An aspect of the whole “Aufhebengate” issue ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/486344.html,  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/10/486740.html) which is really important and extremely dangerous for all came to the fore recently. During a controversy on a thread on Libcom, admin Ed wrote: “avantiultras shares an IP address with dr.faustus whose sole activity is TPTG-related”. This brought to our attention the fact that Libcom “tracks all visits with log files”. For those who are not knowledgeable on the technical details, this means that the IP address of every person who visits Libcom is logged for an indefinite period of time in the logs (and surely for more than one month since our last visit occurred on 13/10/2011). According to Wikipedia, “an Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing. Its role has been characterized as follows: ‘A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how to get there.’” In other words, the emergency services for which their cop collaborator friend works can utilize this address to determine the exact physical location of the residence, the workplace or the social space where the computer which was used by any member of Libcom in order to post an article, to post a comment or just to visit the site resides! This is obviously an extremely dangerous practice. For example, Athens Indymedia stores such logs only for 2 hours in order to protect the people who contribute to or just visit their site. The only reason why they keep such logs for 2 hours is to block spammers, malicious posters and trolls. In the case of UK Indymedia, things get even clearer: “Indymedia has in the past attracted the attention of authorities, that have occasionally tried to request logs of whom is accessing the web site and have in one occasion seized without any explanation our server. We believe in the right to anonymous political speech and therefore we do not keep logs that could provide any such information. Still, we advise indymedia readers that are concerned about the privacy of their reading and posting habits to hide them by using anonymizing services, like Tor or using SSL encrypted connections.” ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/security.html, the emphasis is ours)

The justification given by Libcom about the practice they follow ( http://libcom.org/notes/legal-notes) looks odd and suspicious: “Libcom.org respects our users privacy and will not release any information on users under regular circumstances. We track visits with log files. Libcom.org uses this information only to determine which pages are the most popular and least popular, and to detect any problems with the site. Libcom.org will not pass on any information collected from our users to a third party”. First of all, we really wonder what is meant with the term “regular circumstances”. Is “Aufhebengate” an “irregular circumstance” that would permit the release of information collected from us to their cop consultant friend, John Drury, a member of Aufheben? What are the measures taken by the Libcom group in order to prevent police authorities (and people so closely connected to these authorities like JD) to acquire these really sensitive data? How can they assure that “Libcom.org will not pass any information collected from [their] users to a third party”, when they have been proven to be fervent admirers of cop consultants and they have a “don’t worry, be happy” attitude towards the graded policing guidelines of Drury & Co. (which include use of intelligence, the kettling of ‘trouble-makers’ in demos etc. etc.) ? What will they do if they receive a search warrant?

What looks even more suspicious is the explanation given for the retention of these data: “Libcom.org uses this information only to determine which pages are the most popular and least popular, and to detect any problems with the site”. Anyone who has the slightest technical expertise knows very well that the logging of IP addresses is completely useless for keeping statistics on the popularity of the pages and for the “detection of problems with the site”. Statistics could be easily kept after discarding all relevant identifying information such as the IP address. Further, it’s totally clear for any IT professional that the detection of technical problems with the site has no relation whatsoever with the logging of the IP addresses. The error/debugging messages generated by the software platform (Drupal, SQL, etc.) would completely suffice after the discarding of all identifying (and incriminating) information.

Therefore, we would advise all future users of Libcom to be extra cautious when using this totally irresponsible, to say the least, web site and forum.

TPTG