FBI Demands Logs From Radical Website

sunbird writes "The details are as yet unclear due to a gag order, but apparently the FBI is once again demanding IP logs from dissident webservers. The sysadmin for flag.blackened.net, best known for hosting infoshop.org and the Anarchist FAQ has responded to an FBI request for server logs. Although he cannot reveal the details of the request due to the gag order, the sysadmin has issued an informal press release discussing his reasons for turning over the information. Slashdot articles on similar topics: (1) (2) (3)"

Comments

/dev/null

[garcia]

Our users have posted a total of 55265 articles. We have 1787 registered users

I just can't understand why someone running what is apparently a popular site would ever keep logs for more than a very short amount of time?

2. Comply with the wishes of the FBI, provide the IP addresses, and count on the fact that I will catch a lot of heat and hatred from my comrades in the anarchist movement worldwide.

I'd comply and say that there are no log files as they are immediately dumped to /dev/null.

Though it pains me to comply with the State in any manner, I have to choose option #2. The people who have foolishly compromised us all will shoulder the burden for their selfish actions. Frankly folks, they know better - we all know better.

Running a website that is viewed as a "threat" to the government in which the servers reside should have taught the admin (Dave) to know better and not to keep logs of any kind past a short period of time (minutes?) so that a webstats program could be run and the data incorporated and then removed. I don't see why this wasn't followed. I mean my website only averages 1000 hits (not even unique visits) daily over a month and it takes webalizer about three seconds to do what it needs to do.

But, the real point is that I feel like a coward and traitor to my comrades, even in the face of what is essentially a coerced decision. I'm the last one who will criticize or disagree with any of you who want to deride me. I'm also aware that this will probably cause quite a few of you to lose faith in me, flag, and it's subdomains. This can't be avoided and it's something I weighed into my decision.

Oh it could have been avoided if the admin took the time to make sure that no such logs were being kept. They can only subpoena what physically exists.

Freedom of speech does not exist, don't try to test it. They will come bust down your door - for real - point a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you refuse to comply.

Someone that is so against government control and intrusion should have known that this inevitability would occur at some point. Why didn't they take the time to protect themselves especially when they (and/or their family) could be harmed by the very people they host discussions for who could become enraged by their actions?

Re:/dev/null

[El Cubano]

Freedom of speech does not exist, don't try to test it. They will come bust down your door - for real - point a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you refuse to comply.

Someone that is so against government control and intrusion should have known that this inevitability would occur at some point. Why didn't they take the time to protect themselves especially when they (and/or their family) could be harmed by the very people they host discussions for who could become enraged by their actions?

Not only that, but did his site(s) get shutdown? My guess is that this currently an investigation in progress. If people start disappearing without due process or his sites are shut down, then he has a legitimate gripe. Contrary to popular belief, freedom of speech does not entitle you to say anything you want (e.g., threatening to kill someone, yelling fire! in a crowded building, etc.)

We should reserve judgment until the details become available.

Re:/dev/null

[garcia]

We should reserve judgment until the details become available.

I'm not judging anything other than his lack of foresight that got him into this mess in the first place.

Re:/dev/null

[El Cubano]

I'm not judging anything other than his lack of foresight that got him into this mess in the first place.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My last comment was directed at the collective-knee-jerk-reacting-slashbots that come frothing at the mouth to every YRO article. I agree that some questionable things have happened, but it is still too early to tell what is really going on in this case.

Re:/dev/null

[As Seen On TV]

That's a hugely naïve, and utterly wrong, position.

Freedom is not absolute. It never is. The old saying that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face" is as good a way of explaining it as any.

The freedom of speech is the most abridged freedom we have. There are lots of ways in which you don't enjoy the freedom of speech. You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets. You're not free to repeat somebody else's words without permission (with a few exceptions). You're not free to lie, in may cases; lying to deprive somebody of money or value is fraud, and lying to cause harm is slander.

The freedom of speech is important, but like all freedoms it has to be balanced very carefully.

Re:/dev/null

[sfjoe]

If people start disappearing without due process or his sites are shut down, then he has a legitimate gripe.

Poorly thought out.
If we wait until people start disappearing before we gripe, then by that time we won't be ALLOWED to gripe.

Re:/dev/null

[Master of Transhuman]

In case you haven't noticed, you're at least THREE years too late...

See you in Guantanamo...

Re:/dev/null

[kaladorn]

Don't twist words to fit new conceptions (and by new, I mean "within the last few hundred years" new) - open a dictionary,

Because, we all know, dictionaries never change any of their content as times change.... ?

A word or a phrase or a term for something has a commonly ascribed meaning, to be sure, and this is the only meaningful basis for communication. Yet at the same time, most language is imprecise enough to make this definition 'fuzzy'. Add to that the fact that the common ascription of meaning implies a currency of concept - likely to change over time.

Freedom is an absolute? I think not. When person A's freedom clashes with person B's freedom, how can it be an absolute? One of them has to lose out, or maybe both. If you define this simple reality as somehow invalidating the use of the word "Freedom", then we might as well throw it away is it is nigh on useless in any meaningful debate. The only useful definition applies some sort of societal context that isn't quite so absolute but includes the realities of conflicting freedoms and a method to cope with that.

Re:/dev/null

[DunbarTheInept]

Anybody stupid enough to run off and get trampled deserves to die.

The thing about trampling is - not everone getting trampled was part of the mob mentality. A human wave is impossible to stand your ground against. One of the biggest myths of a laissez-faire mentality is that it claims people only hurt themselves with their stupid decisions so it's only their own fault. This ignores the fact that people are affected by the stupid decisions of the others around them. For example, the fact that lots of other people run insecure setups on their computers means everyone else has to deal with the resulting wave of decentralized spam messages coming from their "owned" computers, and thus wasted traffic. The fact that everone else runs i.e. means I have to also, at least for a little while, to test any website I develop.

Re:/dev/null

[DunbarTheInept]

Next time try reading the post. What he's saying is that "freedom" is the wrong word to describe the situation we have. He's trying to divorce the connotation of "freedom = goodness", by saying that it's not actually achievable to have true freedom.

Re:/dev/null

[Zeinfeld]

You're a moron.

Thus does Slashdot discuss matters of social importance.

The FBI could be interested in the logs for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. If they are investigating a crime and someone is known to have contacted the site then they have every right to demand the logs under the law.

When I exchanged email with Timothy McVeigh before he murdered 300 people in Oaklahoma City I handed over the correspondence to the FBI as soon as I heard that he was a suspect. I would have handed them over to the FBI even earlier if I had thought they could take any action, the guy was a whacko.

If on the other hand the FBI is just engaged in a fishing expedition looking for dissidents then there is a serious problem.

The big problem with the actions of the administration is that it is very difficult to trust them when they say that their interest is of the first type rather than the second. The Attorney General has provided legal opinions to facilitate torture. 23 prisoners have died during interogation. The only criminal proceedings have been taken against low level grunts who are exceptionally unlikely to have re-invented procedures that exactly match the R2I protocol of their own accord.

