Slashdot Mirror


Rackspace, Indymedia, and the FBI

chill writes "Remember when Indymedia hard drives were seized as part of an international 'criminal terrorism investigation'? Rackspace pulled the whole hard drive and shut down a dozen websites, and the Slashdot community cried 'Say it ain't so!' It ain't so. The documents have been unsealed and CNet is reporting that Rackspace made a mistake. The government wanted only copies of logs, not entire hard drives. It seems the week of downtime wasn't really necessary. Oops!"

30 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Mistake by Knome_fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, if it's only a mistake than it's no problem.

    After all, everybody makes mistakes from time to time...

    1. Re:Mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it faster to tear down installed rackservers rather than burn *.log to a cd?

      Once the appropriate files had been extracted, Rackspace sent them, and the FBI sent back the drives.

      If Rackspace sent the FBI the drives, how could they then extract the files and send them to the FBI?

  2. Knee Jerk Reactions... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess when the government asks someone to jump, no one bothers to ask how high. Some people just assume that jumping out the window is a correct response.

    1. Re:Knee Jerk Reactions... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ever dealt with Law Enforcement? There's always what they ASK you do to and what the IMPLY you should do... unlike normal people doing normal jobs, Law Enforcement officers are trained never to rationalise, never to second guess, and to always assume that they're right. There's good reasons for this, but sometimes it has bad results.

      ISP:"We won't give you our records without a court order."
      Police officer:"Well, if I get a court order I'm going to ask for your whole ISP to be shut down. Don't make me waste my time."
      ISP:"Oh crap! Here's not just the logs but the harddrives! Please don't shut us down..."
      (10 minutes later) ISP Lawyer:"Call me first next time, this cop was yanking your chain."

      A very likely set of events IMHO.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Knee Jerk Reactions... by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A very likely set of events IMHO.

      Unless, you say, RTFA, and found they _had_ a court order. Thats what a subpeona _is_. The Feds appear to have actually acted quite reasonably. Rackspace were the ones who pulled the drives instead of making an image of them. I'm failing to see how this is in anyway the feds fault.

      Seriously, I realize that most Slashdotters don't like the Bush administration (frankly, neither do I. I voted Libertarian where possible, democratic elsewhere). But having read the first couple dozen posts here most of you come across as being just about as objective as the people pushing Intelligent Design - You've got your world view and you're willing to ignore any number of inconvenient facts to advance it.

      unlike normal people doing normal jobs, Law Enforcement officers are trained never to rationalise, never to second guess, and to always assume that they're right. There's good reasons for this, but sometimes it has bad results.

      And totally unlike a bunch of people on Slashdot who haven't bothered to read the article and find that it was in fact, Rackspace and their employees who chose to pull the harddrives and not the feds.

      --
      Why?
    3. Re:Knee Jerk Reactions... by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (10 minutes later) ISP Lawyer:"Call me first next time, this cop was yanking your chain."

      That's the point. When you're a business, and the police comes calling, the first frigging thing you do is get your legal eagles involved.

      Obviously, Rackspace is an incompetent company you shouldn't do business with.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Knee Jerk Reactions... by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Again, this situation begs the question; what kind of people are accessing Indymedia? Why, people looking at the other side of the argument--Liberals and Progressives.

      Right. It's a Liberal/Progressive site so it _must_ be part of the evil Dubya conspiracy. Way to make solid connections there. I think you need to invest in a better grade of tinfoil.

      More likely this is being used for a Republican pollitical pollster--it would not be the first time they have used FBI or Homeland security data for Republican pollitics.

      The request was initiated by the _Italian_ government as part of a co-operative law enforcement treaty. I'm sure thats Republican all the way. Cause those Italiians just love their Dubya.

      --
      Why?
    5. Re:Knee Jerk Reactions... by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The point you missed, and the parent was alluding to, was there is a potentially BIG difference between what was actually required by the court order and what the officers who came banging at the door actually demanded, verbally and for which there is no evidence trail other than the poor admin's word and he probably is either gagged or to scared to talk.

