|
|
|
|
|
Notícies :: indymedia : mitjans i manipulació : xarxa i llibertat |
|
Servers seized by FBI returned - but who wanted what?
|
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
|
The Indymedia hardware seized in London last week were put back in place over the last 24 hours, but their return puts the UK Home Office even more on the spot. The original hard disks, apparently with the original data, have been returned, which suggests strongly that the authorities wanted sight of information that is on them. |
Who these authorities are remains as open a question as what they wanted to see, but given the convoluted nature of the seizure process (the FBI apparently acting under a US-UK treaty on behalf of Switzerland and/or Italy to seize hardware in London), the British Home Office must surely have been presented with at least a flimsy pretext for its approval of the operation.
Click Here
Further mystery is added by the circumstances of the return. Rackspace, the hosting company involved, alerted Indymedia to their return yesterday morning, saying: "I was just told that the court order is being complied with and your servers in London will be online at 5pm GMT." But what court order? And why is being complied with? The Orwellian nature of the powers likely to have been used in the case severely restrict Rackspace's ability to tell its customer, or anybody else, what's going on, and can also be used (on US request) to bind the Home Office to confidentiality. Not that any compulsion is usually necessary here.
Although the data on the drives appears intact, Indymedia is treating them as potentially compromised, and won't boot them or take the servers live until they've been verified. Depending on what was done to them when they were in the hands of, er, whoever, there may be some slight chance that the verification will throw up some clues. And if information was being sought as evidence in a pending court case, then information on how this evidence was obtained and by what process will also have to be produced. If the process turns out not to have been one that would be accepted by a court, then it will be likely that direct evidence-gathering was not the intent. Which would raise even more questions about the validity of the use of an MLAT, and the Home Office's involvement in it.
Richard Allan, Liberal Democrat MP for Sheffield, Hallam, has tabled a Parliamentary question to the Home Office asking David Blunkett "what recent discussions he has had with US law enforcement agencies concerning the seizure of material from UK-based internet hosting providers; and if he will make a statement." This is to be dealt with later today. MPs in the National Union of Journalists' Parliamentary Group are also tabling questions. |
Mira també:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/14/indymedia_servers_back/
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comentaris
|
IndyMedia Gets Its Servers Back
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
|
Less than a week after the U.S.-directed London seizure of two of its servers, the collective news organization IndyMedia said Wednesday that the devices have been returned to its service provider, Rackspace.
However, the 20 or so sites that these servers host will remain closed to the public until the organization can inspect the disks and ensure their contents have not been altered.
Both IndyMedia and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is providing the collective with legal representation, say it's still unclear exactly what happened, who ordered the seizures or on what basis they were ordered. The best guess insiders offer, because of the sequence of events, is that the seizure was provoked by a posting that originated on IndyMedia's Swiss site, and that the seizure request therefore originated with Swiss police.
The posting in question appeared on IndyMedia's Swiss site about Sept. 7, and included several photographs of two men that accompanying paragraphs in French claimed were undercover Swiss police photographing G8 protesters. The posting was picked up and reposted on a second IndyMedia site based in Nantes, France. These sites are autonomous, like the rest of IndyMedia's 50 sites.
According to Devin Theriot-Orr, a Seattle-based IndyMedia volunteer and an attorney with Edwards, Sieh, Smith, and Goodfriend, around Sept. 22 IndyMedia volunteers received e-mail from Rackspace requesting the removal of the posting and alleging that it contained personal information about and threats against the two officers. The posting was edited to remove a comment about revenge being a dish best served cold and to blank out the officers' faces.
On Oct. 1, Theriot-Orr received a visit from two FBI agents, apparently on behalf of the Swiss government. "They came in and asked questions about the post and I clarified it with them. It's not illegal to take pictures of officers taking pictures of us and posting them, and they agreed and said it was not a U.S. investigation, but a Swiss matter, and they were acting ... on behalf of the Swiss government."
The Swiss government, they told Theriot-Orr, was not concerned about the photos, but wanted personal identifying information removed. "I said, 'OK, I have no power or control over the French IndyMedia center, since each one is autonomous, but I will pass it on.'" They left, and he assumed the matter was resolved. A week later, the two servers went offline.
Rackspace's press statement says little more than the company told IndyMedia at the time. "Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S.-based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter."
Both Theriot-Orr and the EFF's counsel, Kevin Bankston, stressed that no one knows yet what actually happened.
