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?

[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?

[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?

[NanoGator]

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

Yeah, I'd like to see a publicist rescue their image from the whole 'crashing a plane into a civilian target' debacle.

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?

[|/|/|||]

Here's an interesting comparison - I just did some real quick searches and turned up these numbers:

# of Americans killed on 9/11: 2,819

# of Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq: ~10k

Maybe these numbers are wrong, if so perhaps someone can find a better reference.

In other words, I'd like to see Bush's publicists rescue him from the whole 'killing tens of thousands of civilians to gain control of Iraq for dubious reasons' debacle.

Re:First post?

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

There is no correlation between security and liberty

Blatantly untrue. Bruce Schneier talks about it constantly.

"The proper question to ask is whether the trade-off is worth it. Is the level of security gained worth the costs, whether in money, in liberties, in privacy or in convenience?"
from his site

Also check out this article, all about the costs of security, liberties being one of them.

I also recommend subscribing to his Crypto-Gram newsletter.

Re:First post?

[iSwitched]

I couldn't agree more - in fact every time this quote is trotted out (happens a lot here on /.) I feel compelled to remind the user that what Ben Franklin felt were essential liberties was probably quite a bit different than what the poster thinks they are, or should be.

Frequently the example of airline travel restrictions comes up in the same general vicinity, as if Ben Franklin could ever have concieved of a 300-passenger jet-liner being used as a weapon by death-seeking psychotics.

Perhaps I'm alone, but to me, the fact that I'm free to travel about the country, and that the existence of air travel allows me to be anywhere within 5 or so hours, is my essential liberty. The extra hassle at the airport is not of concern to me and if it was, there are multitudes of more anonymous modes of travel.

If you don't like the scene at airports, don't fly, you're welcome to take the very anonymous horse-drawn carriage to get where you want to be - thats how ol' Ben would've had to do it!

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.

Neuromancer

[2.7182]

She should try reading Neuromaner, by Gibson, which was amazingly published in 1984.

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?

[demachina]

Its hard so say why it was done, but until the governments involved stop gagging everyone you have to assume it was the for the reason everyone knows about, photos of Swiss undercover agents photographing protesters.

Assuming that is the reason there are multiple cases of an out of control government here.

First off the Swiss undercover agents have apparently bestowed upon themselves the right to photograph protesters but the protesters can't take pictures of them back. These agents were in the public. There is absolutely no reason anyone doesn't have the right to take pictures of them and post them. If their identities are top secret then they should have sent some cops out to take the pictures whose ID's no one cares about.

Second, the photos were no doubt being used to identify and catalog protesters, most probably for law enforcement agencies inside and outside Switzerland. Anti globalization protestors are being tracked by all the countries who are pro globalization now. Since these protester were in public so they have to live with being photographed and should wear masks in the future. But those photos are no doubt going to be used to build files on them and label them in perpetuity as trouble makers so they are designed to strip them of their rights. They have basically been given criminal records without having been convicted of anything. There is potential they may be wiretapped, Internet use monitored, movements tracked especially as they move towards protest sites, and groups they belong to may be infiltrated by more undercover agents. If they were engaging in vandalism or assault then there is a basis for law enforcement action. If they are engaged in peaceful protest, even unlicensed peaceful protest, democratic governments should leave them alone unless they aspire to be the totalitarian governments they rail against so often.

Third, You have multiple nations and law enforcement agencies uniting to seize someone's property, and to suppress free speech, in this case internet sites who are very much about free speech. There was no basis to seize these photos to begin with since those agents were in public, but to deny people their free speech rights in the process is not something you expect from democratic governments. The fact that all these governments so easily united to do this across multiple international boundries and without laying any charges against IndyMedia suggests there is an international cabal that can shut down pretty much any Internet site on the flimsiest of evidence, and threaten free speech and dissent in the process. These are tactics very much designed to intimidate IndyMedia and to encourage them to be quiet.

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.

Young Eight Years Ago??

[tm2b]

That's 1996. Maybe the *web* was young at that point, but a whole lot of us had been using the net for more than 10 years at that point.

Hell, even AOL had been plaguing the net for years at that point.

Well then....

[Anonymous Coward]

all we have to do is Wait for The Return of the Jedi and all will be good again.

re: indymedia server raid

[mjolnir_]

four words:

amatuer orbital server farms.

cut down on those pesky armed intrusions and silly warrant nonsense.

Mr Rutan, could you loft my rack? thanks.

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...