So instead of calling people morons or running around in tin foiul hats perhaps people should take note of the fact that yes there are real terrorists and no the administration does not have a clue how to deal with the problem. They have repeated every one of the mistakes that the British government made in Northern Ireland only on a much larger scale and to a much greater degree.

Re:/dev/null

[Anonymous Coward]

The freedom of speech is important, but like all freedoms it has to be balanced very carefully.

No; it has to be USED very carefully. With freedoms (rights) come responsibilities... Further, what "freedom of speech" (or expression) really means is "no pre-censorship", NOT "no responsibility". That's something so many people fail to grasp.

As to things you listed; lying is actually quite seldom illegal, nor is exposing of secrets. Both of them are more likely to result in contract disputes (civil law); but much less often in actual criminal law suits.

Re:/dev/null

[Vellmont]

You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets.

Only if said secrets belong to a big company with money to sue you and meet the definition of "trade secrets". I'd bet even trade secrets aren't protected if revealing them is in the public interest. Look at the whisteblowers in the tobacco companies who revealed all the "trade secrets" research the tobacco companies did on addiction for instance.


You're not free to repeat somebody else's words without permission.

Copyright? I'm not sure what you're getting at, but repeating someones words is largely a guaranteed right. Repeating an entire chapter of a book, speech, etc likely isn't covered under fair use. Maybe this is what you're taling about, but it sure sounds like you're going way beyond copyright issues.

You're not free to lie

In most cases you are free to lie. Unless you're under oath, or for slander/libel. Those are the exceptions, and not the rule. If lying were illegal our entire House, Senate, and executive branch would be in jail for the next thousand years.

lying to deprive somebody of money or value is fraud

But that's not just speech, that's fraud. Fraud involves intent, not just speech. I'd guess fraud also involves an overt act like taking someones money under false pretenses. Speech is obviously involved in fraud, but deceptive speech isn't the primary reason that fraud is illegal.

Re:/dev/null

[ChaosDiscord]

You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets.

Actually, as a general case you are. Don't tell secrets to someone you don't trust. Or at least get a contract where they agree to not reveal them (which moves this into Trade Secret and Contract law). Ratting out secrets is a key part of good investigative journalism.

Re:/dev/null

[peachpuff]

"Freedom is not absolute. It never is. The old saying that 'your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face' is as good a way of explaining it as any."

True.

"The freedom of speech is the most abridged freedom we have."

I'd say that the Second Amendment rights are abridged more often than free speech. Not to take sides politically, but there's a huge industry grinding out military-grade weapons that you can't own.

"You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets."

Not true. If you agree not to, they can get you for breaking the agreement. Sometimes, like when confidential information is sealed in court, you can't get the information without agreeing not to talk.

"You're not free to repeat somebody else's words without permission (with a few exceptions)."

It's the other way around. You are allowed, with some exceptions. It's true that if someone writes a book, you can't just go Xeroxing pages out of it. But, it is allowed and very common to quote people or to say "I talked to Bob, and he said, 'Blah blah blah.'"

"You're not free to lie, in may cases; lying to deprive somebody of money or value is fraud, and lying to cause harm is slander."

There's that, plus a few others (like perjury). But the illegal lies are a tiny sliver of the lies that get told.

"The freedom of speech is important, but like all freedoms it has to be balanced very carefully."

That's true. And, as other posters have pointed out, there's a difference between civil suits and criminal prosecutions.

Re:/dev/null

[NormalVisual]

And that doesn't even include the ridiculous practice of extraordinary rendition, which is effectively state-approved kidnapping and torture. I think it's totally ridiculous that the President has accrued the power to order these kinds of things, when it very clearly says in the Constitution that Congress shall have the sole authority to declare war. One can call our "police actions" by any name they care to, but if it involves members of the armed forces dying on a battlefield, it's war. The President is there to ensure the laws passed by Congress are executed, hence the term "executive branch", but nowadays the office seems to be one almost of royalty, with Congress only playing an advisory role at best.

Re:/dev/null

[teetam]

And who exactly would do that "balancing"? The government? The first amendment (and in fact, the entire bill of rights) was written in to make sure the individual continues to be more powerful than the state. Years of kool aid has slowly eroded that and now, we have posts such as the parent. Your example of fist and face deals with how my rights can interfere with similar rights that you have (between two individuals). The situation here is totally different and involves the state and a website. The state has no "rights". The country is slowly turning into a police state, but it is being done using the "boiling a frog" process, so very few seem to notice it. We keep singing "home of the free" even after it has lost all meaning.

Re:/dev/null

[plague3106]

Fine, but those are different from advocating violent overthrow of the government, publically threatening anyone, or divulging state secrets.

Is there something inherently wrong with these though? What if the government in question SHOULD be overthrown?

My problem is that it assumes that just because someone posts on a website to overthrow, then someone that reads it and actually attempts to do so seems to be absolved of responsibility of their own actions.

It might be a state secret that people are being grabbed in black helichopters and tortured, but that doesn't mean the people don't have a right to know.

Re:/dev/null

[As Seen On TV]

See, one of the fundamental assumptions in our society is that the government is legitimate and that it obeys the rules set out for it. As long as that's true, the government should not be overthrown.

The first thing you need to realize is that the people who created our government were smarter than you are. That's nothing to be ashamed of; they were smarter than I am, and smarter than everybody I've ever known. We're talking about once-in-a-millennium minds here.

They concocted a system of government that works under all conditions, past or present. Our system of government has never yet failed. Even when we were in the darkest days of the civil war, when it seemed that our republic might fall, the government stood.

Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But when we become aware of its flaws, the intricate and complex system of checks and balances comes into play and sets things right. The system is self-correcting, and when you really understand it, it's a wonder to behold.

So to answer your question, the government should not be overthrown. If circumstances ever did arise where it should be -- I'm not convinced that they will --then the question of whether it's legal to say so will be the least of your worries.

Re:/dev/null

[plague3106]

See, one of the fundamental assumptions in our society is that the government is legitimate and that it obeys the rules set out for it. As long as that's true, the government should not be overthrown.

But its not, thats pretty clear to even most people.

The first thing you need to realize is that the people who created our government were smarter than you are. That's nothing to be ashamed of; they were smarter than I am, and smarter than everybody I've ever known. We're talking about once-in-a-millennium minds here.

I'd agree with that, and even they realized that sometimes violent revolution is the only way to fix things. Please note that I'm not saying thats even the case now...my point is that if its illegal to suggest it now it will be illegal to suggest it when it really needs to be.


They concocted a system of government that works under all conditions, past or present. Our system of government has never yet failed. Even when we were in the darkest days of the civil war, when it seemed that our republic might fall, the government stood.

That depends on how you define failure. If you mean its still here...then possibily you are correct. Some would argue however that our current gov't so so far out of tune with what was intended. Currently, we know it NOT to be following its own rules.


Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But when we become aware of its flaws, the intricate and complex system of checks and balances comes into play and sets things right. The system is self-correcting, and when you really understand it, it's a wonder to behold.

Asking if its perfect is a waste of time; I think most reasonable people would agree you cannot attain perfection. The systems corrections seem to be failing however. This site provides some interesting insight. I've also had similar experiences in traffic court...I have an SSN and licence...but i know exactly what he meant when he said the judge railroaded it. I call traffic court McJustice. Also read his thoughts on case law (which isn't law at all...but judges seem to favor case law even though said cases may have been 'wrong' verdicts).

So to answer your question, the government should not be overthrown. If circumstances ever did arise where it should be -- I'm not convinced that they will --then the question of whether it's legal to say so will be the least of your worries.

I didn't ask if it should be now, or even talk about the US gov't. I said if there is one that SHOULD be, shouldn't the citizens be allowed to talk about it?

You claim our system isn't perfect, yet then claim that it will never need to be overthrown. I suggest you look at history; all governments become corrupt and abusive, its just a matter of time. It naive to think that an imperfect government will last forever.

Re:/dev/null

[Spaceman40]

Quotes from one of these 'once-in-a-millennium minds' (Thomas Jefferson) -

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

"What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."

And, more to the point of this article:

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

Re:/dev/null

[Nataku564]

The US hasn't been around all that long ... it has its merits, but longevity isnt one of them. Not yet anyway... give it a bit, who knows.

Aww geez

[winkydink]

The guy is a self-admitted left-extremist who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo.

If you're an extremist (left or right), you should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response.

Re:Aww geez

[grub]

If you're an extremist (left or right), you should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response

That's right. Be a good boy, don't speak out of turn and eat your vegetables.

Calling the FBI "Gestapo" is just name calling. Big deal. Bush is a nazi, Blair is a cunt and the CIA are murderous thugs. It's not something they don't hear every day. They want something information that is tied to something more involved than simple name calling.

Re:Aww geez

[Malc]

Hurray for the land of the free: McCarthyism lives on!

Re:Aww geez

[gstoddart]

The guy is a self-admitted left-extremist who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo.

If you're an extremist (left or right), you should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response.

Well, unless he actually did something, I'm pretty sure the US constitution used to uphold the rights of people to actually be whack-jobs and extremists.

The fact that everyone should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response is a little chilling, because if he didn't actually do anything, Gestapo is a remarkably accurate word.

Re:Aww geez

[slughead]

If you're an extremist (left or right), you should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response.

Why?

Re:Aww geez

[mshiltonj]

If you're an extremist (left or right), you should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response.

People shouldn't have to expect that in a country that supposedly respect free speech.

Dissension should not be a crime.

Freedom of speech means being able to express unpopular points of view that do not fit with the status quo WITHOUT having to fear reprisals by law enforcement agencies.

Or, do we have freedom of speech only when that speech is approved by the government??

Re:Aww geez

[Moofie]

So, you should be able to speak your mind, as long as your ideas aren't "extreme"?

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Re:Aww geez

[EtherAlchemist]

You're allowed to say extreme things.

Yeah, you're right. You can say whatever you want, however, whatever you do say may not be protected by the freedom of speech - as with all laws, there a limits to this. And with laws come consequences for violating them.

Another thing people may be overlooking is that now more than ever, anarchist groups and other "radical" organizations can now be filed under the heading "terrorist groups" (and you know, maybe they should be?) and they can be acted against.

How do you distinguish between the freedom of speech and violation of law? Where is the line drawn? Is it when you go from saying the government should be overthrown to actually trying to overthrow a government? What about all the "speech" and "expression" in between? Marches or handbooks on how it COULD be done? Does it cross the line when training camps are set up? When it spreads from a small group of people to a large mass? When people start arming themselves? Participating in violent demonstrations?

Re:Aww geez

[garcia]

If you're an extremist (left or right), you should expect that eventually you will receive an extreme response.

Why?

Because that's exactly what we have been taught to expect since we came under Fascist control, that's why. "WE WILL CHASE DOWN THE TERRORISTS AND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE" ring a bell?

People not only expect this to happen most people want it to happen!

That's what sad about our country. Everyone wants to be "safe" and "protected from evil" yet they don't understand that they are supporting exactly the opposite when they side with actions like that.

Re:Aww geez

[winkydink]

I said nothing of the sort. The more extreme you are the greater the liklihood is of something extreme happening to you. It doesn't matter if the subject is anarchy, skydiving, or hitting on chicks in bars.

But of course!

[FlyByPC]

Big Brother needs this information to protect us. Big Brother only has our own best interests in mind. We should all love Big Brother. 21 years ahead of Welles' prediction, but still...

Choice bits from the "press release"

[daveschroeder]

"people are simply ignorant about the murderous history of the FBI"

"At this point let me say, in all honesty and conviction, that if I end up dead by strange means - suicide, overdose, drunk driving accident (I never, ever, ever drink and drive), "accidental" gunshot to the back of the head while sleeping ala Fred Hampton, car jacking, or anything else reasonably suspicious, contact the FBI in Chico, California for more details."

"Though it pains me to comply with the State in any manner"

"[The Oakland FBI] proven murderers and automatons for the state who will blindly follow any order to kill or disrupt without question"

"Freedom of speech does not exist, don't try to test it. They will come bust down your door - for real - point a gun to your head and pull the trigger if you refuse to comply."

And?

[Telastyn]

So what? If I owned a little deli, and had a security camera, are those tapes safe from subpeona? If I ran a little telecom, would the phone lines be safe from wiretap orders?

Why should server logs be any different?

Gag orders should have expiration dates.

[ka9dgx]

All "gag" orders should have an expiration date. Once the date is passed, the order, the reasons for the order, and all relevant data should be made public. The expiration date should be public, regardless.

That's my armchair proposal for a better America.

--Mike--

Simple solution:

[commo1]

DON'T....

KEEP...

LOGS....

Quite seriously, have a watchdog-type timer purge the records after a day or so. Chances are, anyone good enough to crack your well-maintained and patched box and do some nastys is going to be smart enough to mask his true ip-idetifiable location, and the user information can be kept safe.

Sites like this, along with, say, Anti-Microsoft sites are, as of yet, under no obligation to keep logs of who is posting. Allowing the FBI or other agencies access to this type of information is a recipe for misuse.

Whirrr!

[geekwithsoul]

. . . sound of the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

One has to wonder what would have happened if the British had such draconian measures in place say around the 1770s. Would they have locked up Ben Franklin for printing Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," and "The Rights of Man?"

Any regime (which is what the current administration has turned into) that cannot allow free speech should not be allowed to stand. Or at least I believe that's what Patrick Henry might say in this situation.

No it's not that

[Sycraft-fu]

Notice they aren't after him, they just wants logs about others that have come there.