"There are a lot of unanswered questions," said Bankston, "but we are going to take legal actions to get them answered. The immediate problem is solved, but we are trying to figure out what the agency was and which the issuing court was."
Even the FBI agents he's talked to seem unsure. "We think it's clearly illegal, but before we can proceed we need more facts," he said. Once it's identified the court, the EFF's first move will be to ask for the subpoena to be unsealed.
Theriot-Orr compares the seizure to shutting down 20 printing presses, and said, "I'm glad it's happening to us, in that we are prepared to fight it, and we have access to the resources to fight this and make it public."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65338,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 |
|
EFF Press Release: Indymedia Servers Mysteriously Reappear, But Questions Remain
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
San Francisco, CA - Rackspace Managed Hosting, the San Antonio-based company that manages two Indymedia servers seized by the US government last Thursday, said yesterday that the servers have been returned and are now available to go back online. Immediate access to the servers, which host Indymedia's Internet radio station and more than 20 Indymedia websites, will be delayed so that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) can ensure that the servers are secure and take steps to preserve evidence for future legal action.
Now that the servers have been returned, the question still remains: who took them, and under what authority? Citing a gag order, Rackspace would not comment on what had happened both in the original seizure of the servers or their return. All that is known at this point is that the subpoena that resulted in the seizure was issued at the request of a foreign government, most likely with the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office in San Antonio. Although initial reports suggested that the FBI had taken the servers, the FBI has now denied any involvement.
The seizure, which silenced numerous political news websites for several days, is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. "Secret orders silencing US media should be beyond the realm of possibility in a country that believes in freedom of speech," said EFF staff attorney Kurt Opsahl. "EFF was founded with the Steve Jackson Games case fourteen years ago, and at that time we established that seizing entire servers because of a claim about some pieces of information on them is blatantly illegal and improper. It appears the government forgot this basic rule, and we will need to remind them."
EFF will take legal action to find out what really happened to Indymedia's servers and ensure that Internet media are protected from egregious First Amendment violations like this in the future.
Contacts:
Kevin Bankston
Attorney, Equal Justice Works / Bruce J. Ennis Fellow
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bankston ARROBA eff.org
Kurt Opsahl
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
kurt ARROBA eff.org
http://eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#002006 |
|
ANALYSIS: SEIZURE OF INDYMEDIA WEB SERVERS "AN ACT OF GLOBAL CENSORSHIP"
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
Text of editorial analysis by Alistair Coleman of BBC Monitoring Media Services on 13 October
The seizure of London-based web servers used by the anti-globalization news organisation Indymedia has drawn sharp criticism from media watchdogs and human rights groups. These groups view the use of far-reaching international treaties to close several web sites as a politically-motivated denial of free speech with global implications for the freedom of expression.
Servers operated by the US-owned company Rackspace were confiscated by British authorities from their offices in Uxbridge under a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). FBI spokesman Joe Parris told the AFP news agency that although the bureau had requested a subpoena against Rackspace, the action was taken on behalf of two third party nations, later identified as Switzerland and Italy.
MLATs are powerful bilateral agreements between two countries which allow for far-reaching powers of police and judicial cooperation in the fields of international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.
Photographs
Indymedia themselves were initially at a loss as to why the MLAT court order was directed at them, as the court order prohibits Rackspace from commenting on the matter and divulging to whom the servers were actually given. A Rackspace spokesman said "Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities".
However, this is not Indymedia's first brush with the FBI, with the Bureau attempting to obtain Indymedia's IP logs in August 2004, while the activities of Indymedia affiliates Radio Free Santa Cruz and Cyprus IMCista also investigated by US authorities. It has since emerged that the order was the result of two separate enquiries into Indymedia by Switzerland and Italy.
According to AFP, the federal prosecutor of Bologna, Marina Plazzi, has stated that she is investigating Indymedia because "it may support terrorism"; while the Swiss investigation dates back to the 2003 G8 summit in Evian, where the organisation posted photographs where Swiss intelligence agents could be identified.
"Mud and poison"
The Milan-based Corriere della Sera suggests that the Italian request comes as a result of the Indymedia Italia site appearing to support insurgents involved in the deaths of Italian carabinieri in Al-Nasiriyah, southern Iraq, leading to National Party demands for the site's closure.
Leftist parties in Italy condemned the site's closure, calling it an "act of global censorship". Pietro Folena of the DS Party directly accused the government of a deliberate and "very serious" act of censorship with the Greens denouncing "the authoritarian calling of the Italian right".
