The Empires Strike Back

Alien54 writes "Back when the Internet was young - oh, say, eight years ago - there was a school of thought that held that cyberspace was its own sovereign nation. For one thing, 'The Net perceives censorship as damage, and routes around it.' What government could control what was said on the Net? [...] Maybe it's time to change that into, 'Governments perceive the Internet as damage, and gang up on it.' So says Net War columnist Wendy Grossman in an article discussing the recent raids on Indymedia. She makes an interesting case."

Comments

First post?

[Wandering Wombat]

How the heck did that happen? But on an on-topic vein, cyberspace is the only place that is even remotely truly free anymore. Governments, who exist to 'secure our freedom' seem to want to limit the freedoms that they don't directly control. Someone should bust them up for forming monopolies.

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

As with any organization, nobody wants to take the blame for bad things that happen. When something bad happens to you, you wonder what could have been done to prevent it. In the case of wars, terrorism, privacy invasions, etc. people look to their governments for protection. It's called "security." In order to increase your security, you will be giving up some of your freedoms. As unfortunate as that is, people really do want it.

The problem arises when people like you and I don't agree with the lengths to which the government(s) go to secure us. Personally, I put a premium on my freedom so I perceive the government as taking away too much of it. Others don't see a problem with this situation because they value security a little more than I do (or freedom a little less).

"Free" governments rarely act against the wishes of the people as a whole. When the vast majority wants something, the appointed representatives are likely to listen (it's in their best interest). Unfortunately for you and me, Slashdot doesn't constitute a majority (yet).

Re:First post?

[Colin Smith]

"Someone should bust them up for forming monopolies"

That's called the electoral process, in a true democracy you can do exactly that. Perhaps the question is do you live in a true democracy or a two party state.

Re:First post?

[Wandering Wombat]

I live in a, while not TRUE Democracy, a far more accountable one. We call it Canada.

And as to looking to your government for protection from war and terrorism... THE GOVERNMENT IS THE CAUSE of the wars and terrorism.

Re:First post?

[Lumpy]

the funny part is the truely free parts are hidden from view and only accessable by those that know how.

There are many "subnets" on top of the internet that has the true information flow without fear of attack. Freenet is one example, and there are many others mostly private.

Hell many old technology and no longer "used" systems of ye-olde-internet can be considered a silent subnet capable of subverting the policies of the world order of the day.

did you know there are gopher services still running and are a great source for information?

IRC is my favorite subversion network... as well as usenet.

the opressed and determined will always be able to "route around" the superficial damage that the governments try to cause.

and that is really all it is. RAIDS of warez servers and groups? they target the big flashy ones to make an example to show that "see we are doing something" yet warez has been unaffected one tiny little bit. same for p2p music sharing, and non-approved information and thought sharing.

will the general public think it has went away? sure, but it will never really go away.

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

As do I. But I believe he meant this to address the extreme (yes, 1984 extreme). On the other side of that spectrum of privacy to security, we don't want complete freedom without any security. It is exactly that point - to identify the essential liberties and freedoms that we hold above all else - which makes our declaration of independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights to be so powerful. Because they spell out the things that we value. It is necessary to re-evaluate those over time, of course...

Re:First post?

[hrm]

On the net, there is only the illusion of freedom because of the enormous scale. If you make big enough waves, you will be noticed and, if they want you, you will be found.

This whole "routing around censorship damage" is late 20th century romanticism. No link with reality whatsoever.

Re:First post?

[timmy the large]

We have lost freedom and many people have gained the perception of security.

Perception is reality.

Therefore we have gained more security.

You are right of course, we have gained little in actual security while we have lost l alot in freedom. The flaw in a democratic society is that perception and not reality are what politicians are judged on. How the people of that country percieve things is what is important to their leaders, not the actual situation.

Re:First post?

[RangerElf]

> Funny, I always thought extremists were to blame.
> Interesting note: Al Qaeda is a small group of
> people, not the population of a country.

A small group of people, who's leader has family interests in line with your current president's interests.

Kinda scary.

-gus

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

Inconveniences and hassles in the airport are not the same as losing freedoms. But I agree with what you're saying as long as you're referring to things like the Patriot Act. Look at some of our basic laws, however, and you may rethink your statement about "true security."

