Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Seeks 2 Days Of IndyMedia Traffic Log

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the thinking-of-the-children dept.

Censorship 270

john_locke writes: "'On the evening of Saturday, April 21, a day which saw tens of thousands demonstrate against the FTAA in the streets of Quebec City, the Independent Media Center in Seattle was served with a sealed court order by two FBI agents and an agent of the US Secret Service.' indymedia.org is a news center where anyone can be journalist, and a lot of leftist discussions about anti-globalization, etc, take place. The Agents were serving a court order demanding the IP addresses of visitors of the site, and indymedia.org was given a gag order forbidding them to talk about this." John points to the informative release at IndyMedia's front page as well, which serves to dispel some rumors. Note that contrary to early reports, there was not an FBI "raid" on the center. (Now: Where have you connected in the last 30 days, by what means? Was it from a static IP? What other sites did you visit? How long were you connected? This is a quiz, test to follow.)

cancel ×

270 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Policing the 'net (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259376)

If they had just asked for the log information for the exact times of the posts with the stolen documents, it would have made some sense. What they wanted was the information for everyone posting for two days. They appear to have been out for much more than just the two posts they wanted to remove. BTW: The Internet has existed for a longtime before anyone attempted to regulate it. I did not get a sense of anarchy. I think the human race can do just fine without the government intruding upon it. Why is it so many people are looking for someone to tell them what to do?

asshole (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259377)


taking advantage of the mod point screwup and building links that mod up your comments...

DO NOT CLICK ON THAT LINK (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259378)

...especially if you've got moderator points. Watch your links ... especially those that end with "&op=moderate" within slashdot.

Re:Policing the 'net (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259390)

I disagree vehemently. Assuming there was some sort of illegal information on a website, handing over the ip addresses of everyone who uses this site as a news source to the FBI is not a solution. It not only does not make sense, but it is at best a scare tactic not fitting of our great nation, one which contradicts both the wording and the spirit of our laws.

You imply that reading your news online is somehow an abuse of our rights to free speech. This is ridiculous and inflamatory. There is a reason Freedom of Speech is held sacred in this country. And lest we forget, it is first and foremost freedom of pollitical speech that is protected by the United States Constitution.

Re:USENET (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259391)

Actually any news feed can track if you've read it, however you're right, from the poster's point of view, they have no way of knowing.

Just wanted to make sure you all realized this--if they're going after you, they can still see what you're downloading.

Re:mv log /dev/null (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259392)

Even 'rm'ing the files leaves most of the information on the hard disk. You want to use shred [die.net] .

Re:You have it wrong. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259393)

This slashdot post [slashdot.org] (from further down the page) seems very relevent. Good luck in the fight.

Re:mv log /dev/null (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259397)

Your going to have trouble moving the logs to /dev/null, if you want to pretend to know what your doing you might think about 'rm'.

Re:Policing the 'net (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259398)

There is no reason either should have to happen.

Please re-read the third paragraph of my post; all i was attempting to say in the first place is that you do not have to request removal of information in order for it to be censorship.

Asking for the posting IP address of the person who broke into the police car would have been relatively reasonable, although i would NOT say it would be sufficient to gain a conviction, since said posting IP address would be incredibly easy for a malicious party-- you know, the kind of person who would break into a police car-- to fake. However, as the government subpoena type thing was FAR, FAR overbroad, it is capable of having the effect of threatening people away from reading or participating in the indymedia site. This is, under the whole chilling effect on free speech doctrine thing, a violation of constitutional rights.

Had the government asked indymedia for the IP address of the poster of the illegal obtained documents and no more, i doubt there would have been much outcry on the part of the rabid slashdotters. Had the government done things that way and allowed indymedia to divulge the details of the court order under which they handed the log over, i doubt there would have been any outcry.

Re:Policing the 'net (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259399)

I visited the site multiple times during that time period to get updates on the breaking news in Canada. No ohter sources were covering it from the protesters point of view. And, yes, now I feel intimidated. This is BS. The FBI nor SS have no rights to those logs. I don't care what was posted on that or any other website.

Re:You have it wrong. (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259400)

It occurs to me that the FBI or any other U.S. government agency does not have the authority to investigate people inside the U.S. based on a crime which took place outside the U.S. They lack jurisdiction.

Re:USENET (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259401)

Want my e-mail address, street address, or phone number? It's on public record in numerous places, including my ICQ profile

Spoken like someone never persecuted for their beliefs

Slashdot readers disappoint again. (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259402)

After reading the comments for this topic for a few hours, I am quite disappointed in the politically correct spinelessness of the general Slashdot populace.

I thought you guys were individualists, thinkers, people who went against the grain and found a better way to do things. It turns out that many of these commenters have so little long-term thinking ability that they probably couldn't foresee the output of "hello world".

The people who visited Indymedia didn't commit a crime, there is no probable cause that they would commit a crime, and there is no justification for the mass log request. If they're looking for one Unabomber, then demand the IP for the one visitor. But everybody who visited the site are not all guilty of anything but independent thinking. But, under this wonderful Bush administration, that is fast becoming a crime.

If this sort of thing (which is getting more commonplace) doesn't frighten the hell out of you, you are morons.

You voted for Bush because you thought he'd help your mutual funds. That is truly shallow and pathetic. How short-sighted. I am ashamed of the selfishness, shallowness, and callousness displayed by the so-called intellectual 'elite' on Slashdot today. I bet RMS doesn't even bother reading Slashdot.

You probably aren't even industrious enough to use Linux. You're probably sucking on Bill's teat with your Win2000 boxes, praising how easy the online registration is.

Toe the line, cowards, code those NSA backdoors in, do what the government tells you, because you're worthless little dogs fighting for a scrap from the master's table.

Good fucking riddance.

1984 (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259403)

So pretty much we are already living in the novel 1984, where you are not allowed to discuss ideas that conflict with official government(Or more like secret society's) agenda's.

SAFEWEB.COM IS PARTIALLY OWNED BY THE CIA (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259404)

Safeweb.com is funded and partially owned by the Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital company Incutel, to the tune of $1 million. Put two and two together. The government combines secretly acquired information from multiple fronts to create comprehensive profiles of the online patterns of American citizens. Try SilentSurf.com for a non-CIA owned alternative.

Re:Logs for good and evil (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259405)

Slashdot and other legitimate news sites...

Since when was Slashdot anything other than an overglorified webboard? The only original content here is "We had to delete some AC's post", "We refused to delete some AC's post when Microsoft asked us to", and "We are all whiny bitches who, decades later, haven't gotten over the fact that we simply weren't cool in high school"

Re:Policing the 'net (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259407)

Wow, is that a markov chain? I mean, it's obvious it's a troll-- i don't think i've ever seen so many wave-a-red-flag-at-the-slashdot-bull hit-a-sensitive-spot-and-cause-a-flamewar keywords in one post-- but i have to raise the question of whether there was a human involved in the writing of this at all. I mean, seeing as it was written so quick and all.