In response, National Alliance spokesman Mario Landolfi told Corriere della Sera that closing the web site was "a good and proper thing" because "it was spitting out mud and poison, full of obscenities". Forza Italia's Francesco Giro said the closure was inevitable, due to Indymedia's "seriously defamatory tone", accusing the left of "shedding crocodile tears" over the matter.
"Abuse of powers"
The use of an MLAT order to seize the Rackspace servers has been criticized by press freedom organisations. Peter Bunyan, editor of Statewatch accused British Home Secretary David Blunkett of complicity in a politically-motivated action which would be unjustifiable under the terms of the treaty.
Media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also adopted this theme, writing to Blunkett, condemning his actions and seeking an explanation for the confiscations. "Closure of web sites is a serious step," RSF said in its letter, "the reasons for which should definitely be made public".
The International Federation of Journalists was more forthright it its criticisms, accusing the authorities concerned of abusing their powers in an operation that was "more intimidation than crime-busting".
"We have witnessed an intolerable and intrusive international police operation against a network specializing in independent journalism," said IFJ General Secretary Aidan White.
"The seizing of computers and the high profile nature of this incident suggests that someone wanted to stifle these independent voices in journalism," said White in an IFJ press release, "We need a full investigation into why this action took place, who took part and who authorised it."
While most of Indymedia's affected sites are now operating on alternative systems, concerns remain over what appears to be the use of judicial means to silence relatively small dissident voices, fuelling speculation that other sites may be targeted. The internet and technology news site The Register comments: "And even if there were something far more serious involved than just a couple of photos, the procedure ought to send shivers down the spine of every publishing organisation on the Internet."
Source: BBC Monitoring research 13 Oct 04
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/10/13/1495350 |
|
FBI returns seized news servers
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
Servers seized by the FBI from the alternative media network known as Indymedia have been returned.
The servers in the outskirts of London were taken last week by the FBI which said it was acting on behalf of Italian and Swiss authorities.
Indymedia hosts sites, news and radio feeds for anti-globalisation groups and other campaigners for social justice.
The media group is now taking legal advice about what action it can take over the seizure of its hardware.
International investigation
During the 7 October raid hard drives were taken that held the websites for many local Indymedia groups, audio feeds for net radio stations as well as several other groups.
Indymedia said some of the 20 sites knocked out by the raid were restored from back-up copies soon after the originals were taken.
We are exploring all avenues to hold the government accountable for this improper and unconstitutional silencing of independent media
Kurt Opsahl, EFF
Others, such as Antwerp, Belgrade, Liege and Lille, took longer to restore.
Indymedia said some of its local affiliates, notably Uruguay, Italy, Western Massachusetts and Nantes, lost data because of the seizure.
The media group said it had verified that the hard drives returned on 13 October were the ones actually taken in the raid.
With the help of the cyber-liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it is making sure the returned data is secure and has taken its own copy of it in case of future legal action.
"EFF is deeply concerned about the grave implications of this seizure for free speech and privacy," said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the EFF.
"We are exploring all avenues to hold the government accountable for this improper and unconstitutional silencing of independent media," he said.
The raid was also condemned by the International Federation of Journalists which called it an: ""unacceptable and intrusive international police action".
Gagging order
The drives were seized from the London offices of a San Antonio-based company called Rackspace that hosts the Indymedia sites.
Close-up of hard drive, Eyewire
The returned drives are being examined
Rackspace said the legal justification for the raid included a gagging order that prevented it revealing details.
The servers were apparently seized under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty which is typically used by nations co-operating to investigate cross-border crimes such as terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.
In a statement posted on its main website Indymedia said evidence was emerging that four different countries, the US, UK, Italy and Switzerland, were behind the server seizure.
Italian authorities were reportedly investigating the Italian Indymedia group for "supporting terrorism".
Swiss authorities said the raid could help its investigation of Indymedia coverage of 2003's G8 Summit in Evian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3742284.stm |
|
If the FBI works to shut down independent journalism Web sites that are critical of U.S. policy, isn't that a story?
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
By John Hanrahan
Johnhanrahan5 ARROBA aol.com
Agence France-Presse thought it was news. So did the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper. Likewise BBC News, which reported that the FBI in cooperation with U.K. authorities had on October 7 "shut down some 20 sites which were part of an alternative media network known as Indymedia." But coverage of this significant, ominous event has thus far drawn almost total silence from the U.S. news media.