We have laws designed to provide security from murder, theft, harassment, etc. In fact, at one time you may have had the freedom to take justice into your own hands. Instead, you are forced to rely on the government to deal out justice. You can't simply kill someone because you think they deserve it.

So you've lost a tiny little freedom which was dangerous and gained some security in that vigilante killing is no longer a commonplace means of justice.

On the larger scale, who do you blame when a terrorist attack happens? The terrorists, of course, but you also want to know why they were able to do it in the first place. You want to prevent it from happening the next time. And the responsibility for this falls upon the shoulders of the government. They respond by passing as many laws as they can to perform the duties that you, as a citizen, are demanding. After 9/11, was your response "well, that happens?" It shouldn't happen - and making sure it doesn't happen again is something that the government is trying for. Maybe not successfully, but considering that we're three years out I think that it's unreasonable to expect a perfect resolution right away.

Re:First post?

[sakti]

In order to increase your security, you will be giving up some of your freedoms.

This is patently false. There is no correlation between security and liberty. I suggest you check out Bruce Schneier's book Beyond Fear for a start on re-educating yourself on this issue. You've fallen for the propoganda.

Besides, those that are taking the freedoms don't really care that much about security. Just look at airport security. Its all show and no substance. There are methods for airport security that work (those used by Isreal for example), but they decided not to go with those. Instead they decided to expand government and harass its citizens in a nice dog and pony show that will do nothing to stop another 9/11 type incident.

Re:First post?

[Wandering Wombat]

Well, yes, extremists are the terrorists. But they are extremists only by definition, and it is a definition written by your government. Where they are from, they are not extremests, they're probably conservative Republicans, or something.

These extremists also don't attach Democratic countries because they can, they do it because something these Democratic countries have done have deeply angered these extremists. The US and Britain have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in countries that never once asked for help. They block trade from countries in order to force their own ideals upon these smaller nations. All in all, these 'extremists' are simply trying to protect their freedom from the vicious foreigners who want to destroy their way of life.

They just don't have the publicists that Westerners can afford.

Re:First post?

[lukewarmfusion]

Compare this to a computer system, then. The more security protocols you put in place, the harder it is for users to access it. The convenience goes out the door. If it's easy for your users to get in, it's going to be easier for unauthorized users to get in.

Another metaphor: Your house can be secured with locks and bars and key codes and so on... but it's going to take longer for you to get inside. It's more likely that you'll trip your own alarms by accident. You'll probably forget your keys and be locked out one day. But it's also harder for an intruder to sneak in. Not impossible, but it's harder. It also makes it less likely that they'll even try to break into your house.

I'm curious as to why you don't agree with the notion that security and liberty are related.

Re:First post?

[ahodgson]

The US government has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians throughout the Moslem world over the last 15 years, and yet their publicists seem to manage to spin that positively, at least internally.

Re:First post?

[Colin Smith]

"Ever think the reason the two parties remain dominant is that the rest of the country agrees with them?"

It's naive to think that the beliefs of 250,000,000 people can be represented by two parties and two sets of policies, at best they are huge compromises.

The two party state is the direct result of a winner take all electoral system. Proportional Representation electoral systems remove these duopolies.

Re:First post?

[DavidTC]

What Schneier does talk about, and I think what the grandparent was talking about and people missed, is there is absolutely no corrolation between what liberty we're currently being asked to give up, and security.

I.e., while 'security vs liberty' may be a useful choice, what we're often faced with is 'control by authorities vs liberty', and the first part is just claimed to be secure.

For example, the adminstration recently said that people who are wrongly stopped at airports because their names are on terrorist watchlists should start using middle initials or Jr or III after their name. Which good for a great 'What the fuck?' moment after twenty seconds of thought. The watchlists have absolutely no relation to security at all.

If the news had broken last week I'm sure it would have gotten into the month's CRYPTO-GRAM.

Naturally governments want to control everything

[Gentoo Fan]

but I think it is a little premature to suggest that the internet is doomed because of the Indymedia fiasco.

crying wolf?

