So what if Rackspace is a U.S. company? If they are doing business in the U.K. they have to obey the laws in that country. Why didn't Italian and Swiss law enforcement agencies contact their counterparts in the U.K. and other listed countries instead? I'm sure the British police could easily seize those hard drives under the British court order.
I imagine that Rackspace was neither violating US nor UK law. I wouldn't be surprised if Italy and Switzerland also made the request directly to the UK, and the US ended up "winning the race", as it were. The FBI's statement indicates it was more or less facilitating the mechanics of an MLA treaty request, not doing anything proactive or investigative.
What does the FBI have to do with this? Is it because the FBI has more pull now and it's easier to violate people's rights in the U.S. as long as you utter the word "terrorism" or am I overreacting?
The "FBI" was involved because that is the federal law enforcement agency of record for an international MLA treaty request. Apparently the State Department was also involved. So that's why the "FBI" was involved. If you're asking the broader question of why the US in general was even involved, again, it was because Rackspace is a US company. Perhaps there was some sense of the US authorities having more "pull" over a US company, or the process happening more expeditiously since it was a US company; in any case, Rackspace chose to voluntarily cooperate with "international law enforcement authorities".
As I understand, whatever was on those hard drives belongs to Indymedia. So, doesn't the FBI need to serve the court order to Indymedia directly (instead of or in addition to Rackspace)? Imagine if you are leasing a car from your local dealership and police get a warrant to retrieve an audio/video CD that they believe you are keeping in your car. Can the police serve the warrant to the dealership and then help themselves to your car without letting you know? Wouldn't they have to serve you with the warrant?
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm not sure about the mechanics of this. I'm not sure that the vehicle analogy is directly applicable to this situation as specific laws and precedent apply to vehicles; it may be that there are US legal or MLAT provisions that allow such seizures with a court order for the specific items, without the order needing to be presented to anyone in particular except those who are required to facilitate the seizure; I don't know.
...according to this and this, there was a request from the Italian and Swiss governments under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to the United States (since the hosting provider was a US company). The "FBI" did not physically "seize" the drives, since the FBI does not have jurisdiction in the UK, though it appears that Rackspace voluntarily responded to the US subpoena, which was generated as a matter of course under the MLA treaty.
the fusion bomb is not made from by products of the combining of hydrogen
Yeah? And? You said "fusion can't be used for weapons tech". However, "fusion" can and has been used for weapons, for decades.
Also, much of the research into fusion for the production of energy also has nothing to do with hydrogen, but e.g. Helium-3.
It makes me smile that you just made yourself look like even more of a moron, and that a lot of people will get a good chuckle reading the dogshit that just fell out of your mouth for a long time to come.
And, for what it's worth, the submission says EXACTLY what the thing is...but it's a little hard to really describe the full import of what this is.
You could look at the FAQ and the screenshots for starters. Or maybe even download it and try it out.
The bottom line of the project is this: using everything we know now about the evolution of operating systems, user interfaces, and the internet, if we could start over and create a new platform that leveraged the network and all the capabilities of modern technology and our current knowledgebase, how would we do it?
This project attempts to answer that question, and it's pretty phenomenal.
...but China is set to outpace US oil consumption very soon.
With this much competition for oil, and peak oil production close or possibly already passed, it's sobering to think about what could be...
(And alternative fuels won't be the only way to release ourselves from oil dependence. One would hope that we'd continue to heavily research nuclear, including fusion, options; plans for complete nuclear non-proliferation completely kill any significant efforts in these areas, even for energy means.)
dtv.gov is a site set up by the FCC that attempts to bridge the gap between ordinary consumers who want DTV/HDTV programming, and the actual information about where and how to get it. It also links to checkhd.com, with directories of free over-the-air, cable, and satellite HDTV programming in your locale.
My point about the "US not having anything to do with it" was more along the lines of the US not being the people who were the cause of the reasons that the Indymedia drives were seized. Yes, I know the US was involved in the process, but again, my point there was that they were only involved because Rackspace was a US corporation. In other words, their involvement wasn't necessary, had it not been for Rackspace being a US corporation. Of course that doesn't change the fact that they WERE involved, and yes, I agree that the FBI's involvement is part of the events that took place; but the FBI wasn't being proactive, it was reactive, and only to an MLA treaty request at that, to which the US is compelled to respond. Inaction or ignorance on the part of US authorities wouldn't have been acceptable under the provisions of the treaty. I'm sure you get my point. In closing, yes, I know the US was involved in this chain of events, I was merely offering a "soundbite" response to the initial firestorm of people who thought this was exclusively because of the US, when, in fact, the seizures happened in a different country, as did the requests. Hence, the US "didn't have anything to do with [starting] this". If you want to think that's doubletalk or argue about semantics, fine, but I'm also sure that you understand my point, and arguing about "doubletalk" only serves to derail from the real issues, which is that the US's involvement was compulsory, incidental, and tangential.