In the tiny tiny chance that you actually mean what you are saying, and aren't just trying to get a bunch of posts pissed off at your usage of the words "illegal content", let me clear a few things for you: No one is saying indymedia did the wrong thing. NOBODY is going to fault you for anything you do when faced with a court order telling you to do something. The issue to be raised is whether the government had the right to order them to do what they did. This is to be asked in context of first amendment issues, the legality of a gag order of what they did, and (as they say) "It is not clear whether federal law allows the Attorney General ever to approve such an investigation of US press entities to facilitate a foreign investigation", or whether they had any particular thing they were investigating.. I would also raise some fifth amendment issues, but we all know the fifth amendment is dead.


What the government did to indymedia-- demanding the logs-- was censorship, not some "better alternative", even if that made sense. Read the damn release, they explain it better than i do. Ever hear of the "chilling effect" clause? I.e. (at least according to the supreme courts of the last 40 years or so) a law does not actively have to "censor" in a direct way. If it can indirectly scare you into not saying something in the first place, that is constitutionally as bad as if you had said it and the government had arrested you. If it places a "prior restraint" against your speech-- you want to participate in the spreading of expression, but you have the fear that if you do so it will open you up to government scrutiny and perhaps harrassment (for example, let's say there's an online newspaper that the government seems to have an interest in coming in and attempting to track everyone who posts or reads anything there)-- then that is a violation of your constitutional rights. This is not a wild-eyed FSF "things ought to be this way" type rant. This is a simple statement of the way the law works, or worked in the past, and the proper working of the most simple and precious of american values. (I must say though, i've no idea waht would happen if this went to court. The current supreme court seems a bit unpredictable, to be honest.)


Your next to last paragraph is literal nonsense, and shame on anyone who responds to it in any way.

The Gag order (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259408)

THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the Application of the United States of America, which Application requests that an Order be issued:


(1) directing that INDEPENDENT MEDIA, and any other provider of electronic communications service and their agents and employees, not disclose to the user of said electronic communication service, nor to any other person, the existence of this Application and Order or the existence of this investigation unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court;

[other sections omitted...]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5(b), that INDEPENDENT MEDIA, and their agents and employees, shall not disclose to the user of electronic communication service, nor to any other person, the existence of this Application or Order, or the existence of this investigation, unless and until otherwise ordered by the Court; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1651 that this Order and the Application be sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court.

DATED this 24 day of April 2001.

STEPHEN C SCHROEDER
Assistant United States Attorney
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Seafirst Fifth Avenue Plaza Building
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 553-7970

ATTACHMENT A

All user connection logs for 216.213.32.98 for the time period beginning April 20, 2001, to the date of this Order for any connections to or from that IP address.

User connection logs should contain the following:
1. Connection time and date;
2. Disconnect time and date;
3. Method of connection to system (e.g., SLIP, PPP, Shell);
4. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);
5. Connection information for other systems to which user connected via , including:
a. Connection destination;
b. Connection time and date;
c. Disconnect time and date;
d. Method of connection to/from system (e.g., telnet, ftp, http);
e. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);

Please Note that the name, professional address, and phone number of United states attorney is given in the court order as given on the site.

I am sure that sending your opinion on a post card would be useful.

This is ridiculous. (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259409)

"The order stated that this was part of an "ongoing criminal investigation" into acts that could constitute violations of Canadian law, specifically theft and mischief." I'm sorry, "theft and mischief?" We are to believe that the _Secret Service_, along with the FBI, are simply upset because people connected with the IMC have been in some way "mischevious?" Frat boys are michevious. This is COINTELPRO. For example, the SS has stated that "the IMC itself was not suspected of criminal activity.", as Indymedia is not the threat itself; it is the vehicle for the threat. It enables the successful organization of events such as the Seattle WTO potests, the DC IMF/WB protests, and most recently, the Quebec FTAA protests. These events are subversive; and we would be foolish to think that (now armed with Carnivore), the FBI and SS are not actively engaged in counterintelligence. The agencies claim that the actions agains the IMC were in response to posts on IMC about stolen documents containing Bush's travel plans. However the posts they refer to only contain "documents detailing police strategies for hindering protesters' mass action". The beuracracy is clamping down here; we need people to be vocal about this and not let this kind of shit slide.

Re:Policing the 'net (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#259410)

Secondly, What the government did to IndyMedia WAS NOT censorship. The FBI did not request that ANYTHING be removed from IndyMedia's website. They were looking for information on an individual who allegedly stole sensitive documents from a police cruiser, and posted their text to the site

Two options exist that the FBI did not excercise: issue a more specific warrant or issue a warrant stating that all logs must be kept in escrow until a more specific warrant can be issued. Instead the FBI and Secret Service have decided to undertake activities that will result in hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens wondering if they will be subject to harasment and illegal search and seizure as a result perfectly legal activites.

What where the documents stolen from the police car? Evidence of unjust behavior by the authorities? The authorities engage in activities to limit the expression of the public against the behavior government, someone get evidence of the unjustified nature of thos activities, and then the FBI issues a warrant to find the identities of people speaking out against the government in the name of finding the person who initial stole evidence of bad activities.

The issuance of this warrant under these circumstances creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty amoung law-abiding citizens how have expressed displeasure at the behavior of their governments. The fear is the fear of harassment and illegal search and seizure. The uncertainty is the not knowing what activities, legal or otherwise, might result in the feared punishment, and the not knowing who will be randomly selected for this punishiment.

This is an old secret police tactic. Make everyone think your watching them all the time. Make everyone think they could be arrested for doing nothing but disagreeing with the authorities. It's the terrorism of authority.

Re:Don't let you paranoia... (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 13 years ago | (#259415)

Bah.

The only way to assult a position is to be heavily armed and strike with overwhelming force.

The BATF didn't do those things at Waco and look what happened to them...dead agents and a standoff that made martyrs out of very heavily armed nutjobs with a penchant for pedophilia and the Bible.

Ruby Ridge was also a bad case, but look what happened with the fools in Montana...Heavily armed FBI in huge numbers surround them and there is a peaceful resolution.

People here sometimes get it in thier head that FBI=BoogieMan . It's not true, they are just doing thier job in this case. If I had a website linked with the Seattle WTO riots and now the FTAA riots, I'd be expecting the FBI or Secret Service (don't call them the SS...that's just rude). If your site was involved with something like this and you didn't expect the FBI to send you a court order...you're an idiot.

Well, lets not make this easy for the FBI (4)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 13 years ago | (#259422)


Everybody go visit indymedia.org as often and as many times, IP's etc as you can.

