Indymedia computer-server seizures 1

[GwydionM]

Up until now, I was willing to believe the story in Computing that the independent news network Indymedia had had its machines seized because it posted pictures of Swiss undercover police. I'd see that as legitimate police action, though I am sure some of you would disagree.

But now it is being suggested that it was a 'trawl' done on behalf of police in Genoa, regarding a forthcoming case in which police were accused of abusing police powers.

I can see the need for some controls. But it is a dangerous weapon, open to abuse. Such things should not be done without some clear public statement about what the actual reason was. That needs to be established as a fixed and unbreakable rule, espcially since computer seizures are likely to become more widespread and would often be legitimate (spam, spyware, pirate music and films, unacceptable varieties of pornography).

------------------------------
A view from the UK

 

[sleipnir214]

If my understanding of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties is correct, it seems that the seizure was legal, so long as all concerned parties participated as the treaty requires.

As far as public declaration of intent goes, most police authorities worldwide do not comment on ongoing investigations, particularly in the early stages. If a possible perpetrator is at large and capable of listening to or reading from news outlets (and in this age, the first nearly implies the second), then the perpetrator will gain information which would help him cover his tracks.

I agree that controls are necessary. Unfortunately, when you're talking about modifications of local jurisdiction rules by international treaties, things are, by definition, going to be messy.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[GwydionM]

More information now. ([

http://www.securitypipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51200693

]). Doesn't it bother anyone that this can be done to people who are just express their own viewpoint, with no element of crime or serious violence?

Or is a committment to "freedom" just a belief in freedom for people like you, without a care for who else gets stifled?

------------------------------
A view from the UK

 

[CajunCenturion]

GwydionM - What makes you think that you have all the facts? Do you honestly believe that these articles present all of the facts? How do you know that no element of crime or serious violence is not a factor in this action?

Bologna prosecutor Marina Plazzi told the AP that she had requested information about Indymedia-posted material from the United States. She stressed that her request did not seek "the seizure of servers or hard disks." Plazzi is investigating an anarchist group that has made bomb threats against European Commission President Romano Prodi.

Sounds like the potential for crime and/or serious violence to me. I don't know the applicable laws in this case, but it may be that the act of making the threat against the EC President is a crime.

The governments involved did not provide The Associated Press with a clear picture of what was sought or which country initiated the action.

GwydionM Given the worldwide nature of this situation, and the fact that the USA is acting in accordance with its obligations to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, and that "There is no FBI or U.S. investigation into Indymedia", just who do you mean by "people like you"?

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Rhys666]

I think the issue is that even though the prosecutor did not request seizure of the disks, the FBI request to the UK was to seize them, thereby seriously overstepping what was requested. This they did, and then held them for a period of time.

Why did they do that? What did they do with the information on those disks in that time? Who is responsible for overstepping their authority?



Rhys
"A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation..."

""Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Perhaps Rhys666, but based on the article, "There were two different requests from two different countries that are in no way connected, except that both pertain to Indymedia." We are only provided information on one request with respect to the seizure of the disks. Without knowledge of the other request, we cannot really say, one way or the other, whether or not bounds were overstepped.

If the FBI were to take that same action locally, they would be required to obtain a warrant. To me the question is, on the international level, what constitutes a valid warrant, and who has issuing authority?

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GwydionM]

There is a general belief that US intelligence can tap into all sorts electronic media. The enemies of the USA in Iraq avoid them, a matter which has been discussed in mainstream newspaper articles. So it is very unlikely that anyone plotting serious violence would use such means.

CajunCenturion, are you really saying that we should give blind trust to the various Secret Services or police? They they'd not abuse power? That they might not act on a genuine but mistaken belief?

What is most worrying is that Indymedia could have their equipment seized for unstated reasons. No one has ever confirmed the general belief that it was sparked by the posting of pictures of secret police.

