Why does indymedia continue to mislead us by saying they do not log IP address when the truth is you do on occasion do just that. The important distinction is that indymedia doesn't KEEP that info.

I quote, "We believe in the right to anonymous political speech and therefore we do not KEEP logs that could provide any such information."

It is a simple thing to turn on web logs you fucking idiot, they say they dont log IPs - they don't.

This whole debacle has nothing to do with Judges or publishing this information it has to do with fucking over free media, however much you police trolls posting as "imc user" like to spin it, this is just the police wanted to fuck over IMC's. I'm just surprise in this current police state that the filth needed to wait for an excuse.

Chris

The dutch actually printed the personal information website address address and telephone number of a person and personal info of the daughter of this person who was an activist against the bjz company.
No action can be taken against that.
They refuse to delete this info on websites and youtube.
Yet the police attacks you for mentioning details on a judge.
They do not demand the info to be taken off no they go and take out a server, which has nothing to do with the info on the web itself. Wow talking about different approach to one and the same 'offense'.

They don't - they just charge you under the Serious Crime Act 2007 and then release you a few hours later once your lawyer has told them to "kindly fuck off, please".


"Section 44-46 of the Serious Crime Act, which was passed into law to combat serious international crime like ..."

... publishing nasty-wasty comments about poor ickle wickle judges?


"Kent police claim that they are after the IP address of the poster of two anonymous comments to a report ..."

What did they expect their arrestee to do? Blow on the disks with his magic breath and then pull the information out of his arse like a string of pearls?


"This was acknowledged by British Transport Police in 2005, after the Bristol IMC server seizure."

Ah, but regular Fuzz don't like Transport Fuzz. There's like, a kind of rivalry between them. You wouldn't, in particular, expect them to fucking well co-operate or share information like proper grown-up men would you?


"For the police to arrest the person who happened to sign the contract for server hosting, is sheer intimidation, in light of Indymedia’s openly stated policy of no IP logging."

It doesn't take a genius to work out that either Plod are seriously deficient in the brain department, or that this arrest would never have stuck and is therefore just another stupid attempt at stupid intimidation.


"With the implementation of the EU Data Retention Directive in March 2009, the UK government attempts to turn every internet service provider in the country into part of the law enforcement apparatus."

Yeah, but the British gummint doesn't have a great track record when it comes to implementing EU law, which is why they end up losing in the European Court of Human Rights so much.

"The right of any person who has suffered damage as a result of an unlawful processing operation or of any act incompatible with national provisions adopted pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC to receive compensation, which derives from Article 23 of that Directive, applies also in relation to the unlawful processing of any personal data pursuant to this Directive."

I wonder if there really is a warrant for that disk that was confiscated?

I don't really agree with those points. I did post alternatives but they were censored by IndyMedia because they seem to censor anything that isn't anti-police in this matter. So i can't list them here.
Whats the point of freedom of speech, if IndyMedia can't even respect it.

Our country is becoming more and more like a police state every day.

When the police want you to do something, they don't politely ASK you, they simply rush right in and disrupt things so badly that certain independent media sites are forced to close down due to the loss of several vital servers. Why would they do this?

My theory is to force you to listen to the alternative media channels, like the BBC and other major news channels, and all the bullshit and lies that they churn out daily. After all, it's a valuable thing to control how the masses think.

IndyMedia do value freedom of speech - they don't sugarcoat the facts and they don't distort them either. If they didn't value freedom of speech, what would be the point of them being INDEPENDENT??

Besides the point, I think it should be obvious that, from this server seizure and this man's arrest, the police are growing completely out-of-hand, acting on the whim of politicians who want to control your mind.

The ones who don't value freedom of speech are this country's political 'elite' and their masters, the owners of society, the business classes (everyone has a price, don't they?). They're the ones who are creating all these crackpot offences that are destroying the civil liberties and basic freedoms of the people in this country.

At least that's my point of view.

Feel free to contradict me. After all, in a free society, you can.

I appreciate that this man is a innocent bystander in all of this and probably dose not want the attention but if anyone knows how he is doing could they tell us on here, surely this attack on one man needs to be defended by everyone.