[spacerodent]

until the goverment says why they raided the place everyone is really just crying wolf. They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools. We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet. Now if they start raiding other media outlets give me a call but 1 case where we don't know any facts isn't a reason to panic.

Re:crying wolf?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.

The very fact that they still haven't told us the reason behind the raid is censorship.

Re:crying wolf?

[pilgrim23]

As I recall..... One of the great arguments the Founding Fathers had against the government of old King George was the issuance of the Lettre de Cache or open-end, fill-in in the blank warrant. This was a ready form signed by the Royal Governor and issued to the military commander. When they had a suspect, fill in the name and raid in the dark hours. I remember when I was in secondary school being told that the American system of a warrant mentioning the name of the person, WHAT HE IS ACCUSED OF, and needing to be signed by a judge for THAT SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE ONLY was far more just. --

Re:crying wolf?

[Entrope]

The very fact that they still haven't told us the reason behind the raid is censorship.

One might equally well claim that the reason you posted as Anonymous Coward is because you are criminal scum who supports Intarweb terrrists.

Put another way: There exist valid reasons to not immediately publicize why law enforcement does what they do. It may turn out that none of them apply in this case, and the raids and seizures were an oppressive abuse of the process, but crying censorship in the absense of evidence really is no better than crying wolf.

But whiny liberal kiddies seldom want to work to substantiate their prejudices, so I expect you to dismiss me as a mindless sycophant to The Man. Unless you have actual facts to bring to the table, don't bother.

Re:crying wolf?

[James Turpin]

The problem in this case is that they were not accusing a person of a crime. They were accusing a person's property of a crime. It's the same loop hole the US government found during the war on drugs. Don't accuse the person of a crime - accuse his property of a crime.

Its despicable to exploit this loop hole, but at least some good comes out of it. It stops the government from needlessly hurting people sometimes. Can you imagine what the government would do if they had to accuse people of crimes in order to confiscate your property?

Owners of computer servers could then be accused of fictitious crimes if their servers were hacked and the government needed the server for evidence to go after the real criminal.

Landlords would be accused of fictitious crimes every time the government needed to temporarily bar people from some property to do an investigation.

It's not a perfect system, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it, even with a constitutional amendment. (I'm not talking about the Patriot Act, mind you. That should just be done away with.)

Re:crying wolf?

[Onan]

The burden is on the government to establish conclusively that their actions are legal and appropriate.

The other side of assuming citizens innocent until they're proven guilty is assuming governments guilty until they're proven innocent.

I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat...

[paranode]

...but they really are looking to maximize your limits on free speech. The government already goes too far in my opinion in many arenas of free speech. It is looking to tighten its grip on every medium and expand existing holdings to new mediums.

While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.

Figure it out people...

[IamGarageGuy 2]

the government is your enemy - no exceptions. This was the reason the US was set up with the sole intention to limit the Governments power. They will always seek more power and control no matter how good their intentions. If we all start to realize that good government is always less government, the better the world will be.

Re:Figure it out people...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You are the government, in a democracy. By your logic, in the US you are your own enemy, no exceptions. They are you and you are they. Quite trying to act like you don't have anything to do with the government, as long as there is equality under the law, you have just as many rights backed by the same authority as the rest of us. If good government was less government, we would have never developed the modern state. Good government is good government, size is irrelevant.

You've got quite a bit of figuring out to do on your own.

Re:Figure it out people...

[Trolling4Columbine]

"If good government was less government, we would have never developed the modern state."

You say that as if the "modern state" is so great; as if our government isn't trying to curb our rights and make us more dependent.

I'd say our standard of living has improved despite government, not because of it.

Re:Figure it out people...

[RealAlaskan]

You are the government, in a democracy.

Sorry, that's too wrong to let pass. In a Democracy, the government is controlled by the demagogues, the few who are able to get the many riled up. In a constitutional republic, such as the U.S. used to be, the government was controlled by the honest elected representatives, who were in turn controlled by the constitution (that's why I specified ``honest''). In a modern ``democracy'', the government is controlled by the apparatchiks, the people who are permanently part of the system, as the politicians and demagogues come and go. In the U.S. we call them bureaucrats. In every form of government, the government is the people who staff it. Only in an anarchy could your statement be accurate.