They say 'undercover', of course. But if anyone can think of a meaningful difference between 'secret police' and 'undercover police', perhaps they could explain it to me. The only distinction I can find is that you called them 'undercover police' when you figure they're on your side. Myself, I have nothing against secret police going after murderers, drug dealers or paedophiles. But I don't think it right for secret police to be used against disorderly protestors. Nor that it should be treated as a crime when their cover is blown (not unless lives were put at risk, which seems unlikely in this case).


------------------------------
A view from the UK

 

[CajunCenturion]

There is a general belief that US intelligence can tap into all sorts electronic media.

True. But there is a general belief that all intelligence agencies worldwide can tap into all sorts of election media.

I think that my statements about the requirements for warrants, especially on the international level, make it clear that I am against unilateral action without probable cause.

I am not at all saying that we should give blind trust to any agency. What I am saying is that we should have all the facts before we go accusing others, either individuals or agencies, of un-warranted behavior. Otherwise, are we not as guilty as those whom we chastise, and for the very same reasons? Making accusations, characterizations, and judgements before without full knowledge of the situation is exactly what we want to avoid.

In this situation, we have so few facts -- facts inherently biased by the media -- that we know so very little about the situation. I find it extremely difficult to objectively evaluate the situation. I, like you I think, would like to know the whole story. Just as we hope, and to the full extend possible, insist that authoritative agencies be required to show just cause for their actions, we should hold ourselves equally accountable in having sufficient justifications before making our accusations and judgements.

But I don't think it right for secret police to be used against disorderly protestors. Nor that it should be treated as a crime when their cover is blown (not unless lives were put at risk, which seems unlikely in this case).

Did you mean orderly protestors? On what facts do you base your opinion that undercover officers lives have not nor would not be put at risk in this case, especially considering that alledgedly, bomb threats for the purpose of assisination have already been made by the people being investigated?

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GwydionM]

I'm basing my skepticism on the vast numbers of cases where Security Services made false and exagerated claims. You can argue about whether they were honestly mistaken or else intentionally lying, though fictionalised versions often have them lying intentionally, and some case cases have been admitted long afterwards to have been barefaced lies.

As for legality, Hitler was legally elected and it was necessary to invent new legal principles to punish survivng Nazis after World War Two.

------------------------------
A view from the UK

 

[sleipnir214]

GwydionM:
I think when one is basing skepticism on false or exaggerated claims, one should keep in mind that police forces are not just enforcement bodies. They are also investigative bodies.

If they already knew everything, they wouldn't have to impound every computer in a company and pore over them looking for evidence. They'd just impound the one computer they already knew had the prosecution-important data on it, and arrest those three people they already knew they were looking for.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[ChrisHunt]

More information here:

Indymedia server grab - Home Office knew, but isn't telling

It seems to me that, if you have your property seized by legal authorities, you should have the right to know by whom the stuff is being seized and the reason for the seizure. If a (agency unknown) in a (state unknown) can grab anything they like for (reasons unknown), that's a power that's going to be abused - whether or not it has been in this case.

-- Chris Hunt
Webmaster & Tragedian
Extra Connections Ltd

 

[CajunCenturion]

All power is or can be abused. I think you need a system of checks and balances.

Investigative agencies must have the ability to keep what they know confidential; otherwise, they would have virtually no chance of success. If the bad guys could always force the good guys to show their hand, the good guys will never win.

But you are right, when the bad guys are masquerading as good guys, you need to have a way to blow the whistle. A good system of checks and balances must be in place.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GwydionM]

As Chris Hunt says, the alarming thing is that police can act drastically and then not need to explain why. Secrecy before a raid is needed, obviously. But after it?

Without the normal limits, it becomes very easy for a government to crack down on opponents who are inconvenient but not doing anything illegal.

------------------------------
A view from the UK

 

[sleipnir214]

GwydionM:
At any time an investigation is ongoing, the old adage, "Loose lips sink ships" applies.

The cops blab after the initial raid. Then the information they've gathered which might have led to further arrests becomes worthless, as the bad guys have now been warned that the good guys are coming.

The protections you talk about are not full disclosure during the investigation. It's checks and balances like the U.S. requirement of search warrants before a seizure. Search warrants which must be approved by a court.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!