[Fnkmaster]

If your statements were true, then we'd all just go pick up and live in anarchy somewhere. Face it, government serves a useful purpose and that's why we have it. Do the people in governments tend to try to overextend the reach of government into our private lives with cries of protecting the children, indecency, the common good, etc.? Yes, way too often. But we need a police force to enforce basic social rules, since the alternative is lynch mobs and chaos. We want a hospital and health care system that allows access to the benefits of modern science (whether you think we want the government to ensure that everyone gets access to healthcare or not is up for debate - if you are a coldhearted Randian bastard, maybe you think it's okay for people to die on the streets of curable illnesses because they couldn't afford treatment). We want paved roads that allow us to get around from place to place and do the stuff we enjoy or need to do. We don't want arbitrary groups of people (corporations) to freely dump polluting chemicals on the commons.

All of these sorts of functions have been necessary as long as humans have been social creatures, and they have been filled, by kings, tribal chieftains, religious leaders, or elected governments.

An ideal government is one that balances minority rights (i.e. the basic human rights and principles of equality that we believe in) and the interest of the many, and one that maximizes personal freedom. But this is a very complicated equation, not something easily solved in some optimizing equation. Yes, generally less intrusion into our personal lives is a good thing, but sometimes I want peoples personal lives intruded into (if they are beating their children severely, for example). Anytime my rights and somebody else's rights come into conflict, I still need some sort of intermediary to resolve the conflict, or else we just all end up shooting each other to resolve our conflicts.

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.

Freedom of speech

[cybrthng]

"Allies of the willing" cooperating in stings to shut us up.

FEC looking to quiet "dicent" on the internet regarding campaigning.

Indymedia attacked for pictures of police shooting innocent protestors..

The internet is a medium of hypocracy as much as a medium of truth - states don't deserve the right to control, police or determine what i read. If i can buy the BS in books, i can certainly read it on the net.

Is it past time to use digital certificates, ssl, keyfobs and encryption to protect ourselves from "evil doers?" (aka governments with something to hide..)

Tin foil hat? dunno.. all i know is media is so left or right and when independants are being busted for telling the truth it disgusts me.

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.

This is the real reason

[bigjnsa500]

This is the real reason behind the IndyMedia servers being taken:

In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is 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. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.

What's an MLAT?

Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory.

MLAT Treaties in Force:

I. The United States has nineteen Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force: Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom (Cayman Islands), United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Re:Indymedia?

[cybrthng]

They weren't told but its under the assumption that Italy protested about pictures of there police force shooting protestors at the G8 summit.

Apparently they don't want people to recognize them for the ***holes they are.

I'll tell you what government

[Weaselmancer]

Q: What government could control what was said on the Net?

A: China.

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: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

[visualight]

When it comes to solving a crime, stopping terrorism, ect I'll gladly risk a single instance of "censorship" before I start whining

You need to understand that when it comes to individual rights governments must not be allowed to make exceptions. Not one, even in the investigation of a crime or terrorist activities.

Some time ago GW Bush promised us that the new powers granted under the Patriot Act would never be used for anything but the investigation of terrorist activities. He even said "Trust me".

Yet those same powers have now been used to investigate college students who were alledgedly downloading mp3's from the internet.

Every potential for abuse by a government will be realized eventually. So the potential must not be allowed to exist. Governments around the world have repeatedly misled their own populations regarding the motivation for new powers, wars, censorships, etc.

Your previous military experience has no bearing on this subject. History however, does

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'?

Cypherpunks

[Ikn]

Whether you think the IndyMedia incident was a harbinger of things to come or not, bad things could easily, and probably are, on the horizon. This is why I support the movements true cypherpunks everywhere. The ability to be as anonymous as possible is arguably important these days, but I'm sure one day, probably more sooner than later, it will become an issue-I'd rather prepare for it now. You don't plan to succeed, you succeed to plan, better safe then sorry, etc, pick your cliche', but keep your eyes open and your movements hidden.

Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin

[ratamacue]

Naturally governments want to control everything

To expand on this, people who seek positions of real power (meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, i.e. government) are those who wish to control others through coercion, not those who wish only to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.

Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government? (I know there are a select few who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but those are the very rare exceptions.)

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

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.

Re: indymedia server raid

[Coryoth]

Reminds me of a story I read once but can't find right now. It's the future, and some college kid reads a book from a friend he needs for his degree but can't afford to buy. Reading another person's book is illegal, and he's stressed that the government will bust him and his girlfriend. ...
10 karma points to s/he who finds this story. It's perfect for this topic.

That ones easy, and I'm sure many here knows it:

"The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman.

(No, I'm not expecting any karma)

Jedidiah

Re:Indymedia?

[djeca]

At the Genoa G8 summit in 2001, the Italian police shot a protester dead and assaulted a number of journalists including the Indymedia reporter Mark Covell. The Genoa police are currently defending charges brought by Covell and others.

It appears the Italian government hope that they can disrupt or compromise the case against them. Acting in concert with the Swiss, who want to get back at Indymedia for their coverage of the Evian G8, they went through the FBI (because Rackspace, Indymedia's London hosts, is a US company) under a MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) to ask the UK police to raid Indymedia's servers.