The problem is, with extremist sites like that, you'll get some who are a little more extremist than most. Maybe you are a group of anarchists that really do believe in no government. You believe in real, total anarchy. However, you don't believe in using violence to being that about, you aren't THAT extreme. Government will leave you be, you aren't breaking any laws.

Well guess what? Sooner or later someone who IS extreme to the point that they want to use violence will show up. That will draw the intrest of the government. It is illegal to try to violently overthrow the government, make no mistake.

Well if noe or more of these people hangs around your site, you shouldn't be supprised if the government wants information on them.

Now maybe this is just harassment by the FBI, but I'd actually bet not. There are plenty of sites out there that are anti-government. I'm betting this is a real request to try and find some people for an investigation. Maybe it's just fishing, but still. The operators drama aside, it sounds like all they did was ask for the IPs that are behind some posts. I don't really see the problem.

Re:No it's not that

[Jardine]

It is illegal to try to violently overthrow the government, make no mistake.

Only if you fail.

Re:Mmmm.. Dynamic

[TheKidWho]

Dynamic IP won't protect you. They also have the time and date when that IP was used.

Also, yeah definetly, we US citizens are cowering from the fear of the FBI coming to get us. Every day we live wondering "Will the FBI come and knock on our doors tomorrow and take us to room 101?"

Ohh and don't be so happy that you live in Canada, if American did turn into the fascist state that many of you anti-americans are saying it is, Canada would be one of the first countires to be umm annexed. Then comes Europe... muhahah we merikans shall conquer the world, praise the holy divine king Bush chosen by god himself!!

Really though, it's too bad many foriegners view the US in such bad light, it's not a bad country at all, and for the most part it's filled with very good people.

Re:One man's +5 funny...

[daveschroeder]

Bullshit.

You can speak whatever you wish, obvious exceptions ("yelling fire in a movie theater, etc.) aside.

You have more chance of being ostracized or punished for unpopular speech at our nation's leading universities than by the government.

If you're the type of person who focuses in on all police/goverment/authority abuses, and only the abuses, and that's it, I've no doubt you steadfastly hold firm to your statements.

But you frankly have no idea what the FBI is going after this site for. I guarantee you it's not for talking trash about the President or revealing "the truth" about 9/11. We've got enough of that to fill a dozen Libraries of Congress. It's got to be something a fuck of a lot more substantial, and you know it, otherwise half of the blogs on the internet would be subpoenaed every day.

I know these words will be lost on many who read it, and the responses will vary from "FUCK YOU" (including half-assed attempts at jokes now that I said that) to various assertions that we're currently living in a police state, circa 1984. Please, get a grip on reality.

Gag orders

[slavemowgli]

You know, what actually worries me more than the FBI's asking for server logs is the fact that (seemingly) every time something like this happens, a "gag order" is placed on the affected parties. It's a serious breach of the constitutional rights people enjoy; not only the right to free speech is affected, but also things like due process. A state which gathers evidence in secret is well on its way to a state that holds trials in secret, and THAT certainly is something none of us (here on Slashdot, anyway) want, no matter how we may disagree on other matters.

And of course, there is the fact that (like always) there does not even seem to be a good reason to place a gag order, short of "people aren't gonna like this and we want to avoid bad press"; I can see why the FBI wants to err on the (for them) "safe" side, but I think it's a dangerous path to take, for the reasons described above.

Oh well. I guess it just shows again that as a webmaster, you should not keep logs for longer than is absolutely necessary, and that as a user, you should use Tor or a similar tool to anonymise your browsing if you're visiting political websites (I wonder if Slashdot counts as one).

Re:Gag orders

[Rakishi]

I'm sure criminals would just love to have the FBI tell them before hand that they are being investigated so that they can destroy all evidence.

Re:Press Release

[spywarearcata.com]

Hello, Dave.

If the FBI served a court order (subpoena) then not to comply might be considered contumacious conduct warranting, say, up to 18 months in jail. Note that a court would impose this, not the FBI.

If I were you I would not worry about being assassinated since if you flout the law then you will be doing it to yourself.

Even if your attorney says to do what the FBI says, i.e., roll over, at least you will serve as a warning to others of the danger of keeping unnecessary records.

Besides, if you make a prominent warning that you do not keep records, then you will be far less likely to attract a subpoena in the first place.

Also when dealing with any federal official, please remember that even not under oath, you break the law if you misrepresent a material fact to them. Of course this does not apply to them lying to you, which they may do freely.

Re:To me it looks like he's playing for publicity

[dr_dank]

No, actually, they won't. In a case like this they'll send you a subpoena asking for the infromation they want. If you fail to respond, the court will issue an order for your arrest, and a warrant allowing them to sieze the comptuers that should have the logs.

It seems inevitable that the computers would be seized. I don't think the investigators would take it at face value that the logs didn't exist without checking for themselves.

Damn...

[ImaLamer]

I had a really good response but it was too extreme and since I don't want trouble I'll keep it to myself.

I for one welcome our freedom hating overlords...

Re:Mmmm.. Dynamic

[Kimos]

I don't have a problem with most americans. I have a problem with America. I agree with you that it's a shame, but you've got to admit that the US is doing a pretty damn good job at looking bad.

Besides, the US needs us for power and water. There are many things that we need the US for evidently, but military is not one of them. We protect ourselves by not making enemies of the rest of the planet. I like to think that the rest of the world would not stand by while the US forcefully took us over...

Re:Press Release

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind that is married and the primary income earner.

Don't see how either one of those disqualifies one from being an anarchist.

Re:Press Release

[Suicyco]

Right on there. "Though I pretend to be an anarchist and revolutionary, I am really a scared sheep like the rest of you and thought this was just a game. Whaaaaa."

Why does he have to comply? rm -rf / the server and do your time pal. What a friggin pussy.

Re:Press Release

[Stonehand]

Definitely not good enough assuming any data forensics expertise whatsoever. A radical should use somewhat more radical methods...

The Soviet Union collapsed

[tintruder]

Funny how the US was so against the Soviet Union on "Human Rights" grounds only a handfull of years ago...

The objections?:

-requirement for internal travel documents "your papers please"

-"blacklisting" dissidents (no-fly list?)

-secret searches (Brandon Mayfield in Portland?)

-forced medical procedures (or lack of care)

-voting irregularities

-lack of "due process" (Guantanamo Bay, sending suspects to egypt for "questioning")

-"watchers" at libraries, places of public assembly

But these days, it seems the US government is a bigger violator of human rights than the soviets ever were. A noble experiment in democracy destroyed by an arrogant few who have constructed a system to protect themselves and their petty fiefdoms from the citizenry who demand accountability.

Where I used to be a flag-waving patriot when I was a USMC Fighter Pilot, I no longer feel that way. I look at our own government as more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, Osama BinLaden, North Korea, Iran and the rest.

I look at virtually every government project in the same way I look at Saddam's statues of himself...an exercise in self-aggrandisment for those behind the project, that if it benefits even a single citizen, it's by accident, not by intent.

