryofan · · 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
  15. at what stage does identification become scary? by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i mean if they published names is that really wrong? its a public event, its on telly so by default you could be recognised in the audience, by going you agree your privacy is compromised in some way, your details will probably go onto some list of people to call back.

    if you stood outside the entrance, took photos of the people going in and published them, would that be the same thing? if its a public place whats the problem?

    has there been intimidation? or is this just fear because its the republicans in power?

    there are plenty if privacy concerns just by being a voter, your details are available to be seen locally (speaking as a UK citizen myself). and if you don't tick the right box then hell its available to anybody who wants it, anywhere, possibly for cross referencing with the phone book so burglars can find your phone number if if looks like you are out. well having a pretty rare name and being involved in something where a lot of people know i've got a load of expensive gear - i don't register to vote. I know people who have been repeatedly hit and vanloads of equipment nicked.

    as another point, really is there any need to go? its on the telly. like all political conferances its just preaching to the converted and you are just there to applaud on cue to make the pictures look good.

  16. You are confused by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    That was a civil case where the anti-abortion group had a site had the doctor's pictures in targets and when each doctor was killed, they crossed off the dead doctor. This was a civil suit holding them responsible for the results of their speech which encouraged the murders of the doctors. This is different from just posting the information on the delgates -- without targets, without orders to kill, etc.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
  17. some background by GirTheRobot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Earlier last month, the Secret Service requested visitor logs from Indymedia to determine who posted personal info about GOP delegates. It looks like Big Brother really wanted that info.

    See link for more info.

  18. Re:About time! by Huge+Pi+Removal · · 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...
  19. Background information. by sunbird · · Score: 5, Informative
    I was visited by two FBI agents last Friday (10/1/04) because I am the registered agent for the Seattle Indymedia Center. The agents informed me that they were here on a "courtesy visit" on behalf of the Swiss government based on a series of photographs posted on a French indymedia site (http://nantes.indymedia.org) . The agents informed me that the post contained personally identifying information about the officers including their home address and phone number.

    I asked them what the US government's interest was in Swiss police and French websites. They informed me that no law had been violated but they were just requesting on behalf of the Swiss government that the identifying information be removed. I clarified that their concern was with the identifying information, and not with the photographs, because taking pictures of someone in a public forum is not objectionable. They agreed with me and said that their only concern was the identifying information.

    I asked them for the URL of the offending post. They did not know what a URL was. I asked them what the address was for the post-- "the address you would type into your internet browser." They looked confused, consulted their notes, and stated that they weren't sure, but they thought it was http://natz.indymedia.org (in fact, the correct address is nantes.indymedia.org). I informed them that it would be very difficult to track down the post considering that there are thousands of posts on indymedia sites everyday.

    I told them that the Seattle Indymedia Center has no authority regarding the Nantes Indymedia Center and that they should probably direct their request directly to the Nantes Indymedia Center. They left.

    I pulled up the Nantes site. On the front page of the site, at the very top, was a large logo of the FBI, and an article regarding how their ISP (Rackspace) had received a request from none other than the FBI to remove a certain post...

    Nothing happened for a few days, and then today the server is gone. This is what we know for a fact:

    • Rackspace received a subpoena requesting certain information.
    • Rackspace decided to turn over our entire server.
    • Rackspace has refused to provide a copy of the subpoena on advice of counsel (most likely because the subpoena contains a gag order)
    • When we inquired of Rackspace, this was their response: "Unfortunately, we have received a federal order to provide your hardware to the requesting agency. We are complying at this time. Our datacenter technicians are building you a new server which will be online as soon as possible. Your account manager will notify you once the new server is online and available. I apologize for abruptness of this. However, we are required to comply with all federal orders of this nature. Please let us know if there is anything that we can do to make this easier on you."

    Indymedia is working on a press release on this matter and is working with EFF to assess its legal options.