... as long as there is equality under the law, you have just as many rights backed by the same authority as the rest of us.

That's true, even as ``just as many rights'' asymptotically approaches zero. Therefore, I'd say it's irrelevant.

If good government was less government, we would have never developed the modern state.

The second phrase doesn't follow from the first. You seem to have assumed that ``modern state'' equates to ``good government'', or that the change in our government has been for the better during the last 100 years. Neither assumption seems defensable to me.

Good government is good government, size is irrelevant.

Again, too wrong to allow to pass unchallenged. Good government is unknown, a myth. All government eventually becomes bad government, though the better examples of government can be better than no government. Lord Acton said it best: ``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' Small government, with little power, has little scope for the inevitable corruption and malfeasance. Every government will sooner or later go sour. It happened in Rome, and it is happening here. The difference between Rome and here is that (so far) we have enough social and legal checks in place to constrain the powermad[1]. Those legal and social restraints are definitely wearing thin.

[1] The powermad are mostly good, conscientious people, who have been given a job, like searching little old ladies at airports or looking for assets to steal for the government. Being good, conscientious people, they work hard to accomplish their allotted task, and they are tireless in asking for additional resources to do it better. If their task is destructive of a free society, we have an example of bad government, despite their good intentions and personal honesty.

Governments don't have to control the net

[RealAlaskan]

Governments don't have to control the net, they control you. They can simply outlaw anonymity if the net becomes a problem.

We don't often think of governments cooperating, but the one thing that is a bigger threat than another government is freedom. Anyone's freedom, anywhere, is a threat to the idea that nobody can be free anywhere.

You bet they're going to gang up on the internet. The more effectively the internet routes around damage, the more effectively they'll damage it, for their own survival.

I think it's the perceived attitude....

[Sevn]

Of the authorities in situations like these that gets stories like these printed. It goes something like this:

* We owe you no explanation
* Nobody holds us accountable
* You have no defense
* You are automatically assumed wrong
* We admit no wrongdoing
* We are above right and wrong
* Whatever we want to do is automatically justified
* We don't owe you an apology
* Go ahead and try to sue, we'll just do it again to teach you a lesson
* People with power are on our side

Re:I think it's the perceived attitude....

[Animats]

Yes. What we need are news stories like "Former FBI agent Joe Smith, after his conviction for unlawfully seizing property under color of law, is now working as a night shift security guard at the Wal-Mart warehouse in Tupelo, Kansas."

That's what "accountability" means. We need to keep pushing on accountability until we see stories like that.

Stop the Internet

[cakestick]

The last thing that media/corporations/government want is an active medium that they don't have strict control over. Conspiracies aside, these sorts of things just aren't conducive to the way they do business.

-The media sells your eyes for advertising revenue.
-The Government ensures that the "public sphere" is in tune with what they want it to focus on.
-The corporations insist that their products and actions pose no danger to your environment and well-being.

As a result, having a medium that they can only try to control is unacceptable! Passive media ensures that their goals are achieved, while society just sits back and pushes the channel button.

We're free until their teamwork pays off to do something sinful to the internet.

Stop the Internet!

It's worse than that...

[nebaz]

Since the internet has become 'privatized' it seems that there is not only cooperation between governments, but corporations as well. It seems that corporations have no consideration of freedoms and will sell out to the highest bidder. Witness the Great Firewall of China and the localized search features. It is scary because such governmental and corporate partnership indicates a possible rise of Global Fascism.

Cyberspace cannot be sovereign nation ...

[Leknor]

Cyberspace will never be its own sovereign nation as long as the endpoints are rooted in the physical world.

Let me try re-phrasing that...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Governments perceive the Internet as dangerous". Hmm, a bit more needs to be said...

"Governments percieve free speech as dangerous". Still not quite it...

"Governments perceive free speech as dangerous to themselves". Yeah, I think that says it.

Re:Let me try re-phrasing that...

[l0b0]

Seriously, it's the people who have been too lazy when things like the US coup of 2000 can happen without any reaction whatsoever. How about getting off your asses (and drag your neighbor with you) and vote? By the way, calling a two-party election "democratic" is just ridiculous. Look at Norway, where no party has had absolute majority in at least 20 years, and which has been at the top of the UN Human Development Index since 2001!</rant>

Re:I hate to sound like the typical tin foil hat..

