Indymedia Server Seized By UK Police, Again

timbrown writes with word that "On 22 January 2009, Kent Police seized an Indymedia server hosted by Manchester-based colocation facility UK Grid and run by the alternative news platform Indymedia UK. The server was taken in relation to comments on an article regarding the convictions in the recent Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) trial. Seven activists were sentenced to a total of 50 years in prison." The complete story is worth reading; timbrown continues: "I'm posting this as a concerned UK administrator who hosts a number of sites. The message appears to be clear: the UK establishment does not want political content, legitimate or otherwise, hosted from these shores. The message has been noted, however free speech must be supported even where it may not be agreeable."

Comments

Re:Freedom of the press?

[Anonymous Coward]

the information have been removed by imc-uk. this would be clear if you would even read the article... so no need for telling something about private data etc.

Re:so much for

[MichaelSmith]

Which just leaves the single point of failure. The domain name. Once the authorities yank that, the distributed server network behind it goes away...at least for a while.

You can tunnel to an IP address. You can also get domain names from different countries for your front end.

Police regarded it as a threat to the trial judge.

[Hozza]

I know everyone is going to jump up and down about the right to free speech, but that isn't really the topic here.

The police regarded the comment as an implicit threat to the trial judge, which would not come under "free speech" laws in many (most?) countries.

They seized a *mirror* of the main server (the main site is still up a running just fine), in order to try to trace the original poster, and requested that the comment was removed from the site, which it has been.

The main issue I see here is one of oversight, who's there to check that the police only look for forensics on the original poster, and don't start a fishing expedition on the seized server?

Re:Freedom of the press?

[netzhappen]

You have read that indymedia removed the personal data (as a part of their privacy policy) _BEFORE_ the police took their server? So there was no need to seizure. And they KNOW that no IPs are logged and that this was just a mirror with no usefull data on it. So yes, freedom of press was violated as the cops took a needed tool (server) and damaged the infrastructure of indymedia.

3rd time unlucky for IndyMedia

[RMH101]

This happened in 2004 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/fbi_indymedia_raids/ - FBI confiscated its servers in London (how the hell does that work, then? US law enforcement in the UK?) based on comments on the G8.
It also happened in 2005: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/indymedia_server_seizure_bristol/ in Bristol, UK, again relating to the G8 conference.

Re:Freedom of the press?

[bone_idol]

If you read the article you'd have seen that the personal details were removed by an Indymedia moderator as soon as they were aware of them.

Indymedia UK privacy policy does not condone publishing personal details

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/privacy.html#Personal_Information

Indymedias policy of not logging IP addresses is well known to the Police.

Its difficult to see what reason they could have for pulling this machine, other than low level harrasssment.

Re:Freedom of the press?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indymedia, in the UK or elsewhere, is not just a collection of private adresses. An open publishing platform, it is mostly used by grassroots movements, individuals and smaller NGOs, reporting about demonstrations, actions and protests from the perspective of those involved. It also contains all sorts of rants, sometimes political, sometimes not, sometimes clever, sometimes hard to understand. Most Indymedia collectives are trying to get posters to stick to reports about political practice. But having the open publishing ethos at the heart of the project, other types of posting are often left on the newswire. However, the posting of details about third parties is discouraged and, like in this case, removed.
Indymedia is not the type of journalism we know from the mass media. The content is produced by a wide range of people. Some are used to the framework of corporate journalism (which includes, in the best case, professional standards of quality journalism, but also the constraints of a commercial project). Others are DIY journalists, people who are learning by doing and creating their own standards. Because contributors to indymedia don't need to worry about whether a story will sell or not, they can cover issues that would otherwise go completely unnoticed. In this way, Indymedia fullfills an important function for a society, no?

ps sorry for posting as coward, don't usually post to slashdot.

Re:Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK YOU MATE

Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[afc_wimbledon]

From the details available, it appears this may relate to information that could be used to threaten the judge in the SHAC trial, the trial of some pretty unpleasant and violent people http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7837064.stm.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[squidinkcalligraphy]

The judge's information was posted, then removed by the editors shortly after as per indymedia's policy. The police wanted logs so as to track down who posted it. Indymedia explicitly does not keep logs to protect whistleblowers. So the police seize the server. Yes, this was designed with the possibility of servers being seized in mind. That still doesn't make it a good thing.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[h4rm0ny]

So if you're the police and you want to seize some organization's computers and / or logs, just post a death threat on their site. I'm not saying that's what happened in this instance, just pointing out a vulnerability. In the UK, it's been established that the police have had members go undercover in protest movements to encourage violence and act extreme in order to justify a crack down. There was a case late last year when a reputable reporter recognized a police officer she had talked to in amongst the protestors at an anti-war demonstration trying to incite people to breach police lines and physically harass officers. Taking such methods online is a natural step.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[commodore64_love]