Anarchists are mostly peaceful (2)

Ben Hutchings (4651) | more than 13 years ago | (#259423)

It is also confusing that indymedia is just as much populated by anarchists as it is by the nonviolent "peaceful" protestors.

There are troublemakers who call themselves anarchists, but they're still just troublemakers. See The Anarchist FAQ [infoshop.org] if you want to know what peaceful anarchists mean by the word. Personally I don't buy into the philosophy but I recognise that anarchists have been misrepresented.

CNN (2)

winterstorm (13189) | more than 13 years ago | (#259429)

Indymedia is an excellent example of what groupthink is. Mostly unsubstantiated, poorly written crap that is so badly biased that it is impossible to take anything seriousl

That sounds just like a description of CNN.

Re:Well, lets not make this easy for the FBI (4)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 13 years ago | (#259430)

What a brilliant plan. I can envision the conversation in the FBI office as something like:

"Sir, I ran the search, and there's over ten thousand posts talking about killing the President, all from different people!"

"Well, how many were posted before we served the court order."

"Umm... two."

"Good then, print them out for me."

Re:Proxy servers? No log files? (4)

Sancho (17056) | more than 13 years ago | (#259440)

Because if you run a gateway of any sort (in the US) and you don't log, you're held liable for the actions of anyone using the gateway. That means, in the eyes of the government, if someone threatents the president from your anonymizer, and you don't keep logs, it's just as though *you* threatened the president from your own machine.

Re:Policing the 'net (2)

crush (19364) | more than 13 years ago | (#259442)

I'm assuming that your post is sincere and not a troll, so :

Anarchy, while appealing to many anti-establishment open-source types is not very practical for a community as large as the Internet has become

What exactly is it that you mean by anarchy? Do you mean the populist politically slanted meaning of complete disorder and chaos or do you mean the more historically accurate and precise meaning of a voluntary association of individuals agreeing to work together by rules that maximize their personal freedom?

Why would you assume that there is need for the FBI to have access to the identity of individuals engaged in political discussion in order to protect you from being hax0red?

we need to have some sort of legal barrier to protect 'us' from 'them',

Agreed, except that I think that you and I disagree about the identities of "us" and "them". To me "them" is the FBI/police/CIA/politicians/businesses and "us" is the people.

As regards the net "degenerating" into a cesspool of pr0n, I think that's subjective. My main worry is that it degenarates into a cesspool of business-oriented, low-brow, consumerist boredom in which interesting information is hidden in a layer of spam-dross

Re:Policing the 'net (3)

crush (19364) | more than 13 years ago | (#259444)

Good morning citizen, this is FBI Agent S.Upress. I'm responding to the following information from the website "Slashdot".

Hey everyone, I just done stolen sum docyuments from a poleez cruzer. They is very important detailz bout the prezidument's secret skedule.
Signed - A dangerous anarchist rioter

In the light of this information I'd like to have complete access to anything YOU ever said or did, especially information about you're political opinions. Naturally as you have nothing to hide you'll co-operate.

Re:Don't let you paranoia... (5)

crush (19364) | more than 13 years ago | (#259445)

Moderate me down only because I've overstepped the moderation guidelines, not because you personally happen to disagree with my--admittedly unpopular--viewpoint.

Unfortunately your holding of this opinion doesn't make you part of a minority. Censorship can be achieved through the crude, obvious methods of banning publication of particular material, or it can be achieved through harrassing those that express opinions that are deemed undesirable. I don't believe that the FBI thought that they were going to be succesful. They're just trying to intimidate. You are playing along with them. Same as all the other complacent folk that don't know what democracy looks like.

Re:The Gag order (5)

KFury (19522) | more than 13 years ago | (#259447)

That's odd. It doesn't look like they're going after server logs at all. It looks like they're trying to get all connection data for a dialup gateway server. They never ask for basic info like pages visited or referrer links, but they do ask for things like connection method (SLIP, PPP, Shell), disconnect time, the remote IPs and methods (telnet, ftp, http) to which the user connected, and so forth.

Again, this doesn't look like they're going after server logs at all, but rather they're trying to track people who used the IP in question (216.213.32.98) as a dialup connection point.

This seems to be a completely different story.

Kevin Fox
--

Re:Colocation with me (3)

bradfitz (23252) | more than 13 years ago | (#259452)

Whoops.

Guess I get into the habit of typing RAID. That's like how I can't type the word "serve" without typing "server" first and then deleting the "r".

Colocation with me (4)

bradfitz (23252) | more than 13 years ago | (#259453)

Heheh ---- their box is colocated in the same room as a bunch of mine. If the FBI does RAID it, I hope they don't knock any of my servers around.

The indy machine looks neat... it's all black and locked up with a sticker on the front that says, "Resist Corporate Greed".

Sorry, this is hardly relevant.

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (1)

Wah (30840) | more than 13 years ago | (#259455)

the cost of prescription drugs and drug advertising. A few hypocondriacs out there are going to spend about 20% of the total tax money spent on drugs because their TV told them they might have a disease. A very rare disease that few people have, however, their doctors won't fight them and will sign the prescription. So now your insurance is paying a premium for an unneeded but stunningly marketed drug. Simple answer, you shouldn't promote hard-core drugs on TV. But would you get that from an industry that was paid over $2B (US) by these drug companies that have seen 100% growth in demand for the drugs they can now advertise on TV. (cover story [motherjones.com] ) Anyway, you asked for an example, and this is kinda-on topic...so there.
--

Bullshit! (1)

??? (35971) | more than 13 years ago | (#259467)

Why should the IMC be required to turn over _all_ of the logs for _all_ accesses to the site, when:

- There are only 2 posts alleged to contain illegally obtained material
- The two law enforcement agencies were unable to provide URLs for these posts
- The two law enforcement agencies were unable to provide a clear description of the allegedly illegal posts
- What was given in terms of a description of the allegedly illegal posts matched none of the actual posts (notable the GWB itinerary)

Indymedia did act correctly in not releasing an overbroad collection of logs which would relate only very tenuously to two allegedly illegal posts which the law enforcement agencies were unable to demonstrate the presence of.

Constitutional? (1)

bokane (36382) | more than 13 years ago | (#259468)

This is amazing; the FBI seems to be trying to correlate internet news activity with criminal actions. Besides being illogical, it's got to be unconstitutional -- especially the part of the order where they ordered the IMC not to divulge the existence of the order. That's prior restraint, and it's a big no-no.

Besides that, what did the FBI seriously hope to gain from this? Is it just scare tactics, or are they honestly going to track down users by IPs?

Re:Proxy servers? No log files? (1)

bokane (36382) | more than 13 years ago | (#259469)

Because Indymedia is likely to get DOS'd, attacked, and abused by various users. Presumably, they'd like to be able to keep track of that sort of thing.