I almost believe the "conspiracy theorists" who claim that the government knew about Oklahoma City and 9-11 ahead of time....because if the terrorists had instead hit Congress, the FBI, the IRS and the Supreme Court, it would be hard to rally people against them. They could have killed 2 birds with one stone.

It really is sad to think this nation has deteriorated so far and that citizens have allowed their rights to be eroded to such an extent that they have all but been rendered incapable of making any meaningful change in government short of violence.

Russia today is stunning proof that the crooks and gangsters are more honest and reliable than the politicians. Maybe we need a dose of their sort of revolution in this country?

If something doesn't happen here, instead of being like 1970s Soviet Union, US citizens will end up being treated by this government like jews in 1940's Germany. Other than the ovens, little separates us from that today.

Re:The Soviet Union collapsed

[metlin]

What crap.

But these days, it seems the US government is a bigger violator of human rights than the soviets ever were.

Oh yeah, the US government is killing away millions of people to further the cause of the state. The last time I checked, we were also annexing all our neighbouring countries to become more powerful. Am sure the Canadians are trembling in their shoes.

Not to mention the fact that the US government is completely controlled by the military and is persecuting its citizens for not following its mandate.

FYI - for all of the government's efforts, the judiciary still deems it illegal for the legislature to interfere. Despite everything, the
"regime" that is currently in power was _democratically_ elected by the majority of Americans. Perhaps you may disagree with their decision or the methods they employ, however that does not mean it is not democracy.

-requirement for internal travel documents "your papers please"

Lots of countries in the world have them. Hell, even within Europe you will have to show your papers to travel. Even in the world's largest democracy (India), you'd better have your ID to travel. There is nothing wrong in this.

-"blacklisting" dissidents (no-fly list?)

Wow, nice choice of words. It's unfortunate you see them as dissidents - the state is trying to protect its interests and its people. Sure, I'm unhappy about the means - but you know what? It's better than having some bunch of bearded morons running planes into buildings.

-secret searches (Brandon Mayfield in Portland?)

FYI - these things have been happening for all of time. It's only that you hear more about them now with the new media. Just because you hear more about them does not mean that they didn't happen before.

-forced medical procedures (or lack of care)

See above.

-voting irregularities

Here's a little secret. Democracy doesn't really "work" - almost every American president other than Kennedy has been a White Christian Protestant Male. So much for diversity and blah blah blah. If democracy really did work, Joe Schmoe would be able to contest for elections and get elected. And if that were the case, you think the powers that be would really let that happen?

-lack of "due process" (Guantanamo Bay, sending suspects to egypt for "questioning")

This has always been happening - WW2, Cold War and the like. And like I mentioned earlier, it's merely that you're hearing more about it now, that is all.

-"watchers" at libraries, places of public assembly

Well, we have the technology that makes this possible quite easily. In time, we'll also develop means of overcoming such "watching" - through other technologies.

Remember - whatever happens, the majority of the people asked for it. The state is what the people want it to be.

Re:The Soviet Union collapsed

[twifosp]

Let me preface by saying, I don't agree with the grand parent's over exgeration of our current state of afairs. Yea, we're not as bad as 1930s and 1940s Germany or [insert evil government here]. But that doesn't mean that we're doing the best job we can. Just because we're doing it better than they did, doesn't excuse the mistakes that we [the country] commit.

Oh yeah, the US government is killing away millions of people to further the cause of the state. The last time I checked, we were also annexing all our neighbouring countries to become more powerful. Am sure the Canadians are trembling in their shoes. Not to mention the fact that the US government is completely controlled by the military and is persecuting its citizens for not following its mandate. FYI - for all of the government's efforts, the judiciary still deems it illegal for the legislature to interfere. Despite everything, the "regime" that is currently in power was _democratically_ elected by the majority of Americans. Perhaps you may disagree with their decision or the methods they employ, however that does not mean it is not democracy.

Kill one or millions. If you do it in the name of the state, it's wrong. And using the point that we democratically and majority elected the POTUS is pretty silly. Not even counting our hilariously poor voter turn out... You can make the point that most of the people who voted for Bush still think Iraq had connections with 911. Yea, so the majority of people are ignorant to facts and voted for the wrong person. Winning an election does not absolve the unethical tactics used to win.

Papers? We don't need no stinkin' papers. I mostly agree here. In an ideal state, this wouldn't be a problem. It CAN be a problem when those papers are prone to mistakes and don't even work to keep the wrong people out. See 911.

FYI - these things have been happening for all of time. It's only that you hear more about them now with the new media. Just because you hear more about them does not mean that they didn't happen before.

And the fact that it's been happening for years makes it A-OKAY? Well, murder has been happening since the dawn of humanity. Precendent has been set, kill away!

Here's a little secret. Democracy doesn't really "work" - almost every American president other than Kennedy has been a White Christian Protestant Male. So much for diversity and blah blah blah. If democracy really did work, Joe Schmoe would be able to contest for elections and get elected. And if that were the case, you think the powers that be would really let that happen?

Right. And we should just sit around and take it? What was that noise? Oh nevermind that, it was just ole Jefferson rolling in his grave.

This has always been happening - WW2, Cold War and the like. And like I mentioned earlier, it's merely that you're hearing more about it now, that is all.

Back to that precedent arguement! Hooray for previous crimes paving the way for a future of non improvement and continued injustice!

I like how your basis for refuting the point includes comparisons to bigger injustices. When you got in trouble as a kid, you probably would bring up the vase your sister broke last week, wouldn't you.

Well, we have the technology that makes this possible quite easily. In time, we'll also develop means of overcoming such "watching" - through other technologies. Remember - whatever happens, the majority of the people asked for it. The state is what the people want it to be.

Err... no. Whatever happens, the majority of the people didn't know about it. Largely due to apathy and ignorance. But also due to the fact that when it happens, it's also too late. The state of the people is hardly ever what they want it to be. The state is ONLY what the people accept it to be.

Re:The Soviet Union collapsed

[Anonymous Coward]

we were also annexing all our neighbouring countries to become more powerful.

Empire is in vogue, just ask the Iraqis and Afghanis how they're doing in their shiny new government.

you'd better have your ID to travel. There is nothing wrong in this.

By itself, probably not. After all, cops don't sit around randomly pulling over people and executing them if their name is found on -- what would you call it, oh thats right -- a blacklist.

the state is trying to protect its interests and its people.

No wonder our country's going to Hell in a handbasket, we've got dissidents like Senator Kennedy in charge. Secret blacklists don't do anyone any good. They're not going to keep people (bearded or not) from flying planes into things. You know what would make this a million times better? If the TSA had a place you could write and explain how you're on the list and you shouldn't be, and they'd go "Ooops, our bad." and you get to fly again. But no, even a Senator has to argue and wait for months to get his name removed. If you're a mere human... well, I hope you weren't too tied to that sales job, your company doesn't have a place for someone who can't fly out to the clients in person.