Journalists’ organizations, though, have viewed with much alarm the seizure in Britain of two web servers belonging to Rackspace, a U.S. web-hosting service that hosts some 20 Indymedia Web sites in 17 countries, including ones in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Portugal, Brazil and Uruguay.
"We have witnessed an intolerable and intrusive international police operation against a network specializing in independent journalism," Aidan White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, was quoted as saying. "The way this has been done smacks more of intimidation of legitimate journalistic inquiry than crime-busting."
Another international journalists’ organization, Reporters without Borders, condemned the seizure of the Web servers and called on U.S., U.K., Swiss and Italian authorities for an explanation. Reporters Without Borders said the seizure came at the request of the U.S. Justice Department, "which apparently acted at the prompting of Italian and Swiss authorities."
The U.K.’s National Union of Journalists also condemned the seizure, as did Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Opsahl was quoted as saying: "EFF is deeply concerned about the grave implications of this seizure for free speech and privacy, and we are exploring all avenues to hold the [U.S.] government accountable for this improper and unconstitutional silencing of independent media."
But despite the outrage from journalists and privacy rights organizations, this government assault on the press — reported by Indymedia itself on October 7 and then by foreign press outlets as well as on numerous Web sites and weblogs over the next few days — somehow doesn’t resonate with the U.S. news media, according to my online searches. One exception was the little-seen UPI, which picked up the story October 11 from The Guardian. The New York Times and Washington Post, which I read regularly, have breathed not a word of it.
According to the Guardian’s October 11 report, the Web server seizures also "brought down several radio Internet streams," one of which was to be used to stream Web radio coverage of the October 15-17 European Social Forum in London. Indymedia reported early this week that some of its Web sites were still shut down and that some — including one in western Massachusetts — had suffered data losses.
There is plenty in this story for U.S. media to explore. Overseas news reports to date have stated it is not known why or where the servers were taken, or exactly who had ordered the seizure or why. Rackspace, possibly under a gag order, would not disclose to Indymedia or the press what — if anything — it knew about the seizure order, stating only that it had complied with the order as a good corporate citizen. The Guardian reported only that the FBI is "understood to have been acting on an order issued on Thursday [October 7] under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering."
One report had an official at the U.S. Embassy in London denying Justice Department or FBI involvement in the seizure, but FBI spokesperson Joe Parris had confirmed to Agence France-Presse last week that it had issued a subpoena to Rackspace in the U.K. "on behalf of a third country."
Indymedia had its own possible theory. It quoted a Swiss prosecutor as saying he had opened a criminal investigation of Indymedia’s coverage of the 2003 G8 Summit in Evian. And an Italian prosecutor quoted by Indymedia said she is investigating Italy Indymedia because it may "support terrorism."
Presumably, if U.S. reporters pursued this story they could determine exactly who ordered this seizure and why ostensibly free-press nations such as the United States and United Kingdom are involved in such a nefarious business.
This isn’t the first run-in Indymedia has had with the FBI. Previously, according to press reports, FBI agents visited Indymedia workers in the United States to ask about publication on a French Indymedia Web site of photographs of Swiss undercover police taking pictures of protesters. Indymedia speculated that this earlier visit might be related to the seizure of the Web servers.
Indymedia (short for Independent Media Center) was formed in 1999 to report on the anti-globalization protests in Seattle from a grassroots perspective. It has since grown into a worldwide network of 140 locally-based sites. It describes itself as "a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate feelings of truth." Reporters without Borders described Indymedia as "an international media network that operates without central editorial control and on which users can freely post their messages."
Indymedia contributors write sympathetically on antiwar and anti-globalization protests, as well as on issues of human rights, the environment, labor and minorities. It covers international and national news events in the various countries in which it operates, as well as providing local news stories relating to corporate and human rights issues, among others.
Major U.S. news media correctly gave prominent news coverage to the recent action by a federal judge ordering New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail (subject to appeal) for refusing to name her sources before a grand jury investigating press disclosures of the name of a CIA agent.
But as serious Miller’s case is, isn’t it even more ominous for freedom of the press when a police agency — operating either in the United States or internationally — can shut down news outlets that are critical of the U.S. government and other western governments, and thereby chill free expression?
And would major U.S. news media have been as silent on this story if, say, federal agents seized the Internet servers of The New York Times, or Wall Street Journal, or Los Angeles Times, rather than those of a radical, non-mainstream news and opinion operation?
