Just to point to a posting about yesterday's server seizure in IMC-Barcelona:
http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/363245/index.php
http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/363245/index.php
Quick translation of the post:
Yesterday Thursday 22nd in the morning an Indymedia UK server was seized by the police in the city of Manchester.
Summing up, this police operation seems to be the result of a comment published the previous night related to a posting about animal rights activists, and which included the personal details of a judge that had just sentenced four SHAC activists to a total of 50 years in prison.
IMC-UK volunteers immediately removed the judge's personal details from the comment in accordance to the current IMC-UK Editorial Guidelines and Security policy. But this didn't prevent the police from turning up at the colo where the server was placed, and seize it.
This is the second time that an IMC-UK server is seized, The first time was in 2004 when, in an obscure operation that has not been fully disclosed yet, the FBI seized one of the servers IMC-UK was using at the time.
For more information about the latest seizure see the IMC-UK feature here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/419838.html
Indymedia UK managed to stay online despite this latest police operation thanks to a system of 'mirrors' that was set up after the first seizure in 2004, but the new Indymedia London website was down for the most part of the day, until late in the evening when it was possible to put it back online.
It may be true that repression will not shut Indymedia up, but it is also true that it seems now necessary to make an appeal to the 'political intelligence' of the Indymedia users. If we believe that Indymedia (in general) is part of the 'movement's' self-mantained and autonomous infrastructure, it is necessary to defend it in the same way as it is necessary to protect the physical free spaces (squatted social centres and other autonomous, grass-roots initiatives) To publish the personal details (name, address, and so on) of a judge will only result in immediate repression, whilst, at the same time, not contributing anything positive to the struggle(s).
Anyway, it is already three servers gone, but IMC-UK stays online!
PD: For more information about the FBI's 2004 server seizure see here:
http://wwww.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2004/fbi/
Feature about the Indymedia Bristol server seizure in 2005 here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315072.html
Yesterday Thursday 22nd in the morning an Indymedia UK server was seized by the police in the city of Manchester.
Summing up, this police operation seems to be the result of a comment published the previous night related to a posting about animal rights activists, and which included the personal details of a judge that had just sentenced four SHAC activists to a total of 50 years in prison.
IMC-UK volunteers immediately removed the judge's personal details from the comment in accordance to the current IMC-UK Editorial Guidelines and Security policy. But this didn't prevent the police from turning up at the colo where the server was placed, and seize it.
This is the second time that an IMC-UK server is seized, The first time was in 2004 when, in an obscure operation that has not been fully disclosed yet, the FBI seized one of the servers IMC-UK was using at the time.
For more information about the latest seizure see the IMC-UK feature here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/419838.html Indymedia UK managed to stay online despite this latest police operation thanks to a system of 'mirrors' that was set up after the first seizure in 2004, but the new Indymedia London website was down for the most part of the day, until late in the evening when it was possible to put it back online.
It may be true that repression will not shut Indymedia up, but it is also true that it seems now necessary to make an appeal to the 'political intelligence' of the Indymedia users. If we believe that Indymedia (in general) is part of the 'movement's' self-mantained and autonomous infrastructure, it is necessary to defend it in the same way as it is necessary to protect the physical free spaces (squatted social centres and other autonomous, grass-roots initiatives) To publish the personal details (name, address, and so on) of a judge will only result in immediate repression, whilst, at the same time, not contributing anything positive to the struggle(s).
Anyway, it is already three servers gone, but IMC-UK stays online!
PD: For more information about the FBI's 2004 server seizure see here:
http://wwww.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2004/fbi/ Feature about the Indymedia Bristol server seizure in 2005 here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315072.html 