I am most certainly not trolling. Look at my posting history. If I'm "trolling", than 90% of the responses to the original IMC slashdot story were "trolling", since they all immediately (and incorrectly) assumed something along the lines of it being exclusively the jack-booted US Republican political thugs taking the IMC down for political reasons like Diebold memos and RNC delegate address lists.[1] I, however, am stating facts. And no, we don't have all the information, but you can no more predict or insinuate that this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for US involvement, than I can divine the motives of every single person involved in this - on both sides - at every step of the way. Additionally, the Swiss governmental requests interpreted the Swiss police posting as a threat to the police officers. I did not see the original post, but I will take the IMC representatives' word when they say that no address information was posted, though the original Swiss complaint asserted such information was present, a minimum of two times. However, in any case, posting photographic likenesses of undercover officers, and revealing them as such, still presents a significant threat to the officers.
[1] To anyone reading this, I'd like to make a side comment here: someone asked in a previous slashdot article covering the RNC delegate postings why posting the names and addresses of abortion doctors is considered threatening, while posting the RNC delegates' home addresses and phone numbers is apparently just fine. Someone responded with the typical "well, the information is already available publicly elsewhere". So is the information about doctors who perform abortions. Their names, addresses, practice information, etc., is all a matter of record of several medical professional organizations. It's all available "elsewhere" too. Talk about hypocrisy. BOTH are equally right, or wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Dave, you either know something for certain, or you don't. Its a proposition. Although you talk for more than yourself here ('we') you say 'might' be certain which means you believe 'we' are not certain about our certainity! Nice cryptography in audio, it actually means you're not certain
Here, I am using "might" to describe the current state of affairs, i.e., that we in fact don't know for certain, not to represent multiple possibilities. As in, "it might be true that the sky is blue...", which alludes to the fact that the sky is, in fact, blue, but that a qualifying statement follows.
The question ain't 'how or why would the US have been involved' since thats, assuming the US does not have any interest in the data (debatable), a no brainer. The question is rather: what would have happened. Far more interesting. You see, would the UK secret service get away with raiding a server, stealing a harddisk, without stating why? Would the UK get away with shutting down 20 independant media centers? I don't know that, but that's an important part of the difference in scetched situation.
The reason I asked 'how or why would the US have been involved' is because so many people here think it was US political motivations that led to IMC being taken down, when that turned out to not be the case. (And arguing that perhaps there were people in the US who didn't shed a tear about it is irrelevant, since the US didn't initiate the request.) However, I see the point you're getting at: let's assume, for a moment, that Rackspace was a UK company hosting its servers in the UK. Would the events have transpired as they did, without US involvement? I don't know. I don't know if the MLA treaty provisions between Italy and Switzerland apply to the UK in the same fashion as the US, nor do I know how the UK authorities would have responded to such a request. What I do know is that the FBI has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the UK, and, as such, the UK authorities did, in fact, "get away" with seizing the disks, since that's precisely who did it. It was in response to a US federal subpoena - but only then because of a request by Italy and Switzerland.
Because, as I've said about a dozen times, Rackspace is a US company. The FBI did not initiate the investigation or the requests, nor did it perform any seizure, nor did any seizure take place on US soil by any US agency. The FBI was involved because the United States received an MLA treaty request from the Italian and Swiss governments, and, as such, responded under the treaty provisions.
What makes you think we're not? People are trying to figure this out.
I'm sure people are trying to figure out what's going on; it's just that people seem to try to be laying the lion's share of the blame here on the US, when I'm not sure, in this instance, that's where it should be laid.
I don't know that this is the only reason, and likely neither do you. In fact, what is your connection to this whole thing anyway?
We might not know for certain, but if Rackspace was not a US company, and were instead e.g. a UK company, how or why would the US have even been involved? The servers were physically in the UK, and it was the Swiss and Italian authorities who had problems with some of the content. So, why would the US FBI have been involved under those circumstances? I realize that's a hypothetical, but the only reasonable reason the FBI was involved, given the information that we DO have (IF we trust what the US has said so far) indicates that the only reason the FBI or any US agency was involved is because Rackspace is a US company. Otherwise, indeed, why would it have been involved? (I realize this requires us to actually believe the FBI when it says the request initiated with Swiss and Italian authorities, when it says it's not an FBI operation, and when it says it was simply facilitating an MLA treaty request.)
Anyway, I'm not going to continue showing your trollishness. I'm a bit busy.
In the story submission, I acknowledged "because Indymedia's hosting company, Rackspace.com, is a U.S. company, the FBI coordinated the request". I have said as much in several other posts. But I still stand by the assertion that the US, or political agents within the US, had NOTHING to do with the initiation of this request, and the FBI's involvement with facilitation of handling MLAT requests and generating a US subpoena, in this particular instance, was incidental.