In solidarity
R

> I don't really agree with those points.

What, all of them? Or can't you be bothered to list the points and discuss them properly?


> I did post alternatives

You did.

Your first point, that if the arrestee was released without charge then obviously what he did wasn't illegal is true, but leaves open the question of why it was necessary to arrest him if he wasn't doing anything illegal?

As I understand it the Police are prevented from general 'fishing' expeditions so the answer "he might be" isn't going to cut much ice as an answer either with me or a JP.

As far as I can see the bloke who was arrested has every right to sue Kent and/or South Yorkshire Police for wasting his time (cf. Mark Thomas' wonderful 'You waste my time and I'll waste yours' article in the Grauniad for details).



Your second point that people are arrested all the time in order to obtain evidence is also true - but once again you've failed to explain exactly how _this_ man might have been guilty of re-publishing something already published by the Dutch and thereby been open to prosecution under the Serious Crimes Act 2007.

It should have been perfectly obvious that _this_ man couldn't have helped you out at all as he had nothing whatsoever to do with IndyMedia besides being unfortunate enough that his name caught your eye. In which case you can't have been collecting _evidence_ because it was clear from the outset that there was no case for him to answer. And at this point we're back to the 'timewasting' point again (I really think you should say sorry to this fellow and pay him some money to compensate him for the inconvenience, don't you?).


For what it's worth I think your two points are specious bullshit and my suggestion would be that if you posted fewer comments like that they might stick around for longer.

I doubt you'll listen to my suggestions though - the great British Plod has never been great at listening unless there's a possible conviction to be obtained.



> What's the point of freedom of speech, if IndyMedia can't even respect it.

The point of freedom of _speech_ is to allow you to _say_ whatever you like. IndyMedia don't have to do anything to uphold this because you're not posting speech to the website, but text.

Thanks for clearing up the thing above free speech and openness. I thought you could post anything you like that abided by editorial guidelines. Sorry I misunderstood this.

It is encouraging that you agree with both my points regarding this article. And it is fair enough that these still leave unanswered points. Thats was the beginning of what is called a "discussion" - and is how one is meant to work

But the combination of Indymedia censorship for not following the party line, your intimidation and implying I'm the police, coupled with the statement on not allowing to post things is all pretty counterproductive to what I thought this site was about. I could counter argue your points easily enough, but it is all pretty pointless to continue isn't it.

There is no doubt that any comments that move from the line of indymedia will be hidden, it is a shame there can not be a constructive open debate on the real concerns being raised here.

It has become to be expected, from former Trotsky Members and the Paranoid rump of The Grate Unwashed that is indymedia, Ben has broken rank and spoke the truth some us know for a long while.

In the next few days, there will be a blog set up, to begin the debate and how we can become the media, to be frank enough is enough and asking seems to get us nowhere, but our comments and articles hidden, some good people arrested for there efforts.

There is no desire to sound disparaging towards the good work that has been committed by some people involved with indymedia but we can continue to bang our heads upon the wall at only a dtrament to ourself s

In this 10th year lets look towards reclaiming indymedia, good ideas need action not blatant censorship, state repression needs collective action.

Don't drag my name into your shit stirring campaign, I'm no whistle blower despite the reaction from some. I just said, in passing, what has already been said and documented before. I got kicked out because I didn't follow indymedia rules on transparency when hiding - not because I mentioned the moderators access to the in memory ip log (and before any one starts up again I'll remind you all again that no IP data is ever kept by indymedia).

It makes me sick to see trolls like you use my name to back their twisted agenda. When I was admin I'd have hidden you and all your posts in a blink of an eye. You are blatantly out to sow disinformation and drive a wedge between people with your lies and if I had admin access and the time I'd probably be able to establish an ongoing pattern to your behavior. Indymedia has several regular posters whose role (paid or for kicks) is to post malicious misinformation about individuals and campaigning groups - it seems you may be one of them.