And if that were the case, you think the powers that be would really let that happen?

"What crap" but hey, at least its crap with the same viewpoint you have.

whatever happens, the majority of the people asked for it.

BTW, in an environment where every politician lies their ass off as much as they can, you cannot claim "the people asked for it".

Free Speach?

[Corpus_Callosum]

Running a website that is viewed as a "threat" to the government in which the servers reside should have taught the admin (Dave) to know better and not to keep logs of any kind past a short period of time (minutes?) so that a webstats program could be run and the data incorporated and then removed. I don't see why this wasn't followed. I mean my website only averages 1000 hits (not even unique visits) daily over a month and it takes webalizer about three seconds to do what it needs to do.

You know, I may not agree with what these guys are talking about, but I do think they have the right to talk about it.

Who gets to decide when communications are dangerous to the state? Are these measures being taken under the Patriot act? Is there no due-process of law involved for this search and seisure? Is there no line drawn at all between our rights and freedoms and the whim of the state?

What does our constitution and bill of rights have to do with the state of existence in the USA today if they are blatantly ignored by the government when it suites them?

If this is really where we are, then we should at least stop pretending. Let's at least admit openly that we no longer have constitutionally protected rights. Perhaps, more accurately, we no longer have those rights with respect to the state. It appears that they are still enforced when the state isn't the one tresspassing on them. But let's stop beating around the bush, let's call a turkey a turkey.

Hard to decide without details

[gbulmash]

First... IANAL.

Because of the gag order, it seems he can't say what the people whose IP addresses the FBI is demanding did.

I've said it before in a previous post and I'll say it again. "freedom of Speech" is not absolute. Just check your local noise ordinances or "disturbing the peace laws". Let's not forget the following forms of illegal speech...

• Inciting to riot
• Deceptive or false advertising
• Terrorist threats
• Slander/Libel (more a civil matter, but still...)
• Obscenity

It's sad that this guy is the one who has to pony up info to the FBI, in violation of his principles, but the safe harbor laws only extend so far. Just because he is granted certain protections from legal liability over what happens in his public forum, that does not mean he is exempt from subpoena to turn over information about them if they should do something illegal in his public forum.

Now, if the gag order comes off, and the matter seems totally spurious, then it seems more like harrassment by the FBI. But if what these users did was pretty f'ed up, then such is life. Responsibility goes hand in hand with rights and privileges.

- Greg

Re:Mmmm.. Dynamic

[northcat]

You think your ISP doesn't log who got a Dynamic IP when?

Re:To me it looks like he's playing for publicity

[SquadBoy]

Fine then. They would be siezed and searched and nothing found. Granted since said servers are /.ed to hell and back and the moment I only have a bit of info but let's play thought experiment for a minute. And list the basic rookie mistakes this guy and his lusers made.

1. He kept logs. Nuff said.

2. Given as upset as he expects them to be we can only conclude that they were coming from tracable IPs. Good god welcome to fucking amatuer hour.

3. WTF was he doing keeping the servers *in* the US. As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s and who really thinks that that American Revoultion was one of the best things to ever happen to mankind is sickens me to say this. But the US is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. If you think about it for about .3 seconds you come to the conclusion that you should seek hosting in another country, by prefrence one that has no extradition treaty.

4. The fucking idiot was *KEEPING LOGS*. There is no possible way to justify this.

He likely sits with his back to doors.

We do not live on a playground

[Coulson]

We do not live on a playground. Freedom of speech is not something that exists only in the sandbox. When we say something really mean, the state is not a watchful parent who should step in and pull us aside for a stern talking to.

That's the attitude a lot of people seem to take. "Oh, they were playing for real, so the FBI had to make them stop."

Liberty is either respected or it is not. The realpolitik guys will say "only when it's expedient". The libertarians will say, "all the time regardless". The Democrats and Republicans will say, "as long as you play nice", and that's the government we've got.

The government has to follow the rules all the time. They can't break them just because we're playing "for keeps"*.

*though of course actually they can, and do, and people expect them to. so they'll keep doing it.

How Thinking Goes Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Browse through Michael Shermer's excellent article on common thinking fallacies (excerpted from his book) and see how many you can apply to the anarchist crowd.

• Theory Influences Observations, or, "Does this surprise anybody?"
• Anecdotes Do Not Make a Science, or, "I read it on Indymedia, it was repeated on DailyKOS, that proves it's true"
• Scientific Language Does Not Make a Science, or, "500 Years of Jurisprudence is being thrown out because of denial of habeus corpus"
• Bold Statements Do Not Make Claims True, or, "BUSH == HITLER"
• Heresy Does Not Equal Correctness, or, "We must have hit a nerve, why else would they deny it?"
• Burden of Proof, or, "Bush hasn't countered the cocaine charges, so they must be true"
• Rumors Do Not Equal Reality, or, "Everybody's saying it, it must be true"
• Unexplained Is Not Inexplicable, or, "We still don't know everything about 9/11, that proves Bush was behind it"
• Failures Are Rationalized, or, "The long-demanded 9/11 Report is just more lies"
• After-the-Fact Reasoning, or, "Bush should have known" And that's just the first half. How many can YOU find?

Re:Black Flag

[hkb]

So he believes in working within a system he doesn't believe should exist? While I understand that anarchists can have moral beliefs I just can't imagine that he would be so tolerant of the way the system is built to just put up with it.

On the other side of the coin, because of his beliefs, he MUST hold those beliefs above his wife and daughter and sacrifice everything?

My two cents: STFU and mind your own business.

Re:Press Release

[Jerf]

rm -rf / isn't good enough against the FBI; you need something like wipe, and you need to wipe the whole partition/hard drive. That will take some serious time, possibly on the order of weeks for a large modern hard drive.

I don't think there's any practical way to prevent the FBI from reading your computers based purely on commands you can issue to your computer, if you wait until they are smashing down your door. Hard drives are surpringly hard to completely destroy, and partially destroying them is just waving a red flag in front of a bull, if the FBI is busting down your door. Short of large quantites of thermite being used to literally completely melt all the platters, I wouldn't care to bet that all the data will be destroyed.

If you know in advance you might have trouble, I'd suggest encrypted partitions with a large passphrase requested at every boot up. Even so, if they manage to possess the machine without shutting off the power you might be out of luck, so work on that angle too.

I'd still not bet on being safe. I prefer to stay legal and hope for the best. (Y'all do secure your wireless connections, right?)

The ignorance is astounding

[TIMxPx]

I can't believe how many people post comments in pure ignorance, claiming that the Feds are out to silence everyone, and no one is allowed to express himself for fear of retribution. I've gone around my entire life saying and doing pretty much whatever i want, criticising the U.S. government, my elected representatives, police forces, etc. I've owned and fired guns on my own property and on the property of others. I have read any website that i wanted to read, and i've posted any time i felt the urge. I have travelled overseas and back, and across U.S. borders and back in my car. I've had quite alot of freedom, both online and in real life, freedom that is protected by the United States Constitution and government agencies and officials.