I'll just add that the US certainly ain't standing up for Free Speech anymore. And their sense of justice is quite whacked since this is all done in the dark now.
Yes, yes, it seems that the US didn't really do anything to help the situation, from your perspective. But the US wasn't the only responsible authority here. It can be argued that the US created the legal weight that ultimately resulted in the seizure, but again, this is only because Rackspace was a US company. Otherwise the US would have had no standing whatsoever, and, quite frankly, would not have even been approached by any Swiss or Italian authorities.
It is believed that it is the US State Department that had the drives (servers?) seized.
Believed by who? The quasi-"official" article at indymedia.org and the AFP report both say that the request initiated with the Swiss and Italian government. Why are you not asking questions of the Swiss and the Italian authorities? You and I both know that the only reason the US was involved is because Rackspace is a US company. Also, the FBI does not have jurisdiction in the UK, no matter how much people might like to imagine it might. Rackspace, a US company, complied with a US federal order in offices it operates in a different country. The FBI itself says it's not an FBI operation. Now I realize that's laughable to many on slashdot: believing the FBI when it says it's not an FBI operation. But the FBI proudly talks about its own investigations; if this was an FBI investigation, it would have already said so. But the fact is, the request initiated in Switzerland and Italy, and probably focused on very specific content.
You say the US had absolutely nothing to do with it? How about the Federal Order? Do you have info I don't have?
I didn't say the US had nothing to do with anything relating to this; I said they had nothing to do with initiating the request, or the actual physical seizure of the drives/servers, since that would have to have been done by UK authorities, even if accompanied by the FBI.
Sounds very much like US agents are involved...
Yes. Acting as agents for Italy and France under an MLA treaty.
And if the "State Department" was involved, it's only because it had to be involved for the mechanics of the MLA treaty.
We do not know for certain whether it is related to Italy or Switzerland or somewhere else. It is a good guess, but still a guess. All we know is that it was a Federal Order from the U. S. of A.
Because Rackspace is a US company. All of this obscures the real issue here: the fact they were physically on UK soil is irrelevant, because they weren't violating any UK laws. They probably weren't even violating any US laws. But the evidence from the third party, the third nation, must have been compelling enough under the guidelines of the MLA treaty for the US to act as an intermediary, and to generate a US subpoena.
At least admit than more than just the US is involved here. Of course, plenty here will believe this was 100% orchestrated by the US for purely political reasons. But the US can't execute search warrants or seizures in foreign countries, therefore at a minimum the UK was involved in an enforcement action. But it sounds like Rackspace chose to comply voluntarily.
Listen: nowhere did I say the situation was a good thing. Just that the US official story, take it or leave it, is that it is NOT a US operation, and that it was merely handling a request for a "third nation", and specifically names Swiss and Italian authorities, who have also not denied such a request. Now, even if all that is true, you can berate the FBI for throwing around its weight with a US corporation who clearly doesn't want to get on the "wrong side", as it were, of the authorities. You can chastise Rackspace for rolling over. But the bottom line here is that this all took place on UK soil, and ostensibly had it not been for the Italian/Swiss request, whatever it was, we wouldn't be here talking about this right now.
I understand that all you know for certain is that it was a US federal order, but that somewhat glosses over the fact that the reason it's so is because Rackspace is a US company, which is probably why the request got channeled to the US in the first place. I'm not saying it's right, just saying that all the blame doesn't exclusively rest on the US here. The US was but one part of this puzz
Rackspace may be a US company but Rackspace in London is subject to UK law not US law. If they took down and handed over Indymedia's servers simply on the basis of a US subpoena communicated to them this would not be lawful in the UK.
Ok, so whose fault is that? Not the FBI's. Rackspace said it was being a "good corporate citizen" and helping international law enforcement entities.
This was NOT an FBI (or US) operation. No. Really. It wasn't.
However it seems more likely that the US subpoena was the subject of a request for mutual legal assistance from the US Attorney General to the UK Home Secretary under the MLA Treaty.
OK, and? The reason the US received the request was because the hosting provider was a US company, albeit doing business in the UK. There were probably more MLA requests; in fact, there were probably MLA requests from Italy and Switzerland to the US, and possibly even the UK, and between the US and the UK.
It would for the Metropolitan Police, probably accompanied by the FBI, to enforce the request and take possession of the servers.
Indeed. "Metropolitan Police" not being a US law enforcement entity. I understand how that could be confusing. And "probably" accompanied by the FBI? They don't even know that for sure; they just know that the subpoena ORIGINATED from the FBI; for all we know, US FBI agents weren't even there. But since the request stemmed from an FBI subpoena, it's a hell of a lot more interesting to say that the "FBI" seized the hard drives, isn't it? Rather than waiting to find out the actual story, which is that Switzerland and Italy asked for assistance compelling a US company operating in a third nation to cease from publishing dangerous materials - i.e., the photos and identification of Swiss undercover police officers. I'm not saying it's right, just that that's what happened.