      The parent described a "very likely set of events" that he would know was not correct if he'd RTFA. The Rackspace people _knew_ what was required of the - The Fine Article makes that clear. They searched for the relavent logs and weren't able to extract them in time to make the deadline, and therefore decided (for some reason) to hand over the disks instead of just making copies of the whole thing. Rackspace took their customer down, and then tried to paint it as the Feds fault. (Besides, why the hell doesn't a provider the size of Rackspace have a plan for dealing with federal supoenas? You can't tell me this is the first time they've ever been visited by law enforcement).

      --
      Why?
  3. Zealotry is bad, no matter who does it by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rackspace, in their desire to stay on the good side of the law went far overboard in their zeal to help the police. This is a common theme in many cases.

    The law specifically protects people from incriminating themselves and also from unreasonable search and seizure. It does not protect them from turning themselves into the authorities, nor does it protect them from others doing it for them.

    You would like to think that companies would consult with their lawyers that could advise them on their legal rights and responsibilities before they took drastic, unnecessary steps like turning a lot of personal/private documentation over to the police.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Zealotry is bad, no matter who does it by SlashEdsDoYourJobs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would like to think that companies would consult with their lawyers that could advise them on their legal rights and responsibilities before they took drastic, unnecessary steps like turning a lot of personal/private documentation over to the police.

      Indeed. If I were a Rackspace customer, I'd be looking for a new host right about now. Who wants a host that gives you a week of downtime for absolutely no good reason? What business can afford a week of downtime? That's essentially what you are risking when you go with Rackspace, because they have just demonstrated that they don't have a proper process in place for handling subpoenas and that their employees aren't smart enough to handle them without adult supervision.

    2. Re:Zealotry is bad, no matter who does it by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. If I were a Rackspace customer, I'd be looking for a new host right about now.

      Since these investigations are now secret, how do you know the new company just doesn't allow the FBI or Homeland Security continual remote access? It's not too big of a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Government has already requested and received access to Slashdot's member list--because a lot of reactionaries discuss things on this website.

      Now, under the Patriot Act, if Slashdot was told to give up its member list, they could not respond to my comment. If they haven't been contacted, they would tell me I'm crazy.

      But this is my point about how horrible this "new secrecy for security is" -- I have no clue whether I am anonymous or not. I figure that, if the Gov had access to this blog, posting as an Anonymous Coward would not be any protection either, because the IP address can be backtraced to your ISP, and your ISP could then reveal the user -- or if you are constantly sniffing addresses on a regular basis, you could use statistical analysis to discover all users.

      So, I would think that after this controversy, Rackspace might actually be the one place you had a chance of privacy. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:Zealotry is bad, no matter who does it by SlashEdsDoYourJobs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since these investigations are now secret, how do you know the new company just doesn't allow the FBI or Homeland Security continual remote access?

      Now, under the Patriot Act...

      You are referring to USA laws. Pick a hosting company that isn't subject to USA laws.

  4. Yet another reason... by SmoothTom · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...to give Rackspace a wide birth - other than their supporting SCO by buying into their phony 'Linux License' agreements...

    Rackspace used to be a good provider, but they seem to have lost their way...

    --
    Tomas

  5. "mistake" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it's a pattern of behavior, it's not a mistake, but an MO. Judging by the majority of responses, it works, as most are excusing what happened.

  6. Looks like... by Phil+John · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Rackspace could be sued (successfully) for violations of the Data Protection Act as there was no lawful warrant for the data on the server (as it resides in the UK and the subpoena was server to rackspace in Texas).

    Personally I hope rackspace get raked over the coals for this one to serve as an example to other ISP's that this kind of flagrant disregard for privacy and the laws of the land cannot go unpunished.

    --
    I am NaN
  7. bending by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nice to see that some ISPs don't bend over at the first sight of a possible legal issue about one of their customers.

    Oh wait, they did.

  8. Guess about what really happened. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Unless you can see the part of the subpoena that they won't let you see, it is best to assume that you have been given no information at all.

    From Secret Documents About Indymedia Server Disappearance Unsealed: "It cannot be determined from the unsealed documents whether or not the government informally pressured Rackspace to turn over the servers."