>>>it appears this may relate to information that could be used to threaten the judge in the SHAC trial, the trial of some pretty unpleasant and violent people

This organization is ALSO unpleasant and violent, but the U.S. still allows its website to exist: http://www.kkk.bz/ http://www.kkk.com/ - "Is the election of Obama shocking to us? Not at all! ...The president elect now stands as a symbol to our people throughout this nation that change is indeed coming. What will it mean for those who are being disenfranchised from the very nation purchased by the blood of their forefathers? It could mean an awakening of our spirit and blood. Every time the television shows an image of Obama it will be a reminder that our people have lost power in this country. ...The betrayal will stare them in the face each time they watch the news and see little black children playing in the rose garden."

Disgusting.

But every person has the right to exercise their OWN mouth and offer-up their opinions, no matter how offensive. We should punish those individuals who commit violence, but the non-violent persons should remain free. "No man has a right to harm another. And that is all that the government should restrain him." - Founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[Computershack]

Information does not equate to action.

It does with the SHAC loonies. They've bombed people, harrassed people who had the most tenuous of links (like the cleaner of a manager of a company that supplied Huntingdon Life Sciences) and carried out a campaign of harassment, violence and intimidation that many terrorist organisations would've been proud of.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[pjt33]

Given that The Times moderates comments before displaying them, you're certainly correct.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[afc_wimbledon]

But every person has the right to exercise their OWN mouth and offer-up their opinions, no matter how offensive.

No such right exists generally outside the USA, and many "opinions", such as holocaust denial, are specific crimes in much of Europe. On the other hand, many Europeans are surprised at how upset Americans get over the burning of flags, and so on. In this case, seems possible that an offence under UK law was committed, and the police would be required to take efforts to track down the perpetrator, and not simply take at face value the statement that there was no audit trail on the server.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[91degrees]

Terrorist groups (and SHAC certainly is one) tend not to organised as such. They tend to be pretty ad-hoc as insulation from law enforcement. The chances are, nobody within the groups knows everybody who is affiliated and there's no standard means of communication. They don't all already have this information.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, your address, phone number, names of children and family pets, etc. are all free-to-grab bits of data floating around in public record land. NONE of that info is an any way personal or private. You do not have any rights whatsoever when it comes to these things. It IS, however, out of the realm of legality when you say you are going to kill someone using this information to aid you.

there was an open and plainly-worded death threat made to a judge in a comment. the police were right to act, but apparently they believe that the magic wizard that lives in the internets can somehow provide more info than simply writing a legal letter requesting the information.

but yea, you should look up what exactly your rights are regarding addresses, etc. I think you will be pretty shocked.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[sumdumass]

They all log to some degree. The logs just aren't kept for long. Most server software will log even if you tell it not to in order to keep track of the database transactions and FIFO requests. This logging might never leave the memory space while sometimes it would rotate through a text file depending on a lot of things like what software it is and specific settings and all.

There might be something in the file system that could point to this person depending on how soon they got it compared to when post was made. Over course this is going to require some intensive man hours and combing through lots of file fragments that probably won't show anything in the end. But it seems like a CYOA situation where the police want to at least look like they are doing something in case the threat is real and not just someone with AAHS (Anonymous Ass Hole Syndrome). By doing something, they might scare the person into not acting because the threat of getting caught is too much or if something did happen, the supervisors could say we were doing everything we could and not lose his job.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[xappax]

Maybe that's why UK Indymedia quickly deleted the personal information that was posted - before the police were even aware of it.

The reason the server was seized is because Indymedia refuses to surveil its contributors to the degree the cops would like. And apparently that makes any of their hardware fair game.

Re:Your freedom stops when you hit my nose

[h4rm0ny]

There was a case late last year when a reputable reporter recognized a police officer she had talked to in amongst the protestors at an anti-war demonstration trying to incite people to breach police lines and physically harass officers.

That's a very serious allegation. Could you post a reputable source?

The original article from the Daily Mail has now expired but you can find an account of the incident in numerous places if you search for it. The reporter was Yasmin Whittaker-Khan who writes for the Daily Mail, one of the UK's largest papers. The story was here and the incident took place on the 15th June '08 during protests against George Bush. The reporter recognised a particularly loud and agitating protestor who was trying to get people to charge the police lines, trying to get people chanting "kill the pigs" and in one instance showed a protestor how to decouple the police barricade and got him to help throw it at an officer. She had actually talked to him at a press function where he had been representing them on some subject (I forget what). She confronted him, he admitted who he was. The officer's name was "Chris Dreyfus." If you want to know how reputable this story is, a UK MP wrote to the police about this. The MP's letter is here and contains further details.

