Posted on 10/08/2004 5:15:45 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
Important story BUMP. Mixed blessing.
They all need a good wood shampoo.
bump
Naming RNC delegates
Indymedia has posted the names and addresses of lots of RNC delegates, which in turn has earned it an investigation by the Secret Service. As you might expect, the ACLU has jumped in to defend Indymedia, arguing that "This type of investigation is really a form of intimidation and a message to activists that they will pay a price for speaking out," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal counsel. "The posting of publicly available information about people who are in the news should not trigger an investigation."
Fair enough. However, consider what it is that Indymedia -- at least, some posters there -- hoped to accomplish through this stunt:
There are several lists of Republican National Convention delegates posted on the Indymedia site, including one listing more than 2,000 of them. Included are names, home addresses, e-mail addresses and the New York-area hotels where many are staying.
"The delegates should know not only what people think of the platform they will ratify, but that they are not welcome in New York City," said one posting, first reported Monday by The New York Times.
Apart from the fact that the delegates, like all other persons in this country, have a right to visit New York City, I would think that simply joining the massive protests would be sufficient to express disagreement with the RNC and to let the delegates know that they are "not welcome." What else is to be gained by posting their home addresses and local hotel information? Could it be, oh, "really a form of intimidation and a message to [delegates] that they will pay a price for speaking out"?
I haven't kept up on the First Amendment cases, but this kind of reminds me of how some extreme pro-life groups put up websites with the pictures and home addresses of doctors who perform abortions. My recollection of that case was that the intent to intimidate was much more clear than in this case, so perhaps this can be distinguished on a factual basis. But it seems to me a similar sort of "outing" aimed at scaring the delegates. It may be that the ACLU even sympathized with the pro-life website (I just don't remember), so I'm not suggesting that the ACLU is acting hypocritically. I do think, however, that the intent to intimidate may run in both directions in this case, and in any event, First Amendment rights aside, I personally think this approach of listing people's names and home addresses on websites is a pretty socially wicked thing to do.
Who's A Rat http://www.whosarat.com
This site needs to be downed. It will get an informant and / or an Agent killed. They also list people in the Federal Protection Program!
btt
Followed by a thorough gasoline rinse.....
bump
bttt
http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=30155,Sat Oct 9, 2004
News website Indymedia says FBI seized server
WASHINGTON, Oct 8 (AFP) - A website billed as a grassroots news source for the anti-globalization movement and other issues said Friday one of its Web servers was shut down after the FBI served a subpoena.
The Independent Media Center said the FBI issued an order to hosting company Rackspace "to remove physically one of our servers."
The FBI acknowledged that a subpoena had been issued but said it was at the request of Italian and Swiss authorities.
"It is not an FBI operation," FBI spokesman Joe Parris told AFP.
"Through a legal assistance treaty, the subpoena was on behalf of a third country."
The FBI spokesman said there was no US investigation but that the agency cooperated under the terms of an international treaty on law enforcement.
Rackspace, a US Web hosting company with offices in London, said it complied with a court order "pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering." The company declined to elaborate.
"The order was so short-term that Rackspace had to give away our hard drives in the UK," the Independent Media Center said.
Italian news reports said access to Indymedia had been cut as a result of an FBI operation at US and British locations.
Mauro Bulgarelli, a member of Italy's Green party, called it a "provocation and intimidate effort" against the alternative media.
The website was established by organizations during the 1999 World Trade Organization protests claiming the mainstream media failed to adequately cover the news.
It calls itself "a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate and passionate tellings of the truth."
Indymedia said in a statement it "had been asked last month by the FBI to remove a story about Swiss undercover police from one of the websites hosted at Rackspace."
The statement added, "It is not known, however, whether Thursday's order is related to that incident since the order was issued to Rackspace and not to Indymedia.
According to Rackspace, they 'cannot provide Indymedia with any information regarding the order.'"
I bet George Soros is a major source of funding for Indymedia and the groups that appear on it.
Those charges are specific - I would say they nailed them on two of the three, with kidnapping not being one of them.
We may have some Leftist perp walks coming soon.
Bump again
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is currently assisting Indymedia investigate possible responses to the seizure of their information. Over 20 Indymedia-related websites, along with Indymedia's online radio, were hosted on the servers, which were dedicated machines provided by Rackspace.
"This seizure has grave implications for free speech and privacy. The Constitution does not permit the government to unilaterally cut off the speech of an independent media outlet, especially without providing a reason or even allowing Indymedia the information necessary to contest the seizure," said EFF staff attorney Kurt Opsahl.
Rackspace contends that a court order prevent then from providing a copy of the subpoena, confirming which court issued the order, or the government agency who served the subpoena.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation continues to take on cases that set important precedents for the treatment of rights in cyberspace. In our second big case, Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, the United States government prohibited a University of California mathematics Ph.D. student from publishing on the Internet an encryption computer program he had created. Years before, the government had placed encryption, a method for scrambling messages so they can only be understood by their intended recipients, on the United States Munitions List, alongside bombs and flamethrowers, as a weapon to be regulated for national security purposes. Companies and individuals exporting items on the munitions list, including software with encryption capabilities, had to obtain prior State Department approval.Encryption export restrictions crippled American businesses and damaged the free speech rights of individuals. Critical for ecommerce, companies use encryption to safeguard sensitive information, such as credit card numbers, which they send or receive over electronic networks. Companies also secure access to software programs and provide system security using encryption. By limiting the export of encryption, technologies and methods, the U.S. government drove development of security software overseas, where American companies were unable to compete.
The State Department was unsympathetic to Bernstein's situation and told Bernstein he would need a license to be an arms dealer before he could simply post the text of his encryption program on the Internet. They also told him that they would deny him an export license if he actually applied for one, because his technology was too secure.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation pulled together a top-notch legal team and sued the United States government on behalf of Dan Bernstein. The court ruled, for the first time ever, that written software code is speech protected by the First Amendment. The court further ruled that the export control laws on encryption violated Bernstein's First Amendment rights by prohibiting his constitutionally protected speech. As a result, the government changed its export regulations. Now everyone has the right to "export" encryption software -- by publishing it on the Internet -- without prior permission from the U.S. government. Once again, the Electronic Frontier Foundation led the charge to establish important cyberspace rights.
Like most things (I, especially, know!) some good -- some bad.
So, Italy requested the server?
If so, I understand why the EFF is involved.
It looks like whatever is found, they are going to defend it as "free speech", right?
But if this is under Italian jurisdiction, that won't fly.
They pulled it for a reason - what is found during the investigation could involve additional charges against others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.