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

so much for

[ionix5891]

freedom of speech..

btw I run a site along the lines and I have an interesting setup, the database server is in one country and the web frontend is in another with secure tunnel between so if someone does a traceroute to the site and then goes datacenter and pulls the server out of rack all they get is a proxy, its far from perfect but at least the database is safe

Freedom of the press?

[onion2k]

This bugs me. Freedom of the press is a vital tennet of our society, and it needs to be protected vigourously by everyone both inside the media and out. Without it we would have no way to stand up to the sort of tyranny that is all too common in countries where people aren't free.

Which is why I think Indymedia should shut the hell up in this case.

What does this have to do with freedom of the press? The name, address and other details of a judge were posted on an Indymedia site and mirrored to this server. That's not journalism. Trying to claim that the police investigating it is an infringement of the free press just undermines the real press and makes otherwise rational people wonder if freedom of the press is really important after all.

Other people's private personal information is not "political content".

Re:Freedom of the press?

[N1AK]

I couldn't agree more with parent posters statement. It's strange how the same people who wildly rage about the RIAA's Jon Doe cases and their privacy implications, often think that giving out peoples personal details with no intent other than harassment is a god given right.

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.

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:Freedom of the press?

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy and presumption of innocence are just a couple of the things that must be sacrificed for the job. They are public servants, and we need to remind them of that.

I disagree. A judge is not a political figure, his sole purpose is to objectively "weigh" the facts presented in a case in order to determine its truth value. His personal convictions don't add into it, and he did not attain the position by public means: his office is completely separated from his private life.

If anything, judges need more protection than a regular citizen because they deal with criminals of all kinds on a daily basis.

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?

The Message Is Clear

[CmdrGravy]

I have no problem with the police taken the action they have, far from using their powers to "repress" anyone they are taking appropriate action to prevent groups like SHAC from harassing people, blackmailing them and generally making their lives a misery.

In the article linked to in the header they are 'concerned' that the police have been instructed by their political masters to clamp down on anyone daring to threaten 'the corporations'. The author has obviously totally missed the point that primarily the activism isn't targetted at 'corporations' but at individuals who happen to work at them. It's usually not the 'corporation' which is branded as a paedophile in a leaflet campaign in it's neighbourhood, it's not the 'corporation' who has masked terrorists driving around his house at night shouting abuse and making threats and it's not corporations whose dead relatives are dug up and then held for ransom. Usually it's a delivery driver, admin assistant anyone who is unlucky enough to be targetted by these groups.

I personally would not want to be relentlessly attacked in this matter because some random group of nutters took exception to something the company I worked for is involved in and I welcome any attempts by the government or the police to stand up and do something about it.

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

[Lloyd_Bryant]

If a poster on a forum posted information on where to find Barack Obama, and a death threat, would you expect the server that hosted that forum to be seized?

Hardly. I would expect a judicial order requiring the post to be removed, and then that the Secret Service would monitor that service to see if any further posts were made by that individual. By seizing the server (and shutting down the service), the police blocked a potential source of further leads as to the identity of the person. In short, a panic reaction, rather than a reasoned reaction.

The SHAC protesters broke the law, and are now - rightly - in jail. The person who posted the judge's personal information and a death threat against him also broke the law.

The SHAC protesters are in jail. The poster will be in jail, if they can find him/her. Fine. Now explain to me what law the server owners/operators broke, that resulting in their server (and service) being "thrown in jail".

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

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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

It's kinda sad when people post this sort of nonsense, so I'm not surprised you posted as AC.

In the UK, there are various privacy and data protection laws that do cover the handling of personal information (principally under the Human Rights Act and under the Data Protection Acts), and they are considerably stricter than in some places. There are also laws to deal with how you act based on that information, e.g., protection from harassment or various forms of unsolicited marketing. Oh, and as a topical note, making death threats is illegal, too.

I personally completely disagree with your claim that such information is not personal or private. It is clearly both, and in a world that values freedom, in a world where identity theft is a fast-growing crime, in a world where there is a genuine risk of violence against officials undermining the justice system, it is reasonable and common sense that the information should be protected. There is no free speech argument here, and no censorship: why do you think you have some God-given right to know everything about someone else?

Now, this sort of action should obviously be handled by the book, with the proper warrants issued and the proper data obtained. If that is not the case here, then someone screwed up. But it does seem that a serious crime was committed, and indicated a genuine threat of a much more serious crime, and the police asked for reasonable cooperation from the service provider in order to deal with that. That is their job, and if the provider gave them some cute "freedom of speech" response then I'm not surprised that the police took more direct action, nor do I blame them for doing so. This sort of "defence" of freedom is exactly why the government is now pushing for mandatory logging of all such activities by all ISPs for everyone, which is a far worse thing for freedom than having the police make reasonable requests on a case-by-case basis. The fact that Indymedia seem to be proud of the fact that their service can be used for making anonymous death threats and they won't cooperate with lawful authorities to help identify the source doesn't exactly raise my opinion of them, either.

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.