I know that the vast majority of people are idiots and think they should be able to do whatever they want to do, including protesting by blocking traffic and inhibiting local businesses, as well as inciting violence. I have news for those people: Your rights end where another's rights begin. I'll grant that you have the freedom to swing your arms as a form of self-expression, as long as you don't do so in the general direction of my face, knocking out several teeth in the process. That's what it means to put limits on freedom. If you don't like it, move to Western Europe. Better yet, move to Cuba. That should give you some sense of contrast. Hopefully, you'd find that there is a balance to be struck between freedom and responsibility, or between freedom and security.

Furthermore, the feds and government officials aren't attempting to suppress free speech; in fact, they appreciate people being able to express themselves. Talking rationally about issues is much preferred to the violent solutions that might be enacted were we not able to do so.

There's a good chance that someone will pick out a single sentence from this post and ridicule the notion contained therein, like the idea of putting limits on freedom. How horrible -- the majority of the people have elected officials who have, in turn, passed laws, and the executive branch now enforces them. What a terrifying way to effect a social contract by which people give up some potential freedoms in order to protect life and property. If you don't understand these basic principles of modern democracy, please go back to school and take a 9th or 10th grade government class.

Re:Solution: Go out to the Forest

[StikyPad]

That gets my vote for worst joke.

Ever.

You need psychological help, tintruder

[Anonymous Coward]

But these days, it seems the US government is a bigger violator of human rights than the soviets ever were.

All this does is reveal what an astonishingly ignorant person you are, both about the USA and the Soviet Union.

It really is sad to think this nation has deteriorated so far and that citizens have allowed their rights to be eroded to such an extent that they have all but been rendered incapable of making any meaningful change in government short of violence.

The current government in power is the one the majority voted for. What's the problem again? Is this some conspiracy theory comment?

If something doesn't happen here, instead of being like 1970s Soviet Union, US citizens will end up being treated by this government like jews in 1940's Germany. Other than the ovens, little separates us from that today.

I wondered when you were going to get to your little Nazi comment. OK. 10,000,000th inappropriate Nazi comparison noted and placed in circular file.

Seriously, if you think we are one step from the ovens, you need serious psychological help. You are delusional to the point where I would be uncomfortable being in the same room with you unless you were restrained somehow, or I was armed.

I am NOT kidding here. Get yourself into some mental health program as soon as you can. This is coming from someone who hates Bush and all he has done, but if you are at the point of imagining the US in the grip of the equivalent of Nazism, you have completely disconnected from reality. Your whole post reeks of persecution complexes and being in a massive disassociative event.

Re:Is this really news?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

these people are not a threat to the Bush administration.

Everyone is a threat to the Bush administration. But that has nothing to do with this. We don't know why the seized the records or by whose order. It's not like Bush runs the government. It has a schizophrenic little mind of its own.

Making threats on the presidents life is enough to get the Anarchist site subpoena'd

By the secret service, not the FBI.

Subpoenaing a site for records is not illegal just because they're a political activism site.

No, but it should hold the highest levels of accountability. Political speech is the single most important part of free speech. Without it their can be no democracy. Gag orders regarding subpoenas of political sites damn well better be necessary to prevent a nuke from going off or everyone who pursued this investigation and the judge who authorized it should have to answer for their actions and explain why they felt it was so important to get these records that they were willing to risk demolishing a cornerstone of our democracy to get them.

Re:To me it looks like he's playing for publicity

[Master of Transhuman]

"When they come to arrest you, you won't get shot unless you do something stupid, like threaten them with a weapon."

Are you naive...

Plenty of people have been shot because some asshole cop THOUGHT they MIGHT have a weapon - while they were wiping their nose or reaching for their ID...

There was a case some years back reported in the (IIRC) Cincinnati Inquirer when cops invaded a home which was fingered (wrongly) by some paid snitch as a drug stash. The cops thought the house was empty because there was no furniture - it turns out the owner had a messy divorce, the wife got it all. The cops bust in, mistake some innocent motion for a threat, shoot the guy. They ransack the house for half an hour while he lies bleeding on the floor, no medical assistance called.

Now get THIS PART: Unaware that the victim is conscious, these cops DEBATE FINISHING HIM OFF SO THEY CAN MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A GOOD DRUG BUST!! They only decide NOT to MURDER him because some of the cops complain that with FIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTIONS in on the raid, somebody might spill the beans on a CIVILIAN MURDER! So they let him live - not knowing he just heard all this.

Nice. Welcome to America...

You have no fucking clue how cops work.

Ask the guy in New York who had a broomstick run up his ass. Asd the kids at Waco who were burned to death so the cops could get revenge for two cops in LA convicted the same day of beating Rodney King...

Cops are pigs. Cops deserve to get shot straight in the head. All cops - local, state, Federal, international. Interplanetary, for all I care.

Re:People like this...

[dvdeug]

When they whine about speech what they are really whining for is a world with no reprocussions for their actions.

Yeah, that's what it always is. All those people who want to say something bad about the people in power and get punished, it's always their fault for speaking up.

These so-called radicals always want to throw stones at the government and big business and so on and apply the term "evil"

"So-called radicals"? Are you implying that the government and big business is always good? That they need no one to expose their crimes and wrongdoings?

but they never take any responsibility for what they do, only credit. Free will doesn't work that way. Your actions have consequences and speech requires action to convey it.

And what should the consequences be? Speaking out against a mob boss may get you killed; should we tell everyone whining about how their friend got his head blown off that that's simply the consequences of speaking?

Re:Press Release

[Suicyco]

Not so. Disks are never allowed to leave classified areas in my experience, without physical destruction. They are wiped per DOD prior to leaving the project, and destroyed (melted down) prior to leaving the site. You NEVER return hardware to manufacturers in classified situations.

The DOD writes are not sufficient, there are ways to retrieve data from drives written over 10 times and more, its just prohibitively expensive and very very time consuming.

I agree the "press release" sounds like a crock of shit. You know, I bet this guy is LOVING this right now. I mean, here he is, living his dream! FBI, secret info, cloak and dagger WOOO HOOOO!! Its every internet revolutionaries dream to ACTUALLY be involved in something.

So you want to run an Anarchist Website

[un1xl0ser]

So everyone has gotten done bitching about how he should have not kept logs and so forth.

What are YOUR best practices for running an anarchist/revolutionary website. You could rotate your logs into the bit bucket.. but what residue could that leave behind.

Do any hosting companies provide loopback encryption or bestcrypt container support?

Re:Press Release

[Suicyco]

Ahh. So don't actually stand up for something. You aren't sticking it to the man by going to jail, but you may be sticking it to the man if you go to jail because you will not divulge information the man wants.

What does "push as far as you can as long as you can" mean? Only until you wimp out?