Re:Policing the 'net (1)

bokane (36382) | more than 13 years ago | (#259470)

However, the order not to tell readers about the FBI's court order WAS censorship. It was a writ of prior restraint.

Re:Well, lets not make this easy for the FBI (3)

bokane (36382) | more than 13 years ago | (#259471)

Wow. What a wonderful way to ensure that the FBI keeps monitoring traffic to the site. Not to mention the likelyhood that you'll put the IMC in a difficult position, and posibly force them to delete posts. Bravo.

Proxy servers? No log files? (5)

Sylvestre (45097) | more than 13 years ago | (#259473)

I run a couple proxy servers around the net and they all log to /dev/null. Don't track a thing. All of my web servers are the same for hit counting... after a half hour, the IPs are all gone. Why can't people who are going to taunt the FBI learn something and just NOT LOG A DAMN THING?

Logs for good and evil (5)

anticypher (48312) | more than 13 years ago | (#259475)

From the court order:

All user connection logs for 216.213.32.98 for the time period beginning April 20, 2001, to the date of this Order for any connections to or from that IP address.
User connection logs should contain the following:
1. Connection time and date;
2. Disconnect time and date;
3. Method of connection to system (e.g., SLIP, PPP, Shell);
4. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);
5. Connection information for other systems to which user connected via , including:
a. Connection destination;
b. Connection time and date;
c. Disconnect time and date;
d. Method of connection to/from system (e.g., telnet, ftp, http);
e. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);


If you are running a site with controversial material, the logs will always be of interest by people who wish to do evil. Whether crackers or rogue FBI agents, your logs will always be a weapon in the wrong hands. Because of this fact, any controversial site should have a clearly stated policy of destroying logs on a regular basis. By stating this policy in advance and clearly posting it, it leaves little room for a legal charge of destroying evidence if and when the law shows up. What happens to IndyMedia when they hand over the logs the FBI discover most of that information is not logged? Will they face additional criminal charges, even if apache just doesn't log things like connection method?

On the down side, by regularly destroying logs, or never logging sensitive info to begin with, it makes it difficult to counter cracking/defacement/troll attempts, but that might be the price a controversial site like IndyMedia has to pay to protect the value of free speech.

Slashdot and other legitimate news sites will always hand over logs whenever the slightest demand is made. But if slashdot truely wanted to protect its posters, it would destroy the connection information on a regular basis, to thwart law enforcement or civil persecution. But since the acquisition by bendover, /. is just another commercially run site, and Rob and company no longer care about anything other than page impressions and banner revenues. Implementing policies to protect slashdot posters was possible when the site was Taco's and Hemos' pet, but now its just another business.

the AC

Re:mv log /dev/null (1)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#259478)

Your going to have trouble moving the logs to /dev/null, if you want to pretend to know what your doing you might think about 'rm'.

Yeah, haha. I know it won't work. Read it as "move logging to /dev/null".



- - - - -

Re:Don't let you paranoia... (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#259479)

The only reason that paranoid Slashdotters fear the FBI so much is because they themselves are less knowledgeable and organized.

... Plus, the FBI, etc. is heaviliy armed and tends to use overwhelming force to achieve its goals when attacking, and have no visible accountability. Or are those not real reasons?

- - - - -

Re:Don't let you paranoia... (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#259480)

People here sometimes get it in thier head that FBI=BoogieMan

How do you think that happened?

- - - - -

mv log /dev/null (3)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#259481)

So, right after running the log analysis -- hourly! -- wipe the logs. And in your stats reports, leave out the "most common visitor" kind of stats.

- - - - -

Re:what about random mouse clicks? (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 13 years ago | (#259487)

There is nobody out to get you. There is no "THEM". There is nobody trying to frame you for accidentally clicking on obscene porn links.

Get a life, people. This isn't the X Files.

Re:USENET (2)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 13 years ago | (#259488)

Usenet is not supposed to be anonymous, and I find attempts to make it anonymous really annoying. Every time you falsely modify your Usenet headers, you're breaking several RFCs.

Why not just start using illegal TCP packets, modify your IRC client to send false info, and, in general, make life hell for everyone else on the internet?

People who want to be anonymous that bad make me wonder what they're hiding, and also annoy the hell out of me, because of all the RFCs they disdainfully break.

Want my e-mail address, street address, or phone number? It's on public record in numerous places, including my ICQ profile.

Re:Don't let you paranoia... (3)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 13 years ago | (#259491)

How can I possibly be intimidated by the CIA or FBI if I think they are basically a bunch of clueless government workers with a remarkably small percentage of incredibly talented people?

I'm not falling into anyone's trap, becoming intimidated by anyone, etc. Pushing your paranoid theories on the populace only creates unnecessary panic. Who's doing more harm? Me or you?

I'm nowhere near complacent. If the government was keeping detailed records on me, they'd probably have some idea that I'm more of an anarchist than a complacent, lazy citizen.

Watch the movie Cube. It's quite good, and it might open your paranoid eyes.

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (2)

arty3 (64523) | more than 13 years ago | (#259493)

Their bias is in mostly not what they cover but in what they are unwilling to cover.

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (5)

arty3 (64523) | more than 13 years ago | (#259494)

You have to realize of course that I could simply substitute Indymedia for CNN, NBC, ABC, or FOX News into your post, and it would make just as much sense.

Look at all the stuff they wanted! (4)

dougmc (70836) | more than 13 years ago | (#259496)

User connection logs should contain the following:

1. Connection time and date;
2. Disconnect time and date;
3. Method of connection to system (e.g., SLIP, PPP, Shell);
4. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);
5. Connection information for other systems to which user connected via , including:
a. Connection destination;
b. Connection time and date;
c. Disconnect time and date;
d. Method of connection to/from system (e.g.,
telnet, ftp, http);
e. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);

I don't know about your web server, but mine certainly don't log all that stuff. It especially doesn't log other web site visits other than my own (Some info like that might leak into the Referrer: header, though.)

A Little Bit of Overreaction... (3)

Trekologer (86619) | more than 13 years ago | (#259499)

At first when I read the headline and blurb, I thought "Oh no! The bastards!" but then after reading up on the issue, came to another conclusion. Aparently, President Bush's itinary is claimed to have been posted to the web site. Obviously, if it is genuine, this is a very serious security breach of the Secret Service, whose job is, among other things, the protection of the President. They're trying to track the leak to the leaker to prevent it from happening again. Althouhg most of us probablly don't think too highly of George "What industry am I NOT in bed with" W. Bush, he still is the President of the United States and needs to be protected. So, at the risk of being labeled a troll, I've got to side with the G-men on this one.