The UK Home Office was of course happy to comply, mainly because MLATs enable them to carry out police actions that would be judicially indefensible without the cloak of secrecy that surrounds MLATs.

I2P and Freenet

[Tracy Reed]

It is because of things like this that we need technology like I2P and Freenet more than ever. Freenet seems to be stuck in a morass and making no progress but I2P is useful now and would have prevented Indymedia's servers from being taken down.

Speak softly and stab with a sharp stick.

[Admiral Justin]

Governments: "Oh no, it's the internet, hit it with a stick and see if it goes away. Then file laws we have no idea how to enforce."

Corps: "We must use the internet to expand our web of mindless consumers!"

RIAA: "Look, #103885439 just logged into Yahoo, Sue him!"

Microsoft: "..." (Bill Gates was unable to join chat, rumours state computer has been comprimised by a new trojan)

Users: "Finally, I'm online, now all I have to do is avoid the sticks, try not to buy anything and everything, not get dragged into court, all while trying to keep my computer secure."

Pending Investigation

[nurb432]

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

Nor should they..

They didn't take indys servers!

[the-build-chicken]

The took rackspaces servers...it just so happened that indys data was on it...sheer coincidence and hardly the governments fault!

Seriously though...that's a loophole that needs to be closed...I would really really check with your ISP about who 'owns' the physical hardware when you buy space (i.e. do you 'rent' the property, or just use it to put data on). Very valid question for anyone looking into hosting something. At the moment I doubt that they have to tell indy anything, they already have told the property owners (rackspace) why they were taken...then hit them with a gag order, which is quite clever (diabolical?) really.

Anyway, host-er beware...check the legality...if they're actually renting you the hardware I would imagine that anyone wanting to take it would have to issue the seizure order to you, otherwise they can issue it to your ISP and tell you nothing...though IANAL.

Re:Naturally governments want to control everythin

[zurab]

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

It is, but you also have to consider not only Indymedia, but other cases as well.

In the Indymedia case it is interesting how Swiss (or Italian or whatever else) governments can simply go to any MLAT partner and seize anything they want for their "investigation." Were Indymedia or Rackspace in violation of the U.S. or U.K laws? I don't know, but it doesn't look that way since neither British law enforcement, nor FBI initiated this action. So, by the magic of the MLAT, you, as an online service provider or entity, are subject to the laws of other countries where you don't even operate or have anything to do with. Want to express your frustration with EU, World Bank, WTO, etc.? It only has to be "illegal" in one country, and your speech will be suppressed for all the rest.

The practice is becoming increasingly common - Yahoo! cannot list Nazi memorabilia in its auctions (the burden is on Yahoo! to make sure the French don't have access to them), Google cannot return advertisements for the words/phrases that are trademarked in the U.S., etc. So, the trend is that once you are online, you are subject to laws of all the nations that could potentially have access to your content or services.

I think it is premature to say that the Internet is doomed, but the beginning of this trend is troubling.

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.

Corrections

[pvanheus]

Firstly, there are current 152 Indymedia websites, not 50 as reported. That means that the loss of ahimsa (the server that was taken down) caused 13% of the IMC (Indymedia Centre) sites to go down, not the "more than 40 percent" quoted.

Secondly, the article makes it sound as if there has been no progress on the cypherpunk front since 1996. While progress has been annoyingly slow, the growth of peer to peer technologies over the last few years has prompted a number of experiments - TOR, I2P, Freenet, etc. (see the I2P network comparisons page for a list), some of which seem to be getting pretty mature.

Thirdly, the bigger sites on ahimsa were up again in hours/days. They would have been up even quicker if a proper backup / mirror system had been in place, and in fact Indymedia techies have now been spurred into action by the ahimsa seizure to make sure the network is more robust. Think about this: the leftie scene is not particularly filled with technologically adept people. The Indymedia network runs on a shoestring budget (in terms of money / time). Despite this, the network was *still* able to respond and repair the damage fairly rapidly.

And finally, don't overestimate the competence of the FBI in this matter. Apparently when trying to do something about the picture of Swiss undercover cops on nantes.indymedia.org, one of the people they approached was from Seattle Indymedia, which has nothing to do with running either ahimsa or nantes.indymedia.org. And anyway, the disputed picture was quickly mirrored all over the place when it became "notorious" (just like the DeCSS code).

So, while I think Grossman's article is a good counterbalance to the mystical rants of people like John Perry Barlow, she leaves out a number of facts that show that the Internet can indeed be used to "route around censorship". Its all a matter of effort - in the 1970s and 80s, the ANC got around government censorship in South Africa by planting "pamphlet bombs" to scatter leaflets at busy rail stations (the cost: activists spending several years in jail). The Internet allows the subversion of censorship with far less effort, but of course it doesn't do it "by magic".