This begs the questions: Why did the Home Office agree?
Who knows. But that has nothing to do with the US.
What grounds did the USA give for the seizure of the servers?
Probably that it received a request for assistance from the Italian and Swiss governments.
Were these grounds of a "political" nature?
*Sigh* I suppose you can argue that EVERYTHING in government is "political", to some extent.
Has the Home Office requested that the servers be returned?
Who knows. But, again, that has nothing to do with the US.
What does this action say about freedom of expression and freedom of the press?
That you'd better now reveal the identities of undercover law enforcement officers, with thinly veiled threats? (And yes, that goes for Valerie Plame, too, since some retard will surely bring it up, but Plame has NOTHING to do with this instance or Indymedia, or the fact that Italy and Switzerland were who initiated the Indymedia requests, not the US or the FBI.)
A trail that started in Switzerland and Italy has now ended fairly and squarely in the lap of the UK Home Secretary to justify.
Indeed. The "UK Home Secretary" not being the "US" or the "FBI".
The FBI was minimally and tangentially involved here. It did not initiate the request. It did not perform the seizure. No seizure took place within the US. The only relationship anyone in the US has with this is due to the fact that Rackspace was a US company. If it were not, we wouldn't be talking about the FBI right now (though conspiracy theorists would still believe that it was someone in the US with political motivations who was responsible...they just can't fathom the US not being intentionally involved for malevolent reasons).
Do you believe that the requests from the Italian and Swiss governments were actually secretly orchestrated from within the current administration's political power structure in the United States, specifically to divert attention away from itself? Yes or no. Other readers can decide for themselves.
So, would there be ANY scenario in which you'd acknowledge that it's not some Bush/GOP/Cheney/Halliburton conspiracy? Or will US political agents be to blame, as far as you're concerned, no matter what? This is as serious question.
Are you really *that* paranoid and delusional to still think that's just a smokescreen by the powers-that-be to divert attention from the fact that it's really the US Republican political agents taking it down to stifle dissent and criticism about things like Diebold and RNC delegates?
If so, I'm sorry to say that you're fucking completely looney.
As to the question of what they might have been involved in, they can only speculate on what exactly their servers were yanked for. But speculations abound. It could be a story they ran about the Swiss undercover police, or their publication of the names and addresses of RNC convention delegates, or their involvement with the Diebold memos.
Huh?
Even if we don't know the EXACT reason the hard drives were seized, I think a logical, sane person can conclude that the governments of Switzerland and Italy - the nations from which the seizure requests initiated - have NOTHING to do with Diebold or the RNC delegates.
But even if they were totally irrelevant, the fact is that they've had legal action taken against them and are unable to determine the parties or reasons for the legal action. That's honest-to-god police state stuff, and we should be asking our elected officials tough questions about it.
Then, for this particular issue, you'd better be asking in Europe about it, since the US had nothing to do with initiating the request (Italy and Switzerland), nor seizing the hard drives (UK authorities). The only reason ANY US entity was involved is because Rackspace is a US company.
I literally can't believe that, after Indymedia itself said the request did NOT originate within the US, and drives were only seized in the UK (NOT by the FBI, since the FBI has no jurisdiction in the UK, and only served Rackspace with a subpoena via a request made under treaty), you're spouting off about Diebold and the RNC delegates.
And I said that in the story I submitted. But the ONLY reason they were there in attendance was because a US subpoena was served on a US company. But the seizure was executed by UK authorities (since the FBI has no jurisdiction in the UK), and the only reason the US had a subpoena was because of a legal request under treaty by Italian and Swiss authorities. IF Rackspace was, say, a UK company instead of US, the same seizure would have taken place without the FBI acting as even a conduit, or any US involvement whatsoever. The FBI and US's involvement here was minimal and compulsory, and only because it was required for dealing with a US-based company. None of the request for action was initiated in any way within the US, the seizure was not conducted by the US, and the seizure did not happen in the US. You're going to have to find other places to lay blame. To repeat: the ONLY reason ANY US agency was involved is because Rackspace is a US company.
...which is exclusively where the seizures took place. The FBI was involved in the chain of the request because Rackspace itself is a US corporation.
Nice invocation of the PATRIOT Act, though, when it's not involved in this in any way. The responsibility for this rests squarely on the office of the UK Home Secretary, not the US or FBI.
The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed. And, on top of that, the ONLY reason the FBI was involved was because Rackspace, Indymedia's host, is a US company. However, the FBI itself did not do any of the seizing. MLAT complicates the issue, but the fact is that if they had hosted in the UK with, say, a UK company as opposed to a US company, there would have been ZERO US involvement, and the US involvement in this is merely a tertiary formality of MLAT. The FBI was obligated to pass on the request to Rackspace under MLAT, but in fact performed no enforcement duty, according to Rackspace itself and Indymedia.org's own report.