    Certainly it seems that is what happened, that there was illegal activity on the part of the government. Otherwise you have to believe something like this:

    U.S. government (Calmly): We just need some log files from you.

    Rackspace: Oh wow!!! We will damage our reputation by giving you far more than you asked!!! Our customer's trust means nothing to us!

    It is a better guess that someone at Rackspace was very, very scared because of being intimidated.

    Most people in the U.S. don't want to know how corrupt their government has become. In this thread from yesterday, someone claims "Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion" when the U.S. government, a government of a Christian country, has killed more than 3,000,000 people since the end of the Second World War.

    1. Re:Guess about what really happened. by vector0319 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I feel our government is as corrupt as you say and I feel you are right-on about the intimidation, but I think you are wrong about this being a Christian country. It's stopped being a Chrisitan country long before they took prayer out of schools.

      See an Anabaptist (Christian) perspective here: http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/2003v38n3.htm Here is small part that explains it all:

      "America is not a Christian nation. It never was and it never will be. This is not to say that America was not founded on some biblical principles. It was established on some Bible truths. ... But America is a nation in the world and it behaves like a nation in the world. The United States Constitution does not contain the words "Christian" or "Jesus" or "Bible." Many of the founding fathers were deists. The power of the United States government rests in the 11 consent of the governed," not in the Word of God."

      --
      My well being does not depend on my slashdot score.
    2. Re:Guess about what really happened. by damian+cosmas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We'd take you more seriously if you didn't contradict yourself so quickly:

      "Unless you can see the part of the subpoena that they won't let you see, it is best to assume that you have been given no information at all."

      and, based on that no information at all

      "Certainly it seems... that there was illegal activity on the part of the government."

      As for the US government killing people, I might dispute your number, but 50,000 a year isn't really that many people to kill, considering that some secular governments have killed far more people in shorther periods of time. Stalin and Mao, for example, are estimated to have killed more people together than all of WWII (including the Holocaust). You, sir, are an ass.

    3. Re:Guess about what really happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christian country in this context doesn't mean written with Christianity in mind (in the case of the Constitution). It's a matter of the ideals that the country holds dear and how the leadership behaves and believes. And recently, from that point of view, yes, we are a Christian country. The only part of our three-branch government that hasn't been behaving like part of a Christian theocracy has been the Supreme Court, and thank goodness for it.

    4. Re:Guess about what really happened. by Frymaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How many mosques did the Government burn down in America this week?

      none. but, to be fair, they do occasinally bomb them 500 lb, laser-guided missles, like this one.

    5. Re:Guess about what really happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the article the Frymater has provided a link to:

      The fight began when a Marine vehicle was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired from the mosque, wounding five Marines, and a large U.S. force converged on it, Byrne said.

      Anyone reading the linked article might note the following:

      "It is a holy place, there is no doubt about it," Kimmitt added. "It has a special status under the Geneva Convention that it can't be attacked.

      "However, it can be attacked when there is a military necessity brought on by the fact that the enemy is storing weapons, using weapons, inciting violence and executing violence from its grounds," he said.


      Once you start attacking people whilst hiding in what would normally be considered a neutral or protected structure, any neutrality or protection that structure previously enjoyed goes out the window at the discretion of those you attacked.

      In other words you can't start whining when someone drops a JDAM or Paveway into the mosque you've been firing RPGs at them from.

  9. Article in the Register by Yeb · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Documents relating to the seizure of Indymedia's servers at Rackspace's Heathrow premises have finally been unsealed by a Texas district court. Some information remains under seal, and the documents released by no means provide the full picture, but it is now clear that yes, it was the Italians, and no, there was no obvious legal basis for the seizure of the servers themselves. And as regards the British Government's apparent insouciance regarding the (faulty) operation of US court orders within British jurisdiction but without any British authorisation, well, that remains a puzzle.

    More: US court files reveal Italian link to Indymedia server grab

    -Jeff

    P.S. insouciance...

  10. Re:"Information wants to be free!" by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people who don't agree with that cliché don't understand it - and they are usually the ones who bring it up in the first place.