Now you would think that the major U.S. news media would have at least a passing interest in press freedom. Or in this era of fright is it just "not news" when government authorities — our own and our allies — shut down the free flow of information and otherwise intimidate alternative press voices? The Indymedia shutdown stinks to high heaven and contains more than a whiff of totalitarianism, but perhaps even worse is the silence of the major U.S. news media.
John Hanrahan, a Washington, D.C., writer, is a former executive director of The Fund for Investigative Journalism and reporter for The Washington Post, The Washington Star, UPI and other news organizations.
E-mail: johnhanrahan5 ARROBA aol.com
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroun |
|
Indymedia Website Seizures Remain Shrouded in Questions
|
|
per indYgena |
14 oct 2004
|
Oct 14 - A week after the FBI disrupted about twenty websites operated by local chapters of the Indymedia network, there is still no clear explanation as to why agents seized some of the radical news organizations’ servers. Yesterday, agents returned both of the confiscated computer hard drives used to house the affected sites to Rackspace, the US-based web hosting company that owns them. But Indymedia and supporters say the return of the equipment raises more questions than it answers.
Last Thursday, agents from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the two hard drives from Rackspace’s London offices. Rackspace said had they complied with a subpoena and turned over the devices, used by some Indymedia websites in Europe, the United States, Africa and South America. According to initial news reports, the subpoena was exercised by the FBI in cooperation with the governments of Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Italy.
Last week’s action against Indymedia, a grassroots, non-hierarchical global media network, effectively shut down sites operated from four continents. As of press time, most of the sites are back up and running, though six -- including one in Western Massachusetts -- remain inactive. Indymedia spokesperson, David Meieran, said many of the sites were running within the first 24 hours as mirrors and temporary replacement servers were arranged by Indymedia centers throughout the world.
Now that the hard drives have been returned, Meieran said, Indymedia and those committed to free speech need to keep pushing to find out why they were seized and gaurd against a recurrence.
Due to questions about the returned drives’ integrity, Indymedia is considering them "compromised" and not currently using them, said Meieran. He said it is unlikely that the drives will be used until the reasons for the seizure and the extent of the investigation are determined.
For its part, the FBI has denied having any connection to the seizure outside of assisting in the initial subpoena execution. FBI spokesperson Joe Parris told Agence France-Presse that the request to seize the drives came from a "third party." The FBI told The NewStandard that Switzerland was the source of the request and directed further inquiries to Geneva.
The Swiss government, however, has told European media outlets that it did not request the servers. Swiss federal prosecutor Daniel Zapelli did say, however, that they were investigating the Indymedia coverage of last year’s G8 protest in Evian, though he declined to offer specifics.
According to Meieran, many Indymedia volunteers initially suspected the Swiss government had pushed for last Thursday’s seizure after Indymedia rebuffed a month-old request, delivered by the FBI, for the removal of pictures showing undercover Swiss police officers photographing protesters. But Meieran cautioned that all the theories are just speculation at this point.
Now that the hard drives have been returned, Meieran said, Indymedia and those committed to free speech need to keep pushing to find out why they were seized and gaurd against a recurrence.
"We’re putting together a call for consolidating the efforts of the groups and people who support us," Meieran said. "We are creating a website with a petition so we can find out why this happened and if any international laws were broken.
"Also -- and this is far more important -- we want to make sure this doesn’t happen again," Meieran added.
Whatever the cause, many groups have stepped forward to condemn the seizure and offer support to Indymedia. The American Civil Liberties Union, Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation of Journalists, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Project Censored and Dutch and Belgian journalism associations have all offered a variety of assistance.
In an official statement, the general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, Adrian White, said: "We have witnessed an intolerable and intrusive international police action against a network specializing in independent journalism. The way this has been done smacks more of intimidation of legitimate journalistic inquiry than crime-busting. The seizing of computers and the high profile nature of this incident suggests that someone wanted to stifle these independent voices in journalism. We need a full investigation into why this action took place, who took part and who authorized it."
Peter Phillips, director of the Sonoma University-based Project Censored, said in a press statement: "This is an indication of the successfulness of the Indymedia network. Freedom of information is a radical idea when applied in a fair manner. Radical ideas will always be suppressed by the transnational corporate elites whenever possible. We must act on our right to freedom of information to keep it safe, and when repressed find new channels and means to succeed."
Reporters Without Borders issued a similar call. According to a press release from the journalists’ advocacy organization, letters seeking an explanation for the action were sent to government officials in the UK, US, Switzerland and Italy.
Lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights advocacy group, have contacted both the FBI and officials with Rackspace in an effort to assist Indymedia. As of press time, the group said neither the FBI nor the company had addressed their inquiries.
Meieran says EFF lawyers are the only ones currently representing Indymedia as a whole, though, he says, the UK Indymedia and associates in Europe have retained separate counsel.
This is not the first instance of government interference with Indymedia’s activities. Directly before the Republican National Convention in New York City, four Indymedia administrators and their web hosting company were questioned by the Secret Service in response to an anonymous post on the New York City Indymedia website which carried the names of convention delegates and the hotels in which they were staying
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1109 |
|
INDY - STRUCTABLE!
|
|
per indYgena |
15 oct 2004
|
"Five Days after the seizures there is still an almost total information blackout from the authorities in the UK, US, Switzeland and Italy. Indymedia still has no confirmation of who ordered the seizures, who took the servers in London, why the seizures took place, where the servers are now located, and whether they will be returned." - Indymedia UK.
Last week internet servers in the UK hosting 21 Indymedia (IMC) sites were seized by the FBI, following a request by Swiss and Italian authorities. Hang on a minute, the Swiss and Italians ask the Americans to seize computers based in the UK? What's going on?
Welcome to the wonderful world of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) which formalises cross border policing between the UK and USA. Here the Attorney General in the US makes a request to the UK Home Secretary who either grants it or refuses it if the request is "an offence of a political character." Statewatch editor Tony Bunyan called on David Blunkett to explain himself: "Why did the Home Office agree? What grounds did the USA give for the seizure of the servers? Were these grounds of a 'political' nature?"
The FBI said that they are acting on behalf of requests by the Swiss and Italian authorities. Indymedia have been unable to get any more information as to what the exact reasons are, but this is a continuation of attacks on independent media by the US Government. In August the Secret Service tried to get records of internet addresses from an internet service provider in the US and the Netherlands before the Republican Party convention. Last month the Federal Communications Commission shut down community radio stations around the US. Two weeks ago the FBI requested that Indymedia remove a post on Nantes Indymedia with a photo of Swiss undercover police, while IMC volunteers in Seattle were visited by the FBI on the same issue.
French Nantes Indymedia, one of those affected by the raid, had pictures of the undercover cops at the 2003 Evian G8 summit on their site, and the Prosecutor in Geneva is investigating this. You can see the the incriminating photos at: www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/mtoups/nantes/copsinnantes.htm
The Italian state has had a campaign of harassment of alternative media since the G8 summit in Genoa. Last year the far right Aleanza Nazionale, who are in the Italian coalition government, called for the closure of Indymedia, and Paolo Valentino, the state secretary in the department of justice, also announced possible cooperation with the USA.
The federal prosecutor of Bologna Marina Plazzi said she is investigating Indymedia because of possible "support of terrorism" and has asked the FBI for assistance. Apparently this is about people on the newswire praising an attack on Italian soldiers in the Iraq last November.
Why didn't the Swiss and Italian authorities approach the British police directly, instead of the FBI being involved? Indymedia commented: "We are concerned over the growing use of international co-operation frameworks by Governments and Law enforcement agencies which can be used to obscure clear legal process, and call for openness and clarity in international co-operation, to ensure due process and that civil liberties are protected."
Protect and Server
The effect of the raids has been to shut down 21 (mostly European) Indymedia sites, six, including Indymedia UK, are now back on line. Indymedia UK had multiple back-ups of its files as they are all "paranoid" according to one Indymedia volunteer - and such paranoia has actually been justified as many other sites without backup have lost lots of data. There is a gaping hole on the internet where about one million Indymedia news articles, comments, photos, audio reports, and videos used to be.
The FBI has stolen an irreplaceable piece of our collective history. They've also made a direct attack on an important component of the movement against global capitalism, a part that carries messages around the globe without the corporate media telling us what to think.
Indymedia is working hard to restore sites, but about ten remain down. At least four - Uruguay, Italy, Western Massachusetts and Nantes - have lost data. "This FBI operation gives us even more reason to continue with what we have been doing," says an activist from Italy Indymedia. "The interruption of Uruguay Indymedia comes at a bad time with the elections coming up," Libertinus, an Indymedia volunteer says "Uruguay has a long history of media repression. We don't have the money to pay for web hosting, so we rely on the solidarity of other countries. Actions like this make the whole world insecure for free media."