No doubt conspiracy theorists will still think it was some kind of US/Bush/GOP attempt to silence critics, when in reality Europe has no further to look than its own doorsteps - Italy and Switzerland - for the seizure requests...
Slashdot Mirror
So what if Rackspace is a U.S. company? If they are doing business in the U.K. they have to obey the laws in that country. Why didn't Italian and Swiss law enforcement agencies contact their counterparts in the U.K. and other listed countries instead? I'm sure the British police could easily seize those hard drives under the British court order.
I imagine that Rackspace was neither violating US nor UK law. I wouldn't be surprised if Italy and Switzerland also made the request directly to the UK, and the US ended up "winning the race", as it were. The FBI's statement indicates it was more or less facilitating the mechanics of an MLA treaty request, not doing anything proactive or investigative.
What does the FBI have to do with this? Is it because the FBI has more pull now and it's easier to violate people's rights in the U.S. as long as you utter the word "terrorism" or am I overreacting?
The "FBI" was involved because that is the federal law enforcement agency of record for an international MLA treaty request. Apparently the State Department was also involved. So that's why the "FBI" was involved. If you're asking the broader question of why the US in general was even involved, again, it was because Rackspace is a US company. Perhaps there was some sense of the US authorities having more "pull" over a US company, or the process happening more expeditiously since it was a US company; in any case, Rackspace chose to voluntarily cooperate with "international law enforcement authorities".
As I understand, whatever was on those hard drives belongs to Indymedia. So, doesn't the FBI need to serve the court order to Indymedia directly (instead of or in addition to Rackspace)? Imagine if you are leasing a car from your local dealership and police get a warrant to retrieve an audio/video CD that they believe you are keeping in your car. Can the police serve the warrant to the dealership and then help themselves to your car without letting you know? Wouldn't they have to serve you with the warrant?
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm not sure about the mechanics of this. I'm not sure that the vehicle analogy is directly applicable to this situation as specific laws and precedent apply to vehicles; it may be that there are US legal or MLAT provisions that allow such seizures with a court order for the specific items, without the order needing to be presented to anyone in particular except those who are required to facilitate the seizure; I don't know.
...according to this and this, there was a request from the Italian and Swiss governments under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to the United States (since the hosting provider was a US company). The "FBI" did not physically "seize" the drives, since the FBI does not have jurisdiction in the UK, though it appears that Rackspace voluntarily responded to the US subpoena, which was generated as a matter of course under the MLA treaty.
Also, you're not really making any sense:
the fusion bomb is not made from by products of the combining of hydrogen
Yeah? And? You said "fusion can't be used for weapons tech". However, "fusion" can and has been used for weapons, for decades.
Also, much of the research into fusion for the production of energy also has nothing to do with hydrogen, but e.g. Helium-3.
It makes me smile that you just made yourself look like even more of a moron, and that a lot of people will get a good chuckle reading the dogshit that just fell out of your mouth for a long time to come.
You could look at the FAQ and the screenshots for starters. Or maybe even download it and try it out.
The bottom line of the project is this: using everything we know now about the evolution of operating systems, user interfaces, and the internet, if we could start over and create a new platform that leveraged the network and all the capabilities of modern technology and our current knowledgebase, how would we do it?
This project attempts to answer that question, and it's pretty phenomenal.
Windows
Mac
Linux
The Progressive magazine even did a story about how one works in 1979.
"Alternative" in this context usually refers to non-nuclear (and non-fossil fuel). Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.
...but China is set to outpace US oil consumption very soon.
With this much competition for oil, and peak oil production close or possibly already passed, it's sobering to think about what could be...
(And alternative fuels won't be the only way to release ourselves from oil dependence. One would hope that we'd continue to heavily research nuclear, including fusion, options; plans for complete nuclear non-proliferation completely kill any significant efforts in these areas, even for energy means.)
dtv.gov is a site set up by the FCC that attempts to bridge the gap between ordinary consumers who want DTV/HDTV programming, and the actual information about where and how to get it. It also links to checkhd.com, with directories of free over-the-air, cable, and satellite HDTV programming in your locale.
My point about the "US not having anything to do with it" was more along the lines of the US not being the people who were the cause of the reasons that the Indymedia drives were seized. Yes, I know the US was involved in the process, but again, my point there was that they were only involved because Rackspace was a US corporation. In other words, their involvement wasn't necessary, had it not been for Rackspace being a US corporation. Of course that doesn't change the fact that they WERE involved, and yes, I agree that the FBI's involvement is part of the events that took place; but the FBI wasn't being proactive, it was reactive, and only to an MLA treaty request at that, to which the US is compelled to respond. Inaction or ignorance on the part of US authorities wouldn't have been acceptable under the provisions of the treaty. I'm sure you get my point. In closing, yes, I know the US was involved in this chain of events, I was merely offering a "soundbite" response to the initial firestorm of people who thought this was exclusively because of the US, when, in fact, the seizures happened in a different country, as did the requests. Hence, the US "didn't have anything to do with [starting] this". If you want to think that's doubletalk or argue about semantics, fine, but I'm also sure that you understand my point, and arguing about "doubletalk" only serves to derail from the real issues, which is that the US's involvement was compulsory, incidental, and tangential.