You suggest that some good people have been arrested in relation to posts they have made on indymedia, attempting yet again to suggest that indymedia has somehow provided IP data to the police. This is bullshit and you are just trying to stretch out the initial confusion over who was arrested after the server was taken. The fact remains that the only person the police were able to arrest was the guy whose name was on the contract for that and other servers hosted at the manchester colo and he had nothing to do with indy as like many servers it was used for other things besides indy.

Your post smacks of previous disinfo posts claiming that meetings were taking place to set up a new indymedia (GB). That was all a lie then and much as I'd like to think there were a bunch of people coming together to talk about indymedia I doubt even that much is true. Besides there is no need for a new indymedia (it would just be divisive and harmful) we just need more people involved in the existing collectives. As it stands, many collectives never met, only a handful of people do moderation and there is drastic lack of people with the skills and drive to move the project into the 21st century.

> I thought you could post anything you like that abided by editorial guidelines.

As far as I know you can.

Have you read the Editorial Guidelines?


> It is encouraging that you agree with both my points regarding this article. And it is fair enough that these still leave unanswered points. Thats was the beginning of what is called a "discussion" - and is how one is meant to work

Well I agree with the statements of fact you mentioned, but I disagree entirely about the kinds of conclusions that may be legitimately drawn from those facts. In particular I disagree that the police were collecting evidence rather than just trying it on to see if they could intimidate someone into supplying some information they patently didn't have access to.



> But the combination of Indymedia censorship for not following the party line,

You've received confirmation that that's why your post was removed?



> your intimidation

Could you explain to me, in some detail, please, exactly how I have intimidated you? It might also be useful to compare the conversations and insults flying around here with those on, say, alt.philosophy where the discussions are much more, uh, 'robust'.



> and implying I'm the police,

My mistake - I took the last line of your comment to mean 'stop treating the police like brainless idiots'.



> coupled with the statement on not allowing to post things is all pretty counterproductive to what I thought this site was about.

If I might make a suggestion: If you're going to mention things I've said it makes it easier to follow if you just quote them and then make your comment - that way we can follow the thread of the conversation. At the moment I don't know which of the half-dozen things I wrote you're referring to.



> I could counter argue your points easily enough

OK, well why didn't you do that instead of complaining?



> but it is all pretty pointless to continue isn't it.

I don't think so, but I can't force you to engage in a debate if you don't want to and I wouldn't want to do that even if I could.

Look you dragged yourself into the debate, not anyone else, I know you disagree with my politics and suspect that I have played a part in misinformation, as well you know any one could just post under my name, and was proven to have happened, this was only due to fact info was logged, all right agreed wrong way around I should have used this point out info is logged, but it was more relevant to use the info you stated, and this is not any fucking campaign as you put but one to get The former members of Alliance for Workers Liberty, Ex Socialist Workers Members and the Paranoid Anarchist from being such a influence on Indymedia, where it becomes a truth there are lack of people to help run this project, all one is asking for here is openness is that so hard? will it even happen? lets see and if this is a campaign then so be it, I thought it was just an open honest conversation, I would and have never acted to undermine indymedia the people by there actions do it themselves.

I agree, intimidation tactics, they will soon have broken more laws than indymedia could possibly, since the policies of Indymedia are all above-board and earnest.
So let's stay strong, I don't know what we'd do without Indymedia!

"Why does indymedia continue to mislead us by saying they do not log IP address when the truth is you do on occasion do just that. The important distinction is that indymedia doesn't KEEP that info."

Maybe you don't understand the technical details of how computers communicate:

When two computers talk to each other, they are exchanging a series of short messages to verify they have received information correctly, set up encryption, and so on. So the Indymedia server has to keep the IP address stored in memory at least for that period, otherwise communication would be impossible: it wouldn't know who to respond to in order to verify it has received the data correctly.

An outside observer e.g. Indymedia's ISP would see traffic going between your IP address and Indymedia's, but because it is encrypted, they wouldn't know the contents.

From what I understand, Indymedia keeps the IP address for slightly longer, but only for people posting news or comments, but not for people just looking at the site. This has to be done otherwise we would just see thousands of trolls and spam stories and comments and Indymedia would become useless.