IndyMedia .... is it media? (3)

FalconRed (91401) | more than 13 years ago | (#259501)

I don't know if the court will buy IM's argument that it's reporters are the same as TV or news reporters and that they deserve the same protection. The organization itself conducts itself in a fairly organized manner. But they let ANYONE be a reporter. You can literally walk in off the street and become "press", with a badge and everything. Or if you've taken some cool picture, you go to the IM center and turn it in, become press instantly (although I doubt retroactively to the moment you took the photo). IM also state that it's ok with them for their reporters to engage in protest activities; this is a big journalistic no-no. I think this is IM's biggest challenge that they will face in court: do their reporters deserve the freedom of press shield?

Re:You have it wrong. (5)

sunbird (96442) | more than 13 years ago | (#259506)

I am one of a team of people coordinating the legal response to this. The Seattle IMC has not turned over any logs and plans to fight in court for our right not to turn over even 1 log entry. And while we haven't found any posts with the President's travel info, we did find two posts with classified info, see here [indymedia.org] and here [indymedia.org] . These were the posts the agents were referring to. Their reference to the president's travel information was just plain wrong -- we have looked carefully on all IMC sites and have failed to find any such post. The agents were either lying (likely) or very stupid (also a possibility).

Legal response (5)

sunbird (96442) | more than 13 years ago | (#259507)

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Yes, the Privacy Protection Act applies and we plan to rely on it. However, there are cross-border bilateral treaties which gives US law enforcement the authority to investigate a certain subset of Canadian crimes.

The alleged crimes here are theft and mischief. Mischief is not one of the listed crimes, so there is no jurisdiction for it. However, it is unclear whether theft is or is not. We are currently looking into the scope of the treaty. We have also asked the US attorney to clarify the basis of his jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, he has not responded.

We did have a press conference on Friday, you can listen to the statement, plus some good q&a with our attorney, Dave Burman. The whole thing is right here [loudeye.com] .

Re:The Motion to Vacate the Gag Order (5)

sunbird (96442) | more than 13 years ago | (#259508)

APR 27 2001

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

N0. GS 01-184
ORDER VACATING ORDER OF NONDISCLOSURE

In the matter of the application of the United States of America for an order authorizing the disclosure of records and other information pertaining to electronic communication service provided by Indymedia

This court having considered the motion by Independent Media Center to vacate that portion of its order in this case entered on April 21, 2001, which forbids independent Media Center, and its agents and employees, to disclose to any person the existence of the order, or of the application for that order, or of the existence of the investigation which prompted that application.

It is hereby ordered that the portion of the order in this case entered on April 21, 2001, which forbids Independent Media Center, and its agents and employees, to disclose to any person the existence of the order, or of the application for that order, or of the existence of the investigation which prompted that application, is vacated.

Dated this 26 day of April, 2001.
Monica Benton
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Reading the body of the order.. (3)

_Mustang (96904) | more than 13 years ago | (#259510)

points to this being a cooperative effort between the US and Canada, with the FBI coordinating the US aspect.
From the order:
"IT APPEARING that there is an ongoing criminal investigation into acts which would constitute violations of Sections 322 (theft) and 430 (mischief) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and that one or more of the subjects of said investigation are unknown,..."
The interesting part, appealing heavily to those conspiracy-theory types is the fact that there has been little or no media on the subject (Quebec City/ conference of the Americas) since last week. And potentially disturbing is the total lack of ANY media reports concerning this specific incident with the court order.

Re:Policing the 'net (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#259513)

Freedon of Speech does not give you freedom to remain anonymous.

In Talley v California (1960), three of the justices said "I stand second to none in supporting Talley's right of free speech -- but not his freedom of anonymity. The Constitution says nothing about freedom of anonymous speech. "


--

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (1)

MrGrendel (119863) | more than 13 years ago | (#259518)

Mostly unsubstantiated, poorly written crap that is so badly biased that it is impossible to take anything seriously.

Kind of like the mainstream corporate media, isn't it? Indymedia doesn't qualify as groupthink. Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when people assume the beliefs and thought processes of the group (organization) they belong to (usually from birth). Reporters for IMC are generally people who have abandoned the mainstream because they did not subject themselves to the common mythology of the culture. For them, the beliefs preceded the affiliation with the "group." Groupthink requires the inverse.

Besides that, IMC hardly qualifies as a group, anyway. There is no real membership to speak of. People who have something interesting to send in do so, and that's that. No secret handshake required.

it doesn't make me wonder (1)

Forrestina (120989) | more than 13 years ago | (#259520)

i know they're not on my side.

-------

Re:Proxy servers? No log files? (1)

Forrestina (120989) | more than 13 years ago | (#259521)

so alter your logs on a regular basis. automate the scrambling of your log data to some degree.

-------

Violates Privacy Protectoin Act of 1980 (5)

Animats (122034) | more than 13 years ago | (#259522)

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 [usdoj.gov] clearly applies here. (That's the one that got the Secret Service in big trouble in the Steve Jackson Games case.) This order looks like it's outside DOJ's own guidelines, too.

From the Wall Street Journal Front Page (5)

YIAAL (129110) | more than 13 years ago | (#259527)

"I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in the FBI." Securities Commissioner Tom Krebs, discussing the heavyhanded Ineptitude of the FBI 20 years ago. Apparently, some things never change.

It's more complicated than that... (5)

tunesmith (136392) | more than 13 years ago | (#259530)

They've got a tough contradiction they are dealing with. On the one hand, their mission is to be alternative media; to let people post news that normally would be squelched in other media realms. On the other hand, if they want stuff worth reading and disseminating, they really need better moderation and editorial control. Any time they start talking about a more restrictive moderation system, I imagine they get in all sorts of arguments.

The problem with most moderation systems is that they homogenize and get rid of the extremes. What they really need instead of basic moderation (where everyone polices each other and where articles are judged by how often folks agree with them) is some sort of trust metric that is seeded from the people that have the reputations of being the most knowledgable and reliable.

(While I agree that the "inbred ideas" thing is a problem with groupthink, that isn't the point with indymedia. The whole point is that indymedia is the alternative to the mainstream media. And it's supposed to be more of a news site where they report on happenings that normally go unsupported, rather than a purely editorial/philosophy site where everyone pats each other on the back.)

But they've got a lot of articles that are really frustrating... for instance, articles that might show some good insight about Palestinian hardships, but that then devolve into some really nasty anti-Semitism. Aside from an example like that being offensive, it's also just a shame because it's a good example of how it undermines its own potential. The site often feels like it demonstrates the stereotype that the protesting population is just continually disorganized and falling off message. It is also confusing that indymedia is just as much populated by anarchists as it is by the nonviolent "peaceful" protestors. There's a lot of infighting going on there, and their aims are very often contradictory.