[1] To anyone reading this, I'd like to make a side comment here: someone asked in a previous slashdot article covering the RNC delegate postings why posting the names and addresses of abortion doctors is considered threatening, while posting the RNC delegates' home addresses and phone numbers is apparently just fine. Someone responded with the typical "well, the information is already available publicly elsewhere". So is the information about doctors who perform abortions. Their names, addresses, practice information, etc., is all a matter of record of several medical professional organizations. It's all available "elsewhere" too. Talk about hypocrisy. BOTH are equally right, or wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Here, I am using "might" to describe the current state of affairs, i.e., that we in fact don't know for certain, not to represent multiple possibilities. As in, "it might be true that the sky is blue...", which alludes to the fact that the sky is, in fact, blue, but that a qualifying statement follows.
The question ain't 'how or why would the US have been involved' since thats, assuming the US does not have any interest in the data (debatable), a no brainer. The question is rather: what would have happened. Far more interesting. You see, would the UK secret service get away with raiding a server, stealing a harddisk, without stating why? Would the UK get away with shutting down 20 independant media centers? I don't know that, but that's an important part of the difference in scetched situation.
The reason I asked 'how or why would the US have been involved' is because so many people here think it was US political motivations that led to IMC being taken down, when that turned out to not be the case. (And arguing that perhaps there were people in the US who didn't shed a tear about it is irrelevant, since the US didn't initiate the request.) However, I see the point you're getting at: let's assume, for a moment, that Rackspace was a UK company hosting its servers in the UK. Would the events have transpired as they did, without US involvement? I don't know. I don't know if the MLA treaty provisions between Italy and Switzerland apply to the UK in the same fashion as the US, nor do I know how the UK authorities would have responded to such a request. What I do know is that the FBI has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the UK, and, as such, the UK authorities did, in fact, "get away" with seizing the disks, since that's precisely who did it. It was in response to a US federal subpoena - but only then because of a request by Italy and Switzerland.
Because, as I've said about a dozen times, Rackspace is a US company. The FBI did not initiate the investigation or the requests, nor did it perform any seizure, nor did any seizure take place on US soil by any US agency. The FBI was involved because the United States received an MLA treaty request from the Italian and Swiss governments, and, as such, responded under the treaty provisions.
I'm sure people are trying to figure out what's going on; it's just that people seem to try to be laying the lion's share of the blame here on the US, when I'm not sure, in this instance, that's where it should be laid.
I don't know that this is the only reason, and likely neither do you. In fact, what is your connection to this whole thing anyway?
We might not know for certain, but if Rackspace was not a US company, and were instead e.g. a UK company, how or why would the US have even been involved? The servers were physically in the UK, and it was the Swiss and Italian authorities who had problems with some of the content. So, why would the US FBI have been involved under those circumstances? I realize that's a hypothetical, but the only reasonable reason the FBI was involved, given the information that we DO have (IF we trust what the US has said so far) indicates that the only reason the FBI or any US agency was involved is because Rackspace is a US company. Otherwise, indeed, why would it have been involved? (I realize this requires us to actually believe the FBI when it says the request initiated with Swiss and Italian authorities, when it says it's not an FBI operation, and when it says it was simply facilitating an MLA treaty request.)
Anyway, I'm not going to continue showing your trollishness. I'm a bit busy.
In the story submission, I acknowledged "because Indymedia's hosting company, Rackspace.com, is a U.S. company, the FBI coordinated the request". I have said as much in several other posts. But I still stand by the assertion that the US, or political agents within the US, had NOTHING to do with the initiation of this request, and the FBI's involvement with facilitation of handling MLAT requests and generating a US subpoena, in this particular instance, was incidental.
I'll just add that the US certainly ain't standing up for Free Speech anymore. And their sense of justice is quite whacked since this is all done in the dark now.
Yes, yes, it seems that the US didn't really do anything to help the situation, from your perspective. But the US wasn't the only responsible authority here. It can be argued that the US created the legal weight that ultimately resulted in the seizure, but again, this is only because Rackspace was a US company. Otherwise the US would have had no standing whatsoever, and, quite frankly, would not have even been approached by any Swiss or Italian authorities.