Also, Indymedia only stores this IP address in the short-term memory that gets wiped when the machine is off, not on the hard disk that is used for long-term storage of data. Anyone seizing the server would have to gain access to the machine without switching it off to get any chance of seeing this information.

Because the server is password-protected, they can't log in while it is running, unless they have obtained a password. And because it is also encrypted, they can't turn the machine off and boot from a different disk to see the contents of the Indymedia hard disk. So this system is secure from a technical perspective.

Where there could be a problem is where there is always the weakest link in any security system: the people. All it takes is for one administrator to make a mistake, use a weak password, or have a keylogger installed on their machine, and all the technical security is bypassed.

So your criticism of Indymedia for temporarily logging some IP addresses is a bit of a red herring. It's good that it doesn't log IP address permanently, but it wouldn't really matter if it did. If you are concerned, you should never rely on a single third party like Indymedia for your personal anonymity. Even if their technical security and most of their admins are perfect, it only takes one weak link in the chain (a bad admin) to send the house of cards tumbling down.

Instead, use a service like Tor ( http://torproject.org) to hide your IP address.

Tor works by sending your message through a series of randomly-selected proxies, encrypted at each stage, so it can't be compromised by any single "weak link" in the chain.

The Pirate Bay has insisted that the site will survive, whatever the outcome of the trial. The pirates have set up their servers in different parts of the world, claiming that they do not know exactly where they are.
The authorities have acknowledged that this may be only the start of the battle. Hakan Roswall told Reuters: "Because the infrastructure is scattered among several places around the world... no separate country will be able to stop the site."

Live acquisition can capture the contents of memory - it requires physical access to the machine and a usb or firewire port - did the old bill get access to the machine?

I thought that only Firewire had direct unprotected access to the memory on a running machine? I don't think USB ports are vulnerable.

Also, for the benefit of non-technical people who may not understand the implications of this:

A fully-encrypted machine such as the one Indymedia uses necessarily stores the decryption keys in the "RAM" memory of the machine (the temporary memory that gets wiped when the machine is switched off). If an attacker can get access to the contents of that memory while the machine is running, or in the seconds immediately after it is switched off, they can decrypt the machine.

This can be done (in theory) by opening the case of the machine while it is still running and somehow attaching probes to the memory. Or by yanking the memory out and quickly putting it in another machine before the contents decay to nothing. Or by using a connection such as the Firewire port, which has direct unprotected access to the memory.

I would guess that a server machine doesn't have a Firewire port anyway.

The bottom line is that you can never guarantee 100% security unless the machine is in your physical control 24 hours a day. But as other people have said, the weak link is probably the human element - state infiltrators, so Indymedia's level of security is probably good enough for what it is.

This spy movie stuff about accessing the memory is irrelevant. If the police did obtain the encryption keys by whatever means the server the police seized contains no logs or any other data they might find useful. The server contains just a mirror of the flat html produced by the inymedia publish server which isnt even located in the UK. No logs of any description are on the server they have and never have been but even if there were logs, that information would only relate to peoples read requests and nothing more since publishing is handled by a different server.

Have we got that straight yet?

As g33k said, the only real security concerns are those relating to who has admin access and on a related note, who becomes legally implicated when site users do something inconsiderate.

"This spy movie stuff about accessing the memory is irrelevant"

This isn't spy movie stuff, it has been demonstrated to work in practice, with very low-cost tools:
Hit by a Bus: Physical Access Attacks with Firewire
 http://storm.net.nz/static/files/ab_firewire_rux2k6-final.pdf

"If the police did obtain the encryption keys by whatever means the server the police seized contains no logs or any other data they might find useful. The server contains just a mirror of the flat html produced by the inymedia publish server which isnt even located in the UK. No logs of any description are on the server they have and never have been but even if there were logs, that information would only relate to peoples read requests and nothing more since publishing is handled by a different server."

OK, I understand that, but in that case why bother to encrypt the server at all? What advantage does it give you?

We are going round in circles a bit, but I think the main point is that unless you have physical control of the machine, security is illusory and things like disk encryption just give you a false sense of security.