Indymedia has called for solidarity actions and has received many statements of support. Aidan White, General Secretary for the International Federation of Journalists said "The way this has been done smacks more of intimidation of legitimate journalistic inquiry than crime-busting." Tim Gopsill of the National Union of Journalists said: "If the security services of the UK or US can just walk in and take away a server, then there is no freedom of expression."
Indymedia is consulting the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on how to prevent further government attacks on free speech. "EFF is deeply concerned about the grave implications of this seizure for free speech and privacy, and we are exploring all avenues to hold the government accountable for this improper and unconstitutional silencing of independent media." said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.
It's ironic that the seizure of the servers comes just before the Communication Rights and Tactical Media Production conference - of which Indymedia is a part of (see www.efcr2004.net). As the conference blurb says "As Governments and corporations increasingly base their authority on the ownership and control of information - a closer look reveals these areas as the landscape in which crucial struggles are being played out. 'Communication Rights' is at the heart of these struggles." The attacks by the US, UK, Italian and Swiss governments on Indymedia are a direct attack on these Communication Rights.
The servers have now been returned - but Indymedia still don't know who took them in the first place and what action to take in the face of these illegal seizures!
For updates about this, as well as the ESF see www.indymedia.org.uk
more at www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news469.htm |
|
Home Office under fire over Indymedia raid
|
|
per indYgena |
15 oct 2004
|
By: Jemima Kiss
Email: jemima@journalism.co.uk
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) is lobbying MPs to find out why the FBI ordered the UK government to confiscate web servers belonging to independent news network Indymedia . The seizure, which happened last week, brought down 21 of the group's regional sites including the UK, Brasil and Poland. The IFJ, which represents more than 100 global journalism bodies, is working with the UK's National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and civil liberties group http://www.statewatch.org Statewatch to demand a full explanation for the incident. "A number of people in Italy, Switzerland and the UK are lobbying MPs to get answers. We want to know who authorised this and why this went through," said Robert Shaw, human rights and information officer for the IFJ. He added that this is likely to be discussed by the IFJ's executive committee on 22 October and will also be on the agenda for this weekend's http://www.fse-esf.org European Social Forum. "In two weeks we'll see what affect this pressure is having and if we have any answers. If not, we'll take this to the European level," said Mr Shaw. The UK site was brought back online within a few hours, but other sites have had to set up temporary solutions and some, including Prague, Andorra and Western Massachusetts, were offline for more than one week. Some groups were able to restore the site using back-up data, but many have lost months of information. The German site now has no photographic archive and the Uruguayan branch lost all data back to April this year, much of it relating to the country's forthcoming election. The servers were taken from hosting company Rackspace on 7 October by Home Office ministers acting on a request from the FBI. In a statement, Rackspace said that it was 'acting as a good corporate citizen' in co-operating with international law enforcement. The FBI had issued a court order under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), an agreement that allows countries to co-ordinate investigations into international terrorism, money laundering and kidnapping. The servers were returned on 13 October, and Indymedia is reportedly exploring legal action. The Home Office and FBI will not comment on the case, although the FBI did confirm that it was acting on behalf of Switzerland. Indymedia staff in the US recently reported FBI enquiries about photos on the Indymedia Nantes site which showed Swiss undercover police. The IFJ has stated that the seizure may also be related to information published by Indymedia San Francisco that claimed to reveal problems with electronic voting systems scheduled to be used in next month's Presidential election. The manufacturers, Diebold Election Systems, applied to the Californian courts to have the documents removed but Indymedia successfully opposed the application. Indymedia's news is produced by volunteer political activists and campaigners around the world and the network's strong anti-corporate agenda has been highly critical of the invasion of Iraq. In August 2004, IndyMedia claimed that the FBI and US Secret Service had been trying to disrupt the relationship with its hosting provider Calyx Internet Access. The FBI had issued a subpoena for log information and contact details that would identify anyone who had posted a list of delegates attending the Republican National Convention. More news from dotJournalism: Website marks a decade of independent newsUnderground news goes deeperProtesters target San Francisco's dot.com boomersAnti-IMF protests kick start independent media 'revolution'See also: Indymedia: http://www.indymedia.org/en/static/fbi.shtml#whyIFJ: http://www.ifj.org
|
|
Global Agreements Threaten Media, Privacy
|
|
per indYgena |
15 oct 2004
|
The growing use of international treaties to bypass the will of national parliaments, by bodies waging the so-called "war on terrorism," increasingly threatens civil liberties and freedom of the media, warn privacy advocates.