I have more anecdotal and second-hand evidence from people, but this is the only established source I can provide in the UK (there are plenty of incidents verified in other countries also). However, it's pretty clear from the above that this takes place and it is a very serious matter.

Please mod this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this up:

You could always make another internet to get away from the bullshit on the current one.

It's violence not free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

The police did not seize the server to stop free speech. They did so to find the identity of the wider network of people who have, and maybe still do, support violent acts against those involved in scientific research which involves testing on animals.

I will avoid the obvious reference to nuts and fruitcakes.

The best defense...

[Kindaian]

Is shared-hosting... and backups, off-site naturally.

In that case, if they seize the server, they are seizing my site... and the site of more then 1000 other hosted sites...

And with the backups, you are ready to just setup another host, and update everything in no time... ;)

Re:Freedom of the press?

[professionalfurryele]

Someone commits a crime on your premises. You stop that crime. The police come by to investigate. You refuse to help them potentially concealing the identity of the criminal. They then go get a warrant to compel you to hand over evidence. Thats how it works.

Indymedia's servers were not seized because of the comment, but because they wouldn't reveal the posters identity. They claim (and incidentally I believe them, that kind of information certainly is not going to be on a mirror) that they don't have that persons identity. This is fine, they shouldn't be required to keep that persons identity.

But if the police asked for access to their servers and they refused then I'm not surprised the police went and got a warrant.

Re:Freedom of the press?

[serialdogma]

Judges aren't elected in England, they are appointed. Also activist judges don't really exist in the UK, if a judge makes a ruling that is incompatible with law, and gets overturned on appeal then the judge could find their job on the cutting board, and if they had a conflict of interest that they didn't declare they could be tried.

Re:Freedom of the press?

[ConfusedVorlon]

UK judges are not elected. The selection process is designed to be non-political.

Re:Freedom of the press?

[Opportunist]

Umm... they seized the servers before, do they think Indymedia changed their policy by now?

Re:Freedom of the press?

[netzhappen]

They know from previous seizures. But that is just a sidenote. They knew it was a mirror and not the publishing server, so what did they tried to gain form taking a simple and plain mirror. It doesn't make sense and shows either a lack of understanding technical issues or they just wanted to attack or annoy indymedia. But again, all this might be explained with just plain misunderstanding, so lets speak about that no warrant was shown to the colo maintainer (if there is just a warrat at all, who knows nowadays). What about that? This is apparently a simple case of unlawful seizure, no matter of how you think about indymedia or SHAC (I have my personal opinion about that too). Please, just see the big picture here!

Re:Freedom of the press?

[professionalfurryele]

The ALF - Animal Liberation Front, a terrorist group that uses everything from arson to blackmail to murder nominally to end animal cruelty. Actually they are just a bunch of idiots who hate business people and scientists for their sucesses.

SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, high ranking members of SHAC have ties to the ALF.

SPEAK - A derivative of SPEAC, Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge. Another front for the ALF dedicated to attacking the University of Oxford and preventing vital research.

PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. A group whose leader has ties to the ALF and which has funnelled funds to known ALF members.

BUAV - British Union for the Abolition of Visection. An actual animal rights group. Engages in non-violent protest, often aids companies that want to ensure that their products are not the result of animal cruelty. A legitimate protest group

I happen to disagree with. The first four are all basically the same group, with PETA, SPEAK and SHAC acting as funding fronts for the ALF. The latter are by and large good people I disagree with.

Re:This is not a freedom of speech issue

[AndyDearden]

They did act responsibly. They removed the offending post as soon as they became aware of it and BEFORE they were contacted by the police.

Re:Freedom of the press?

[Hognoxious]

Political process? Don't you mean judicial?

Assuming you did - we were talking about judges - for one thing, it's not just politicians involved with the appointing. Senior judges are also involved, many of whom thankfully still see the law as a matter of principle that goes far beyond party politics.

And when they appoint new judges they don't dismiss all the existing ones. So it would need the same government (or rather party) to be in power for perhaps thirty years continuously to pack it with their cronies, even if they did have the sole power of appointment.

Re:so much for

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a American domain company. hand over a domain name to a third party as the result of an injunction issued in a British Court. The owner of the domain was a New Zealand Limited Company. The domain was handed over without even telling the NZ Ltd Company owner.