Believed by who? The quasi-"official" article at indymedia.org and the AFP report both say that the request initiated with the Swiss and Italian government. Why are you not asking questions of the Swiss and the Italian authorities? You and I both know that the only reason the US was involved is because Rackspace is a US company. Also, the FBI does not have jurisdiction in the UK, no matter how much people might like to imagine it might. Rackspace, a US company, complied with a US federal order in offices it operates in a different country. The FBI itself says it's not an FBI operation. Now I realize that's laughable to many on slashdot: believing the FBI when it says it's not an FBI operation. But the FBI proudly talks about its own investigations; if this was an FBI investigation, it would have already said so. But the fact is, the request initiated in Switzerland and Italy, and probably focused on very specific content.
You say the US had absolutely nothing to do with it? How about the Federal Order? Do you have info I don't have?
I didn't say the US had nothing to do with anything relating to this; I said they had nothing to do with initiating the request, or the actual physical seizure of the drives/servers, since that would have to have been done by UK authorities, even if accompanied by the FBI.
Sounds very much like US agents are involved...
Yes. Acting as agents for Italy and France under an MLA treaty.
And if the "State Department" was involved, it's only because it had to be involved for the mechanics of the MLA treaty.
We do not know for certain whether it is related to Italy or Switzerland or somewhere else. It is a good guess, but still a guess. All we know is that it was a Federal Order from the U. S. of A.
Because Rackspace is a US company. All of this obscures the real issue here: the fact they were physically on UK soil is irrelevant, because they weren't violating any UK laws. They probably weren't even violating any US laws. But the evidence from the third party, the third nation, must have been compelling enough under the guidelines of the MLA treaty for the US to act as an intermediary, and to generate a US subpoena.
At least admit than more than just the US is involved here. Of course, plenty here will believe this was 100% orchestrated by the US for purely political reasons. But the US can't execute search warrants or seizures in foreign countries, therefore at a minimum the UK was involved in an enforcement action. But it sounds like Rackspace chose to comply voluntarily.
Listen: nowhere did I say the situation was a good thing. Just that the US official story, take it or leave it, is that it is NOT a US operation, and that it was merely handling a request for a "third nation", and specifically names Swiss and Italian authorities, who have also not denied such a request. Now, even if all that is true, you can berate the FBI for throwing around its weight with a US corporation who clearly doesn't want to get on the "wrong side", as it were, of the authorities. You can chastise Rackspace for rolling over. But the bottom line here is that this all took place on UK soil, and ostensibly had it not been for the Italian/Swiss request, whatever it was, we wouldn't be here talking about this right now.
I understand that all you know for certain is that it was a US federal order, but that somewhat glosses over the fact that the reason it's so is because Rackspace is a US company, which is probably why the request got channeled to the US in the first place. I'm not saying it's right, just saying that all the blame doesn't exclusively rest on the US here. The US was but one part of this puzz
Rackspace may be a US company but Rackspace in London is subject to UK law not US law. If they took down and handed over Indymedia's servers simply on the basis of a US subpoena communicated to them this would not be lawful in the UK.
Ok, so whose fault is that? Not the FBI's. Rackspace said it was being a "good corporate citizen" and helping international law enforcement entities.
This was NOT an FBI (or US) operation. No. Really. It wasn't.
However it seems more likely that the US subpoena was the subject of a request for mutual legal assistance from the US Attorney General to the UK Home Secretary under the MLA Treaty.
OK, and? The reason the US received the request was because the hosting provider was a US company, albeit doing business in the UK. There were probably more MLA requests; in fact, there were probably MLA requests from Italy and Switzerland to the US, and possibly even the UK, and between the US and the UK.
It would for the Metropolitan Police, probably accompanied by the FBI, to enforce the request and take possession of the servers.
Indeed. "Metropolitan Police" not being a US law enforcement entity. I understand how that could be confusing. And "probably" accompanied by the FBI? They don't even know that for sure; they just know that the subpoena ORIGINATED from the FBI; for all we know, US FBI agents weren't even there. But since the request stemmed from an FBI subpoena, it's a hell of a lot more interesting to say that the "FBI" seized the hard drives, isn't it? Rather than waiting to find out the actual story, which is that Switzerland and Italy asked for assistance compelling a US company operating in a third nation to cease from publishing dangerous materials - i.e., the photos and identification of Swiss undercover police officers. I'm not saying it's right, just that that's what happened.
This begs the questions: Why did the Home Office agree?
Who knows. But that has nothing to do with the US.
What grounds did the USA give for the seizure of the servers?
Probably that it received a request for assistance from the Italian and Swiss governments.
Were these grounds of a "political" nature?
*Sigh* I suppose you can argue that EVERYTHING in government is "political", to some extent.
Has the Home Office requested that the servers be returned?
Who knows. But, again, that has nothing to do with the US.
What does this action say about freedom of expression and freedom of the press?