But overall I like it better than most protest sites because the motivation behind it is constructive - it's not inteded to be a big "insert-vent-here" like a lot of other left-wing and right-wing sites. And some of their efforts are extremely impressive, like during the election - they had live audio webcasts witnessing Nader's difficulties getting into the presidential debates, for instance, which showed a lot of detail that wasn't in the news. It was very cool. I don't visit often, though - I think I'm holding out for a future version when there is that trust metric and where the discussions are more like sourceforge; where there are political "project managers" visualizing actual goals and mileposts and benchmarks and putting together virtual teams to actually accomplish changes in a methodical constructive way.

tune

How to Prevent Log Access: (2)

mellonhead (137423) | more than 13 years ago | (#259531)

I flush my logs at least twice a day...

Re:Don't let you paranoia... (1)

dmccarty (152630) | more than 13 years ago | (#259533)

Unfortunately your holding of this opinion doesn't make you part of a minority.

Heh, on Slashdot? It sure does.

--

Don't let you paranoia... (4)

dmccarty (152630) | more than 13 years ago | (#259534)

...fool you into thinking that the FBI is a God-like policing agency. They have the same problems, short-sightedness and management of any other organization or business in the world. The only reason that paranoid Slashdotters fear the FBI so much is because they themselves are less knowledgeable and organized.

And Timothy, ignoramus-kudos to you for posting this under Censorship. This isn't from the "thinking-of-the-children" department. This is from the "I-want-to-disturb-any-conference-I-want-to-withou t-any-governing-powers-looking-over-my-shoulder-wh ile-I-do-it" department.

(Moderate me down only because I've overstepped the moderation guidelines, not because you personally happen to disagree with my--admittedly unpopular--viewpoint.)
--

Re:Policing the 'net (3)

Mockery (170888) | more than 13 years ago | (#259538)

This does not seem reasonable. In their statement the IMC makes a good point that turning over the entire log(s) would expose more IP addresses than just the lawbreaker's. This could be seen as intimidating people from visiting their site just to read it.
It would seem we need something akin to the (Video Privacy Protection Act [cornell.edu] for internet traffic.


Unfortunatley in this case that would do no good. Following the link you provided, look under B-2-C (Sorry if that isn't the proper format for a reference) where it states:
(2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally identifiable information concerning any consumer -

  • (A) to the consumer;
  • (B) to any person with the informed, written consent of the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought;
  • (C) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent State warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court order;

B-3 does say the following, but it seems that it provides little extra protection:
(3) Court orders authorizing disclosure under subparagraph (C) shall issue only with prior notice to the consumer and only if the law enforcement agency shows that there is probable cause to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. In the case of a State government authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the video tape service provider, may quash or modify such order if the information or records requested are unreasonably voluminous in nature or if compliance with such order otherwise would cause an unreasonable burden on such provider.

It doesn't seem like a similar law for internet traffic would do much good, (At least in this case) unless all this information is "unreasonably voluminous in nature" or providing it is an "unreasonable burden" on the site.
Sounds like deleting logs is the way to go...

Re:Policing the 'net (1)

dannywyatt (175432) | more than 13 years ago | (#259540)

But the point here is that in trying to find the poster, they might be able to find the identities of anyone who visited the site just to read their news.

IANAL and what not, but the Video Privacy Protection Act that I mentioned above says that the authorities must notify the one person whose records they're seeking and then seek just that one person's records. They can't ask the store to turn over a list of all their cutomers and what each of them rented.

Hopefully, a similar law can be worked out for net traffic. If the host/ISP cannot return records subpoenaed for just one user, then they should not be made to return overly broad records. Unfortunately, the inevitable law will probably be just the opposite.

Re:Policing the 'net (3)

dannywyatt (175432) | more than 13 years ago | (#259541)

(3) Court orders authorizing disclosure under subparagraph (C) shall issue only with
prior notice to the consumer and only if the law enforcement agency shows that there is probable cause to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry.

Of course, IANAL, but that's the part I meant. The FBI should have to first inform everyone who visited IMC that they would be going after the records. The search should be seen not as one of IMC, but as one of each visitor to the site. If the FBI can't justify searching all of those people, then they shouldn't be able to subpoena the entire logs.

It's similar to carnivore: they can't read everyone's email and say they're throwing away all but the criminals'. They have to be held to stricter protections against unlawful search and seizure.

And of course, the inevitable law will probably not protect the people, but the ease of the FBI's search.

Re:Policing the 'net (5)

dannywyatt (175432) | more than 13 years ago | (#259542)

1) turn over server logs containing the IP address of the alleged lawbreaker

This does not seem reasonable. In their statement the IMC makes a good point that turning over the entire log(s) would expose more IP addresses than just the lawbreaker's. This could be seen as intimidating people from visiting their site just to read it.

It would seem we need something akin to the Video Privacy Protection Act [cornell.edu] for internet traffic.

what about random mouse clicks? (5)

firewort (180062) | more than 13 years ago | (#259551)

I very often find myself taken to sites I had no intention of going to (disguised goatse links, anyone?) and don't want to be subject to inquisition by the FBI or other services for those clicks.

While I admit that I am responsible for my own actions, I submit that clicking on links is as risky as changing channels on a television- You never know what content you'll get unless you've targetted that channel before. If I pass over the sex channel or local-cable access showing paranoid survivalists, should I be held accountable because TiVo shows that I requested that channel for a few minutes before becoming bored and moving on?

I say that this is an imposition that we shouldn't have to suffer.

(donning flamesuit now to be ready for the replies)

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Re:The Gag order (3)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#259552)

THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the Application of the United States of America, which Application requests that an Order be issued:

etc.

What gets me is that is very similar to the FBI investigations of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s.

Makes you wonder whose side they are on.

This irritates me.

Could someone look at the parent message please and moderate that up?

Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

The USA is not a safe location. (4)

perlyking (198166) | more than 13 years ago | (#259557)

Whenever I see a story like this (or napster etc) I always wonder why people dont think of hosting the servers in some other country.
Unfortunately America whilst having a laudable set of ideals in their constitution also seems to be a country where if you piss off someone in power (political or corporate) you will be slapped into the ground pretty quickly. Don't get me wrong this is not a jibe at America as you would encounter similar difficulties in a lot of "free" "democratic" countries worldwide.
Now the question is what is a country that actually gives a crap about peoples right to say what they like?

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (2)

seanson22 (202693) | more than 13 years ago | (#259559)

Hmm...As an ideologically flexible "extreme lefty" type, I feel I must step in. Objectivity is basically impossible, and often not even desirable. Ever read a history book the tried to play up Hitler's good side? The best we can do is acknowledge our biases, and take everything we hear with an informed grain of salt.

Sites like indymedia recognize that most of the mainstream media acts as a mouthpiece for the interests of the companies that own them, and yet pretend to be objective. The lefties at least admit their biases and say outright that their news is aimed towards progressive social change. Does this mean falsifying information? No, it means highlighting those things ignored or distorted by the major media, and adding your own perspective to the issue.