Perhaps if Indymedia editors actually removed defamatory comments and personal contact details maliciously posted to the newswire, then the police wouldnt need to sieze the servers. A proactive stance in removing material likely to result in an individual judge being visited by undesirables and assaulted would have been good for starters. You reap what you sow. Allowing terrorists to use your website to publish information is going to result in state intervention.

Rausmeir: "Perhaps if Indymedia editors actually removed defamatory comments and personal contact details maliciously posted to the newswire, then the police wouldnt need to sieze the servers."

Maybe you are new to Indymedia, but they have a policy of removing anything that is potentially illegal, including personal details. The post that caused all these problems was removed long before the filth got involved.

Statement from SACC: SACC condemns the arrest as a totally inappropiate use of the criminal law to target and harass political activists. The Serious Crime Act gave the police draconian and vaguely defined powers in a misconceived effort to help them fight serious crime. MPs who voted these powers onto the statute book probably assumed that the police would show some restraint and common sense. They were wrong.


 http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=668&catid=48

The Police have a problem, someone MI5 or GCHQ has tipped them off (this site is obviously monitored) that a Judges details have been posted, and that the post could be construed to have encouraged (incited) harassment or worse against that Judge. The Police have a duty to investigate; this sites moderators knew that the post was inappropriate and took swift action to remove it.

It is understandable that they have arrested the chap who hosts the site, they think he may be an activist possibly responsible for moderation or in possession of information helpful to them. Had the site been hosted by a huge company then they would not have arrested the CEO, but because it is a one man band operation they took a different approach. I don't think that the Kent Police are so stupid that they don't understand his role after all they not only traced him but also the location of the physical server. It is no good telling the police you don't keep IP addresses they are going to do a forensic examination of the server. It may do them no good but will do it never the less.

What I am sure about is that he will be released without charge if his actual involvement is nothing more than renting space.

I have every sympathy for this man, he is in all probability an innocent victim and it does appear to have been a heavy handed approach. At the end of the day what else could the Police do just shrug their shoulders?

This is a response to a post by Jo that was hidden solely for being posted under an article breeching the guidelines. This looks like the most appropriate thread.

"Just how many of you would be prepared to carry the can for Indymedia yourselves? How do you think it was for the poor bastard who's name was given as the contact for the server that was seized - having his home searched and all computers seized? Would any of you offer your own name and address as the Indymedia contact instead if you knew this level of oppression was likely to happen to you ...?" - jo

Actually I think some of the posters here would volunteer to take the rap for something like this in future. I would - I'd rather do that than send IM money for a new server. I offered to 'carry the can' once here in the face of greater threat. I did that mainly because the cause was just and I was happy to argue it in court. It is getting more common. The first arrivals at the last openly anarchist demo I attended were hassled by the police, demanding names and addresses under threat of arrest. I gave them my name and address and told them if any crime was committed then I'd take the rap. The cops have no right to do that but being pragmatic, already known and supporting the demo it seemed the smart thing to do. If you just want someone to get arrested everytime the police raid or gangsters sue you then IM can give them my contact details, I'll be that person. No home address though I am NFA and NRB despite what some people here may think / wish.

For the past seven years I have considered myself not just arrestable, but more arrestable than most since I have no kids, career, wealth, studying or any of those other millstones most folk have. Being broke and prepared to go to prison liberates me from fear of moral legal action. I'm not boasting, there are people who post on IM who are obviously prepared to die in front of injustice, like the activists in Gaza just now.

No one has yet asked whoever posted the offending post(s) to identify themselves to the police. I am afraid it wasn't me or I would. Would it help IM now if the poster did identify themselves?
I didn't repost this judges details in this case but in my posts I have encouraged an atmosphere of freely reposting personal details. I don't anymore as state harrassment has increased. I assume every who is clever enough to act inteligently is able track down an electronic census and telephone directory and so any address or identifiable information reposted rather than linked to could be site sabotage. I realise ignorance of the law is no excuse but I have searched and the only law I can find that reposting published information perhaps breeches is 'information useful to a terrorist' - surely all information is useful to any terrorist. Besides thanks to circumstances I've spouted on about here but won't now I am perfectly happy to be arrested or imprisoned. I can prove from record I'm sincere.