That you'd better now reveal the identities of undercover law enforcement officers, with thinly veiled threats? (And yes, that goes for Valerie Plame, too, since some retard will surely bring it up, but Plame has NOTHING to do with this instance or Indymedia, or the fact that Italy and Switzerland were who initiated the Indymedia requests, not the US or the FBI.)
A trail that started in Switzerland and Italy has now ended fairly and squarely in the lap of the UK Home Secretary to justify.
Indeed. The "UK Home Secretary" not being the "US" or the "FBI".
The FBI was minimally and tangentially involved here. It did not initiate the request. It did not perform the seizure. No seizure took place within the US. The only relationship anyone in the US has with this is due to the fact that Rackspace was a US company. If it were not, we wouldn't be talking about the FBI right now (though conspiracy theorists would still believe that it was someone in the US with political motivations who was responsible...they just can't fathom the US not being intentionally involved for malevolent reasons).
You didn't answer my question.
Do you believe that the requests from the Italian and Swiss governments were actually secretly orchestrated from within the current administration's political power structure in the United States, specifically to divert attention away from itself? Yes or no. Other readers can decide for themselves.
So, would there be ANY scenario in which you'd acknowledge that it's not some Bush/GOP/Cheney/Halliburton conspiracy? Or will US political agents be to blame, as far as you're concerned, no matter what? This is as serious question.
The Swiss government claims it was because photos and names of Swiss undercover police officers were revealed on an Indymedia server; Cryptome relates the same story.
Are you really *that* paranoid and delusional to still think that's just a smokescreen by the powers-that-be to divert attention from the fact that it's really the US Republican political agents taking it down to stifle dissent and criticism about things like Diebold and RNC delegates?
If so, I'm sorry to say that you're fucking completely looney.
Perhaps you can look at the mirror links posted in this very thread almost a full hour before your post.
Huh?
Even if we don't know the EXACT reason the hard drives were seized, I think a logical, sane person can conclude that the governments of Switzerland and Italy - the nations from which the seizure requests initiated - have NOTHING to do with Diebold or the RNC delegates.
But even if they were totally irrelevant, the fact is that they've had legal action taken against them and are unable to determine the parties or reasons for the legal action. That's honest-to-god police state stuff, and we should be asking our elected officials tough questions about it.
Then, for this particular issue, you'd better be asking in Europe about it, since the US had nothing to do with initiating the request (Italy and Switzerland), nor seizing the hard drives (UK authorities). The only reason ANY US entity was involved is because Rackspace is a US company.
I literally can't believe that, after Indymedia itself said the request did NOT originate within the US, and drives were only seized in the UK (NOT by the FBI, since the FBI has no jurisdiction in the UK, and only served Rackspace with a subpoena via a request made under treaty), you're spouting off about Diebold and the RNC delegates.
And I said that in the story I submitted. But the ONLY reason they were there in attendance was because a US subpoena was served on a US company. But the seizure was executed by UK authorities (since the FBI has no jurisdiction in the UK), and the only reason the US had a subpoena was because of a legal request under treaty by Italian and Swiss authorities. IF Rackspace was, say, a UK company instead of US, the same seizure would have taken place without the FBI acting as even a conduit, or any US involvement whatsoever. The FBI and US's involvement here was minimal and compulsory, and only because it was required for dealing with a US-based company. None of the request for action was initiated in any way within the US, the seizure was not conducted by the US, and the seizure did not happen in the US. You're going to have to find other places to lay blame. To repeat: the ONLY reason ANY US agency was involved is because Rackspace is a US company.
...which is exclusively where the seizures took place. The FBI was involved in the chain of the request because Rackspace itself is a US corporation. Nice invocation of the PATRIOT Act, though, when it's not involved in this in any way. The responsibility for this rests squarely on the office of the UK Home Secretary, not the US or FBI.
Any enforcement was done by the UK Metropolitan Police IN the UK, not by the FBI. Sorry to disappoint.
How is this on topic? The fact of the matter is that in this instance, the US had nothing to do with it. Also, FBI != CIA.
The bottom line here, for what it's worth, is that the US (or political agents within the US) had absolutely nothing to do with Indymedia's drives being seized, even though that's what 90% of the posters in the original article immediately assumed. And, on top of that, the ONLY reason the FBI was involved was because Rackspace, Indymedia's host, is a US company. However, the FBI itself did not do any of the seizing. MLAT complicates the issue, but the fact is that if they had hosted in the UK with, say, a UK company as opposed to a US company, there would have been ZERO US involvement, and the US involvement in this is merely a tertiary formality of MLAT. The FBI was obligated to pass on the request to Rackspace under MLAT, but in fact performed no enforcement duty, according to Rackspace itself and Indymedia.org's own report.
No doubt conspiracy theorists will still think it was some kind of US/Bush/GOP attempt to silence critics, when in reality Europe has no further to look than its own doorsteps - Italy and Switzerland - for the seizure requests...