They allow anyone to submit a story because they realize that everyone will have a slightly different slant. If we listen to everyone, or as near to everyone as is reasonably possible we have a better chance of coming to understand exactly what is happening and, just as important, what it means. The ultimate point of information is not an avalanche of disconected facts, but the usefullness of those facts in forming a better understanding of the world. Since meaning is subjective, pretending to objectivity when covering the type of events they tend to cover is just silly.

The ultimate point of all this? Listen to all the various sources, but remember their biases, and examine your own.

Re:Policing the 'net (1)

atrowe (209484) | more than 13 years ago | (#259567)

You seem hostile. You really should get out and relax a bit more. In regards to the responsiveness of my post, if you look at the timestamp, you'll notice that according to slashdot, my post was actually put up before the story itself. I saw the story on the front page with, thought it was interesting, and replied. I refreshed the frontpage only to find it was gone. It came back a bit later. Just one of slashdot's weird quirks, I guess.

Secondly, What the government did to IndyMedia WAS NOT censorship. The FBI did not request that ANYTHING be removed from IndyMedia's website. They were looking for information on an individual who allegedly stole sensitive documents from a police cruiser, and posted their text to the site. I'd rather see a site provide the FBI with the information they are asking for, and let the poster of the content deal with the consequenses, than see IndyMedia remove content at the FBI's request. Removing content, would invalidate IndyMedia's "common carrier" status and set a nasty precedent for future occurances of this situation.

Re:Colocation with me (4)

atrowe (209484) | more than 13 years ago | (#259568)

"If the FBI does RAID it..."

Wow! The FBI's going to add a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks to IndyMedia's server. That's quite nice of them. I don't understand why they have such a bad reputation if they're going around giving free hard drives to radical groups.

Well this is just great (2)

Vassily Overveight (211619) | more than 13 years ago | (#259574)

Without thinking about it, I clicked on the link to read the court order and then noticed that it was posted on IndyMedia. Now my door is going to be kicked in by federal agents. Thanks a bunch, SlashDot.

Re:Proxy servers? No log files? (5)

Vassily Overveight (211619) | more than 13 years ago | (#259575)

if someone threatents the president from your anonymizer, and you don't keep logs, it's just as though *you* threatened the president from your own machine.

Assuming this to be true (and I've certainly never heard of any law or precedent like this), then I think you'd still be within your rights to have a log destruction policy that deletes them after a short time. This is what lawyers are telling their clients to do with corporate email to avoid having it used against them in court. And by the way, what happens if your logging hard disk crashes and you don't have a backup? Seems like going to jail would be a pretty harsh penalty for incompetence.

Not keeping logfiles (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 13 years ago | (#259577)

On all the servers I run, I don't keep the log files for more than one week.
I run Webalizer with the "increment" option and the log file are rotated and deleted if they are more that one week old.
I realize that the option to backtrack problems are limited using this method, but those webserver logs just takes up too much space :-)

--------

You have it wrong. (4)

Eladio McCormick (226942) | more than 13 years ago | (#259584)

Your post assumes that the IMC handed out the logs. They haven't. Nor have they admitted to there having ever been such a post as the Secret Service and the FBI claimed, that is, a post containing classified info on President Bush's travel itinerary.

Not really comperable (1)

vheissu (229617) | more than 13 years ago | (#259586)

Going to try to avoid clouding this with my feelings on each of the situations, here goes...

I don't think that this situation is comperable to the Slashdot/CoS situation. What Indymedia posted was people's descriptions of various illegal acts which they had done (admist a HUGE amount of other reports surrounding the FTAA conference.) These post themselves were not illegal; they were instead evidence related to illegal actions. The logs were taken in an attempt to trace the authors of the documents, much like phone records might be used.

The Slashdot/Church of Scientology situation was different though. A poster placed documents that were copyrighted trade secrets on slashdot itself. The very act of posting these documents, and Slashdot allowing them to remain was illegal. The Church of Scientology has been known to rabid in its desire to prosecute for copyright infringement, even under marginal pretenses, and here its case would have been quite a bit stronger. I feel Slashdot's handling of the situation was reasonable. While the desire to protect speech is strong, its hard to justify a protracted, expensive, and dubiously successful legal battle to protect something that wasn't even free speech. CoS texts are widely available elsewere on the internet, and Slashdot's removal of them had little or no effect on the overall availability of these documents. The indymedia situation, on the otherhand, is almost MORE alarming, in that the court order was taken under an order of silence, and that indymedia decided to remain in operation. While to a great degree, their hands were tied, I feel they need to reconsider what steps they take to protect their sources. Remaining in operation in essence made them part of an sting operation against their posters, something I doubt they would stand for.

The FBI wants YOUR log files (5)

corvi42 (235814) | more than 13 years ago | (#259589)

The FBI wants YOUR log files ( insert unlce same here )

So why don't we give them to them? How would things stand if slashdot and 20 other websites just voluntarily submitted their log files to a few select members at the DOJ. Say, one email per page-view, you know, just 'cause they were so interested in seeing them.
This would give a new meaning to the word slashdot effect.

Thanks for the links (1)

MOBE2001 (263700) | more than 13 years ago | (#259598)

You're not paranoid. You're preserving your freedom.

Why is SilentSurf Better? (2)

MOBE2001 (263700) | more than 13 years ago | (#259599)

Is their approach more secure than SafeWeb?

Re:1984 (2)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 13 years ago | (#259602)

Yes, sound the alarms, get the guns, and build your shelters. That time has come.

*sigh* Yes, of course the government is going to come knocking when it involves classified information. The secret service takes their job very seriously because they have to. Their job is to protect the president of the united states at all costs. Sometimes that conflicts with our right to free speech, but that is the price we pay sometimes.

But not all the time. I agree that if someone publishes the president's travel itenarary, they should be tracked down, and will be tracked down, at all costs. That is highly sensitive information that should not be published. In that instance the president is a bit more important than your precious right to anonymitity.

BUT if you right something that says you hate the president, I completely agree that the SS or FBI have no right to track you down. That is your first amendment right to speak out.

I'm just fed up with us crying 1984, 1984, everytime something comes around. Yes, by God, it is vitally important for us to protect our right. But if we all go out ther and look like a bunch of stupid kiddie hackers, what good does that do us? NONE! It just encoruages those that don't know better to use it as a reason to pass more regulation to stop people.

Finally, it is my opinion that you should not ever expect anonymitity when using a 3rd party ISP. Never. If you want security and anonymitity, build your own network, and use it. I always have anonymitity when posting to the two other computers on my home network, because I choose not to log. But ISP's don't have that option.

Do you really believe logging everything to dev/null/ stops the tracking? If you truly believe that, then make a threat on the president's life and see how long it takes for them to track you down. You will see a lot of people's toes stepped on, but I am sure they will find you.