When U.S. officials -- reportedly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), though the agency denied it Tuesday -- last week sought to gain access to computer servers hosting websites of Independent Media Centres (or Indymedia), a worldwide, alternative citizen-based news network, it was in response to a request by the Swiss police under the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement.
The treaty establishes procedures for countries to collaborate in investigations regarding international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.
It is less clear if the temporary seizure by the FBI of the two servers at the London, England office of Rackspace, a U.S. Internet operation based in Texas, was conducted under the agreement, since U.S. companies are subject to U.S. law worldwide, says Ian (Gus) Hosein, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and a fellow at the organisation Privacy International in the United Kingdom.
"The challenge then arises: did Rackspace break UK law? Where were UK law enforcement officials in all of this?" Hosein said in an interview from his London office.
"And the 64-million-dollar question is: why did all of this 'co-operation' between countries take place when we are still uncertain as to whether any laws were broken in any of these countries?" he asked.
Hosein cites the 2001 Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty as a prime example of "policy laundering," in which national governments use global treaties to force their parliaments to pass what otherwise might be unpopular measures.
All the signatories to the cybercrime treaty -- which include Canada, the United States (which has not ratified the agreement) and European Union (EU) countries -- are obliged to have their legislatures pass lawful access laws that give police increased power to seize records of email messages by people under criminal investigation, as well as force Internet service providers (ISPs) to store transmission data for a period of time.
Canadian officials in the department of Justice in Ottawa have justified passage of the first of two pieces of legislation on lawful access (Bill C-13) because of this country's treaty obligations.
But Hosein suggests this is a "disingenuous" argument, since "Canada helped write the Council of Europe treaty. This is the most annoying thing about this."
Further, he adds, very little debate has occurred on the merits of lawful access outside of the telecom industry -- which is expected to upgrade its equipment to handle increased police interception of Internet communications.
"The countries that have ratified the treaties to date never had a conversation within their own countries about lawful access," says Hosein.
Among the lobbyists for lawful access has been the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP).
"With the increased use of technology by the criminal element, a lot more of our work is being done through technology, whether it be Internet or voice over IP or wireless lines," Superintendent Thomas Grue of the Edmonton Police Service, a CACP spokesperson, told IPS.
But Canada's police have not provided any statistical or anecdotal evidence to demonstrate their investigations require unprecedented legal access to Internet communications, says Jason Young, a Toronto privacy consultant and a member of the board of directors of Privaterra, an organisation that provides technological education and support for human rights organisations.
If the police come knocking on a citizen's door, he or she, under the Canadian Constitution, can seek a court injunction to stop what might be an illegal search. But law enforcement agencies will have an easier time serving an order on a third-party business, like an ISP, to produce the electronic email records of certain people, Young told IPS.
A provider will not "be surgical" in what they give the police, he adds, but "is likely to dump the (citizen's) entire account information or whatever they have onto a DVD."
Indymedia faces the same problem in fighting efforts to shut down its websites, writes Bill Thompson, a columnist for the online UK magazine, 'Open Democracy'. "If Indymedia can be taken offline so easily, then what of our server, Plato, sitting at our ISP data centre?"
Another example of pan-national access to individuals' information can be found at the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a Montreal-based United Nations-affiliated body that governs global aviation and travel documents.
The ICAO is now involved in setting the standards for new "biometric" passports, which electronically store personal characteristics such as fingerprints, used to identify the holder of the document.
Described as a global identification card by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the new passports are being adopted by member countries, including Canada, the United States and EU nations.
In this way, say privacy experts, the Canadian government has gotten around opposition from its own citizens to national identification cards, viewed by western governments in the post 9/11 world as a major tool for tracking potential terrorists.
But the personal information stored electronically on these passports is available in databases that can be shared by authorities in an unknown number of countries, Stephanie Perrin, the principal for Montreal-based Digital Discretion, said in an interview with IPS.
Organisations like the ACLU and Privacy International, which have concerns regarding how this passport data will be used, have failed to get a hearing or response from the ICAO.
"The fundamental problem is that decisions which affect people directly are increasingly being made in international bodies, where public servants, not elected representatives, make decisions on treaties and standards, which will directly implicate the citizens in their countries," says Perrin.
Typically, she adds, these international bodies lack any independent oversight governing their conduct. Also, their records are not accessible and they meet in private. (END/2004)
http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=25880 |
|
|
