[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: FBI Seizes Indymedia Servers in the UK / "extended sovereignty"

[Taran Rampersad]

Carlos Afonso wrote:

> - Indymedia in Britain hosted its servers in a USA corporation
> subsidiary - Rackspace - in Britain. Thus, the corporation is forced
> to abide by the imposition of American justice, and this includes its
> subsidiaries. The obvious question is why Indymedia took such a risk,
> when there are several other, legally less vulnerable, alternatives?
>
This is non-intuitive for me, so I imagine it was for them as well. A
corporation is supposed to follow local laws - if customers of a foreign
subsidiary cannot have their rights protected by their government, what
is the point? If the servers fall within British jurisdiction, shouldn't
British law apply?

How Switzerland got the U.S. FBI to do a search and seizure in Britain
really seems to mean (to me) that British sovereignity is in question,
and that business owners around the world would be better protected if
they did not invest in U.S. based subsidiaries. Is this really what the
U.S. wants?

Then one wonders - were those 'Swiss Moles' really Swiss? Why would
Switzerland go to the FBI? They are on good terms with Britain, one
would think. But if they were American, that might explain a few things.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, mind you. But the data just doesn't seem
to fit the explanation(s) to me. Perhaps I am missing something?

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase...The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive"
— Frank Herbert, 'Dune'