Somethings truly violate our rights, but there are somethings that are sacred and sensitive and should never be published.

Rage against the machine (5)

deran9ed (300694) | more than 13 years ago | (#259604)

*sigh* And the US wants to pass this shit too [zingin.com] ...

Maybe you're a civil libertarian, and maybe you're not. Maybe you worry about how the United States exercises its vast investigative and prosecutorial powers, and maybe you don't.

But if you counsel U.S. corporations on computer-related issues, you should be concerned about a new proposed treaty known as the "Convention on Cybercrime." The Council of Europe, a 43-nation public body created to promote democracy and the rule of law, is nominally drafting the treaty. Curiously, however, the primary architect is the United States Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are using a foreign forum to create an international law-enforcement regime that favors the interests of the feds over those of ordinary citizens and businesses. Their goal is to make it easier to get evidence from abroad and to extradite and prosecute foreign nationals for certain kinds of crimes.

Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that-although officially democratic now-don't have a strong traditions of checks and balances on police power.

Do you want investigators rummaging around your clients' computer systems on warrants issued by former Soviet bloc nations?

(read full article here [cryptome.org] )

I wonder how many people visit the site using proxies, and if IP addresses are going to be used, I hope Indy Media know how circumstantial thay shit is. I wonder if it can be fought with in court with a demonstration of Packet Replays and Packet Injections, to show how just how shitty using IP addresses as identification can be.

And people think I'm paranoid about using daisy chaining proxies along with Safeweb [safeweb.com]

Well for those here who need it (I doubt there's many) here are my privacy links. [antioffline.com]

Re:IndyMedia .... is it media? (4)

stefani (308412) | more than 13 years ago | (#259608)

Yes, it is media. The fact that "ANYONE" is allowed to post does not imply it is not news, not media. The IMC, as far as i have been able to tell, has never wanted to be the same as TV or "news reporters" (what does that mean, newspapers?? ). Being the same as TV news is not the goal of IMC; rather quite the opposite, it is intended to provide news that may not be found on corporately-owned news sources, such as CNN, NY Times, et al. "Independent" does not mean "unbiased", either. That also is a common misperception.

Not only does IMC allow "ANYONE" to be press, it seems to be a founding principle: "don't hate the media, become the media". So IMC is not defining *who* is and who is not press; I would hope that in the legal matters, it does not allow the courts to think they can determine it either. Simply having a paycheck from some 'official' news agency does not imply one is "press". That concept, in and of itself, needs to be quesioned as seriously misinformed.

Re:Policing the 'net (5)

freeweed (309734) | more than 13 years ago | (#259609)

the 'net would be nothing more than a cesspool or porn, warez, and hax0rs, with none of the redeeming content that we so value

Hmm... I always thought that this WAS the redeeming content of the internet that we so value.

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (2)

Angry Toad (314562) | more than 13 years ago | (#259610)

Oh PLEASE! Have you ever actually dealt with the extreme lefty types that typically get involved in this kind of thing? Think university "student government". On average they're about as ideologically flexible as the Red Guard or the NKVD.

On balance I approve of the idea of purely independent media, but that does NOT instantly translate into "Communist/Anarchist Mouthpiece Media". As long as they continue to act as if it does they will remain powerless and insignificant.

Want Joe Paycheck to read the material? Provide balanced, insightful coverage that kowtows to Nobody and that's good enough to start getting picked up by mainstream media once in a while.

Re:Proxy servers? No log files? (5)

BlueTurnip (314915) | more than 13 years ago | (#259612)

Because if you run a gateway of any sort (in the US) and you don't log, you're held liable for the actions of anyone using the gateway. That means, in the eyes of the government, if someone threatents the president from your anonymizer, and you don't keep logs, it's just as though *you* threatened the president from your own machine.

REALLY??? I wasn't aware of any such law. Could you quote the statute and or precidents please?

I know that law enforcement has been trying to get something like this passed, but I was unaware that they had succeeded yet. Please tell me more.

USENET (5)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#259613)

That is one of the many reasons why centralized web-based services are not such a good idea. In fact, we have a perfectly good service for distributing information widely without the ability for anyone to identify readers: USENET. For better or for worse (I think for worse, actually), it is even permanently archived and searchable now. And USENET offers a choice of jurisdiction of where the identity of a poster is protected.

Re:Not keeping logfiles (3)

Invisible Agent (412805) | more than 13 years ago | (#259614)

That's a good idea, but from experience I know that the authorities can easily order you to start keeping such logs.

Your idea might work to hide any historical data before a search warrant, but once ordered to keep logs (and to keep your mouth shut about it), you have to do so or face the music. They'll get the logs anyway by siezing your property and incarcerating you. Yes, this really happens.

Invisible Agent

Re:The USA is not a safe location. (1)

bradleyjay (413670) | more than 13 years ago | (#259615)

Sealand. Check http://www.havenco.com/

Re:what about random mouse clicks? (1)

glenebob (414078) | more than 13 years ago | (#259616)

I very often find myself taken to sites I had no intention of going to (disguised goatse links, anyone?)

Sure sure, we believe you :-) I mean, who would have thought that www.doglove.com was a goatse site? I certainly was surprised...
--
Damn it Jim, that's my sphincter, not a jelly donut!!!

Re:Policing the 'net (1)

Lothar+0 (444996) | more than 13 years ago | (#259635)

What the government did to IndyMedia WAS NOT censorship. The FBI did not request that ANYTHING be removed from IndyMedia's website.

Not de jure censorship, but an FBI request for the IP address of users at large sets a precedent for de facto censorship. Sites that attract that "dangerous element" (read: independent journalists and their readers) may fairly or unfairly attract those who would do real damage, but the consequences of such a court order chill the atmosphere in which independent journalism must thrive.

Use safeweb (1)

Ripped_edge (447478) | more than 13 years ago | (#259638)

https://www.safeweb.com [safeweb.com]

If you don't want to be tracked, make it hard to be tracked

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Re:Look at all the stuff they wanted! (1)

Ripped_edge (447478) | more than 13 years ago | (#259639)

I imagine IM gets a good number of hits. Logging that kind of information for any period of time would really start to take up space.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Re:SAFEWEB.COM IS PARTIALLY OWNED BY THE CIA (2)

Ripped_edge (447478) | more than 13 years ago | (#259641)

So? The CIA is not allowed to conduct domestic operations. Also, the safeweb site makes it quite clear that the CIA is just funding them, they don't have anything to do with running the site. The safeweb system also makes it impossible for safeweb, let alone the CIA, to track users. Get your facts straight before spouting parinod theories.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Re:IndyMedia is Scary (2)

seanl (447562) | more than 13 years ago | (#259643)

...or Slashdot...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?