If you are advocating violent overthrow of a government, you sure as shit better be able to withstand the reverse. Giving up under pressure is how the status quo is maintained.

As An Anarchist, Here's My Take On This

[Master of Transhuman]

HE is not responsible for what is posted on his Web site by other idiots.

OTOH, HE is not responsible if the FBI forces him to reveal what is posted on his Web site.

Any anarchist who thinks BLIND resistance - on his part or anyone else's - is the only course of action is an idiot. When the cops have a gun to your head (figuratively or otherwise) you do what you have to do to survive. If you do, do what you can against them later. Getting yourself arrested or killed for no effective result is just stupid.

We can complain that he should not have kept logs. Well, as has been pointed out by numerous others, if he hadn't that doesn't necessarily mean he or his systems would be in the clear. Therefore, it's irrelevant that he kept logs.

Anybody posting legally liable material on his board from a traceable IP address is an idiot, anyway. So who cares about logs? He might as well keep them.

Most so-called "anarchists" in this country are "armchair anarchists" anyway. I did eight years on a nine year sentence for armed bank robbery because I finally decided to give up armchair anarchism. Well, it didn't work out - it could have, to some degree, had I started with better resources, but it didn't. This does not validate or invalidate my approach, nor does it validate armchair anarchism.

But any armchair anarchist critizing this guy for having to turn over Web logs is just that.

He did what he had to do, he's not happy about it, and he's revealing as much as he can about it. That's fine by me.

The real assholes are those who tried to incriminate this guy (if that's what they were trying to do) and the FBI itself. And I wouldn't be surprised if the two are one and the same - posting criminal material on a dissident site and then busting the site for "evidence" is an obvious Fed trick which has no doubt been used before and will be used again. Federal courts have determined that the FBI did worse against the American Indian Movement for years, so this would be no surprise.

As for "free speech", anybody remember the posters the FBI spread around Harlem back in the sixties trying to rile blacks up against "Jews" like Abbie Hoffman the FBI didn't like?

Hey, FBI! Me Transhumanist. You Fed.

Fuck you.

The law, the law, the law...

[loopdreams]

Jeez, people scurring around the law to prove this is ok, that is not. What if some think the laws are fucked? What if some wish to voice that and stand against these ever-changing laws which are writtenpurely for the benefits of the few in power? Fuck the laws, screw the FBI and their scare tactics. I say stand up against his current trend of some to bully those into following corrupt laws.

Re:To me it looks like he's playing for publicity

[That's Unpossible!]

You have no fucking clue how cops work.

This is coming from someone who equates what a few dumbasses do to what most cops do. If that were the case, based on your illogical and hate-filled rant, I might assume all people reading slashdot are morons.

See?

Re:Press Release

[pla]

I am really a scared sheep like the rest of you

Only three types of people don't feel "scared"...

Those beyond punishment (usually already so far gone that anything further would only grant them release - Or gods)...

..Those too stupid to realize their danger...

... Or those who think the enemy of us all takes sides and will protect them.


The rest of us, the sane common folk, may fall anywhere in the political spectrum. But we ALL realize that fucking with "The Man", whether you believe in "The Man" or not, will cause us grievous harm.


I strongly sympathize with this poor bastard. I may chide him for not having his logs on a 72-hour regular deletion schedule (or even more often, considering the type of sites he hosted), but I still feel bad for the poor bastard. "A rock and a hard place" has no more physical embodiment than an FBI (or "insert your nation's "law" upholding body here") order to violate your own beliefs.


Why does he have to comply? rm -rf / the server and do your time pal.

Do you have any idea how much power US judges have?

"Do your time" for violating a court order could well mean (and has meant) life in prison without your "crime" ever going to trial, and no possibility of parole.

Hard to know because of gag rule

[Wesley Everest]

The reason it is "still too early to tell" is because of the gag rule. That's the problem with "anti-terrorism" laws that throw our rights out the window. The government violates people's rights, and if anyone gives details about it they go to jail.

In a free and democratic society, if the government violates your rights, you can go to the press to draw attention to the issue. You are also allowed to give enough information so that people can come to their own conclusions.

Re:Hard to know because of gag rule

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it is "still too early to tell" is because of the gag rule. That's the problem with "anti-terrorism" laws that throw our rights out the window.

Together with the ability to critically examine the effectivness of such laws.

only morons fight the system; U work WITHIN system

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Good riddence to this "anarchist" trying to disrupt the US. Haven't people learned that you need to work within the system to get anything done? If you work for corporate America, you know what I'm talking about.

From his infoshop.com website's frontpage, I see material posted on how to stop military recruiting. Our brave men & women are fighting for our freedoms just so he can post this crap. Protesting the war is one thing, interfering with military operations (including recruitment) is grounds for sedition, especially during times of war.

I say the Feds should throw the book at this guy and make an example of him so other "anarchists" will cease-and-desist with their "hate-america" nonsense. Our military and federal agencies are already busy enough tracking down the real terrorists. They don't need their time (or my tax dollars) wasted on morons like this guy.

Re:Press Release

[GeoGreg]

Unless you haven't been paying attention, American prisons are centers of torture and death. Not white-collar country clubs like Martha went to, but the real prisons that are run by the Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia, etc. I'm sure that the powers-that-be could get one of the gangs to get rid of anyone that they didn't like.

Secondly, this man has a wife and child. Have you ever heard the maxim "Choose your battles wisely"? Fighting this subpeona is almost certainly not going to cause the masses to rise up waving the black flag. What would be the better result: to go rot in jail leaving your family destitute, or to live to fight another day? Life is complex, and decisions aren't always easy. Anyone who says differently is trying to sell you something.

Re:Press Release

[GeoGreg]

I have no sympathy for anarchists. They cannot create, only destroy. I think you're conflating the crowd that likes to show up and smash up Starbucks with people who have actually thought about how they think society should look. In this case, I don't know what this guy's opinions were. Suffice it to say, there are pacifist anarchists out there, there are violent anarchists, and there are those in between.

Re:Press Release

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've seen the activist-protester types in action, and it's easy enough to believe." And, therefore it's true, and even if it's not it's what I want to believe.

Re:Press Release

[Afty0r]

It goes without saying this wasn't a liscensed protest.

The very thought of having to "license" a protest utterly, utterly sickens me. There is no way to pretend a country which requires government licensing before people can protest is in any way "free". Which country are you from?

Re:Press Release

[Vince Mo'aluka]

If someone were to rob me at gunpoint, and I choose to comply and give them my money rather than have my brains scrambled by a bullet, does that mean I'm "sleeping with the devil"?

Bingo. The fact that most people on here refuse to realize or admit that he's dealing with deadly force -- and WILL face deadly force if he refuses to comply and tries to defend himself and his property -- proves how effective the state propaganda campaign is. People are STILL clinging to their trust in the state, even though in reality he has exactly TWO CHOICES: comply, or be murdered. (If you don't think your government would murder this person, just what exactly do you think would happen if he invoked force in defense of force?)