  11. Re:That's great... by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything about why they wanted those log files? What did I miss?

    It was for the Italians.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  12. Conspiracy Here, Conspiracy There by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For you paranoid freaks outthere, sooner or later you need to come to the realizationthat the folks enforcign the law are just like you. They don't like their rights trampled either but they are just as prone to making mistakes.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  13. Re:So all those /. reactionaries... by xappax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem, I think is that although for you the lynchpin of the argument is whether or not the government seized Indymedia's hard drives, that's not really the issue at stake. We're not outraged that the government borrowed Indymedia's hardware for a week, we're outraged that they, in cooperation with an independent server company, blatantly violated the reasonable expectation of privacy of a whole bunch of totally innocent people.

    It's not really the hard drives that are the issue - the only thing on those drives that would interest the government in the first place was the logs...everything else is publicly available web content! What if the FBI had hacked into Indymedia to secretly monitor their logs, so that Indymedia never had a second of downtime and got to keep all their hardware. Would that undermine our argument about privacy and freedom of speech?

    While it's good to find out what happened, and I'm willing to admit that we were wrong about the drives being taken, it really doesn't change the core problem here.

  14. It's wrong, but I'm not suprised they did it by defile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Service providers deal with a lot of shit from authorities. Even when I worked at a small mom & pop ISP with 5000 customers we'd have to respond to a search warrant on a monthly basis, and they just don't won't accept "the log files were deleted 5 months ago" for an answer. The owner had to show up in court many times and swear that yes, the systems do purge them periodically.

    I can only imagine what Rackspace has had to deal with in the past, so when the FBI came by and said "terrorism" they must've shivered at the thought of answering why they can't find something. So they just make it the FBI's problem by handing over the whole disk.

    Does this qualify as a chilling effect? The letter of the order said that Rackspace just had to produce specific files, but Rackspace was so afraid of the FBI (from past encounters, perhaps) that they went that far above and beyond?

  15. quite off topic, but... by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The viewers of /. are becoming more and more conspiracy oriented each day.

    I've rolled my eyes so many times from misguided posts that I now have a headache. :(

    To some people (a vocal minority, I realize), people can't make a mistake, the government is to blame for everything.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  16. Re:So all those /. reactionaries... by Yeb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yes, that is the issue at stake: though they ended up with the drives in their possession, the FBI did not seize the drives.

    No, they just happened to wind up with them. Do they still have copies? Where are they? What have they looked at?

    Except they didn't. They asked for the logs; Indymedia violated the reasonable expectation of privacy by handing over much more than was requested. The targeted request for specific logs was not the issue IMO.

    Indymedia violated privacy? Surely you mean rackspace here.

    [content]

    There were a few other things besides publicly available content on there. Some of my email, for one.

    What if the FBI had hacked into Indymedia to secretly monitor their logs, so that Indymedia never had a second of downtime and got to keep all their hardware. Would that undermine our argument about privacy and freedom of speech?

    BZZZT! Absurd slippery slope argument: -5 points. :-)

    So you disqualify that based on "slippery slope"? But it's what the Italian government has done, and something tells me the US govt is probably more tech saavy. So were already at the bottom of the slippery slope you think will never happen. We know that the Italian government took the private key used by https of an activist server to monitor webmail using a man-in-the-middle attack. See:
    Alternative Servers Attacked: "Not a Private Question: A Question of Privacy"

    My point was that the foil-hat crowd soiled themselves when they saw the original story and were positive the FBI was a bunch of jackbooted thugs, etc; now that Indymedia has been identified as the reason for the excessive disclosure we shall hear nary a peep from /. [re: the behavior of the ISP]. That's all, really. Cheers!

    The FBI isn't a bunch of jackbooted thugs? I guess you're right. In Guantanamo they were complaining that the military was being excessive. They're nice folks. Read their history and you'll see the great things they've done.

    Again, you say "now that Indymedia has been identified as the reason for the excessive disclosure"--what the hell are you talking about? Do you mean rackspace again, or do you not know what's going on, or what? Indymedia didn't turn over anything. Indymedia wasn't asked either, FWIW.

    -Jeff