I reposted one article about a 'Russian oligarch' in response to an existing article, my aim was to be informative rather than disruptive and I would've reposted the same thing openly in any media, I can't remember but I probably did. It started to slip into the mainstream news when politicos blogs started getting taken down with legal threats, the original bloggers were pretty brave because the non-legal threats from a Russian oligarch are more intimidatory than anything the police can throw at you. When the lawyers letter was posted here I offered IM that I'd identify myself as a person who posted my article to take the legal heat off IM. Indymedias response wasn't exactly brave but it was sensible, the loss of this place would be a blow to a lot of campaigns. I however have nothing to lose so I phoned up all of his lawyers clients warning them they might not wish to be have the same lawyers as a gangster, which was a bit surreal at times since some of them are famous people. The lawyers ignored me despite having my contact details. Lone nutter, little threat. I was sincere in my offer then to IM to identify the repost I'd written.
(The depressing end result of that furore is nothing changed. A few more people know about the guy now, maybe think twice about the 'super-rich', but the gangster is untroubled. I considered perfoming a citizens arrest on the guy but I'll save that until after I develop super-powers).

Some general advice for newbies and lurkers. An accountable action is where you do something and don't try to get away with it. It blocks up the courts, gives you a chance to make your argument in a court of law, and allows a group or campaign to boast about the numbers of arrests. This is generally encourage this out of short-termism. It costs you in fines, time, and crucially in privacy. The campaign or a newspaper may publish your name, age and hometown. If you have never been arrested and are totally off the state radar then I would recommend you don't start with an accountable action. You are more useful to any intelligent campaign clean. You are much safer reading what the campaigns have to say but not participating in or even visiting them if you can the same or similar on your own or with your existing friends.

An unaccountable action is where you get to keep on doing actions until you are caught, at which point saying 'no comment' is safest. The general theory seems to be that cops are smarter than you at extracting information you may not want to give or realise you are giving, and there is truth in that, many convictions are based solely on confession. That is slightly irrelevant though as I've not seen a court case based on anything approaching reality so better just not to get caught.

I'm trialling accountablity-after-the-fact with my local force. They have my number and email and I've promised if they want to interview me I'll attend straight away, and that if they correctly identified a crime of mine I'd confess and explain my motivation. I'll stick to that if they leave my family alone. I'll be forwarding this post to my local cops post just in case.

I think most working class adults know the phrase 'All cops are bastards' is rhetoric, it is more accurate to say being a cop makes you more likely to be more of a bastard than you would be in a different job. It's like thinking 'all dole officers are bastards' when they just are subject to more lies than most of us so many fail to wonder what is true. You get genuinely well motivated or reasonable people in every walk of life, decent politicians even, and the majority of cops are reasonable but the power and control aspect skew any encounter. A scientist testing a rat considers himself well motivated but if you are the rat then you should doubt if your welfare is their primary concern. The Stanford Experiment though isn't just repeated in police stations, you'll see it in every activist group too though.

My impression is this is motivated not by the publishing of addresses which were removed, because partly thanks to me that has happened before, but because of the comment about the judges dead son. That would have incensed any grieving father to lash out. It was a tasteless and unnecessary comment, and more importantly in what is commonly recognised as a police state it was a stupid, damaging comment. Be nice or be careful. What is obvious is the police & judiciary do have the power to act illegally and unfairly in punishing IM by proxy because who are you going to call?

The police have always went harder for the animal rights folk as terrorists so they should be especially careful when posting anything online. I'm not animal rights and the person who betrayed me had full access to my computer never mind any server so a few words of wisdom I've learned: Your security is solely your own concern.

Does anyone know if retaining IP addresses would constitute the recording of information which could be used to personally identify a user - is covered under the DPA.
If so then such information would automatically not be availble as we would hav had to register the storing of this data with the ICO in London.

Thoughts?