[d34thm0nk3y]

While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.

"slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you say beacuse of something something else WILL happen. It is not a fallacy if you say because of something something else COULD (or is very likely even) happen. I find that people that scream about the "slippery slope fallacy" are usually doing so because they have no other arguments to back up their position.

No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[FreeUser]

until the goverment says why they raided the place everyone is really just crying wolf.

Um, no. Having the government abscond with people's property without cause or justification, and stonewalling as to why, does not imply no cause for concern, nor is anyone "crying wolf" when they announce to the world that the government has seized their property and silenced their voices without announcing why and without proper due process (which, in case you were sleeping through twelve years of civics classes, includes being told what one is accused of doing wrong).

They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools

With no notification to the accused of what they are accused of, it is abuse of power and in violation of acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy. It is irrelevant as to whether the motive was political, legal, or personal ... abuse of power is abuse of power, regardless.

We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.

Not surprising. You represent the school of thought that is primarilly responsible for these sorts of actions, and the erosion of our fundamental rights they imply.

But nevermind, I'm sure you'll scream loudly about how burying your head in the sand is "realistic" and "sophisticated," while those of us who point to such obvious abuses as these are dismissed as the "tin foil hat" crowd. This has happened numerous times in history, and is happening again, proving once more that those who ignore history are indeed doommed to repeat it. Unless, of course, IHBT.

Re: No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[gidds]

Yes, of course, there are good reasons for the authorities keeping as much information secret as possible. But there are also overriding reasons why they are required to observe due process. And that includes things like needing to tell you what you're being arrested for, showing you a warrant before searching and seizing goods, and so on.

It's not just about the police vs 'the bad guys' -- if the police don't follow due process, then they are the bad guys! (And a much more scary set of bad guys they make, too, with the full power of the state behind them.)

Anyway, what happened to 'innocent until proved guilty'?

Re:No wolves here, but a hell of a lot of sheeple

[DunbarTheInept]

Do you really think it's the right thing to do to tell everyone "Hey, we're investigating a sheep fucker over here!!!".

Do you think it's right to not even tell the accused that the accusation is sheep fucking either?

You're talking about not releasing information to the public. The problem is that they aren't even releasing information to the accused either. When the police come to mess with you, you have every right to know why.

Telecom choke points

[sphealey]

I remember laughing out loud the first time I read that "routes around it" quote. Transatlantic cables don't just appear out of nowhere. The original design of the net was a mesh, but it rapidly got collapsed down to a backbone architecture. There are at most a dozen telecommuncation providers with global connectivity, and governments keep an iron hand around their throats.

That is the problem with Neil Stephenson's "data haven" by the way: what happens when the US sends it cable-cutting submarine over and cuts all the lines leading into that island?

Anyone who didn't see this coming is naive at best.

sPh

Where will it end?

[xasper8]

While I agree that we shouldn't start over reacting, it may be a harbinger of things to come. I'm not sure where the line will be drawn, but the net of 'old' was based on a free flow of information, clearly that has been lost. Who will make the stand?

8 years ago when the net was young? Wha...? Clearly the mid and late 80's didn't count... Stupid Archie...

Look, what did we expect?

[vkg]

The Internet is just rowdy. Bruce Sterling's take on it: one of the few places the Average American is daily approached by criminals attempting to steal everything they own! [referring to 419 scams, and I'm paraphrasing]

Freedom is a double edged sword.

If we ask the Government to police spam, or if we ourselves don't keep copyrighted material off file sharing systems, we're inviting Government to come and police what we, the geeks, have not self-policied. What we will not govern, they will.

Nature abhors a vaccume, and The State abhors an anarchy.

And with good reason!

Re:Look, what did we expect?

[Ba3r]

Everyone seems to love drawing this giant gap between government, and us. Governments are inhernetly us.

The real question is, what level of free will is the general populace willing to cede to the minority in exchange for that minority taking on the responsiblity of governance. Sure, the educated and independant (such as a decent chunk of /.) are unwilling to exchange a large portion of their free will for not having to worry about things, but the vast majority of people everywhere will gladly release a segment of free will for the comfort and safety of regulation. The nuanced balance that every government must tread in order to be long-lived, is that of imposing enough rules to maintain order while leaving sufficient free will to keep the majority happy. Too much rules, and there is revolution; too few and there is chaos.

The division of government and us lies more in the difference between those who will take on responsibility for governance in exchange for the many benefits, and those who would prefer to dispel with that responsibility and go about their day to day business, following the rules laid down to preserve this lifestyle.

That's no reason

[Neuracnu Coyote]

It's simply an attempt at justification.

acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.

The bits in bold - those are reasons for having personal property confiscated. I will remain skeptical until I see some government accuse IndyMedia directly of one of these charges.

Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin

[WormholeFiend]

Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government?

Personal ambition?
Access to young interns willing to do anything to go up the organizational ladder?
Profi^H^HPolitical donations?

I got my extra-strength tinfoil hat on

[The I Shing]

I hate the thought that the government might decide to enforce other countries' web content laws when it comes to American websites, but I could see it happening, slowly, bit by bit (no pun intended).

"Sure," they drawl as they handcuff a webmaster and load his computer into the paddy wagon next to him, "Your site is protected Free Speech here in the USA, but we got a complaint from the Saudi Arabian authorities about it, so we have no choice but to take you into custody so that they can press charges against you. Sorry, but in accordance with Saudi Arabian law, you don't get access to a lawyer, your hands will be chopped off, and any women coming to visit you in jail will be enslaved."

Is this going to start happening? Sure would be a great way to keep private citizens off of the web.

The Tools Alread Exist

[Nom du Keyboard]

IndyMedia appeared far more decentralized than it was...more than 40 percent of the collective's sites were hosted at a single location.

Isn't this exactly the problem that Freenet was designed to solve?

Re:Indymedia?

[mrchaotica]

You know, what's really scary is that nobody has told us yet!

Pending Investigation

[nurb432]

They don't make it a habit of releasing information on pending cases..

Nor should they..

One man's terrorist...

[doormat]

is another's freedom fighter. I thought this was a load of BS when I first heard it but now I'm beginning to understand why this statement is true.

Re:Indymedia?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK government has 'something against' anyone not singing from the same hymn-sheet, and that current hymn-sheet has just one word written on it:
CONTROL

How is there censorship?

[TiggertheMad]

As I understand it, law enforcement agencies raid ISPs for evidence, not to censor things. If their goal was to censor things, why wouldn't they take the backups? That Indymedia has backups to restore from pretty much shoots holes through any 'They are out to censor things argument'.

They take systems so that they can examine them at their leisure and make sure that they find whatever evidence that they are looking for. Also, it is pretty common practice for police play their cards close during an investigation. How is this case at all special in that aspect? What do you want from them, a nice flowery card that says, 'don't start destroying data, but we are investigating you?'

You can take off your tinfoil hats now.

Re:Indymedia?

[pjrc]

You seem to be saying that the Italian police were justified in using deadly force against a protester who was damaging property by hitting cars with a fire extinguisher...

AND that those Italian police are also justified in shutting down Indymedia's (likely biased) news coverage of their use of deadly force.

So sure are you that it's proper for the police to censor anyone who speaks critically of them and their portrays their actions unfavorably that your advise is to "Stop whining".

Re:Indymedia?

[winwar]

"You're assuming that the police did shut them down. Wouldn't it fit perfectly with an "independant" media group to have your stuff shutdown by "the evil government". No one seems to know why they were shut down."

Well, authorities (aka police) seized some equipment (hard drives at a minimum) using a legal document (warrant, supeona, etc) provided by a government. While they may have the equipment back, they would have to assume it is compromised (it was not in their possession) and it takes time to check. In any case, you can't run a server without data.

So, in review. The police acting for a government DID shut them down. Only their MOTIVES are in question....

Re:Now do you see...

[RTMFD]

It happened before back in 1776. The Vietnamese also kicked the arse of the US Military. Now, you assume that the citizen soldiers of the US Military would actually turn on their own citizens, which is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not advocating revolution, I'd rather vote as right now I don't feel like my rights are threatened.