[WSIS CS-Plenary] Indymedia Summary of Facts on Seizure

[dhalleck at weber.ucsd.edu]

Indymedia Summary of Facts

Indymedia

Two Internet servers, known as ahimsa1 and ahimsa2,
provided space to over twenty Independent Media
Centers in the United States and around the world,
offering independent journalists a soapbox upon which
to
speak in a public forum. Independent Media Centers
are autonomous portions of Indymedia, a collective of
independent media organizations and thousands of
journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate
coverage of news events. IMCs publish information
often missed by mainstream media organizations, and
offer unique perspectives on world events. The IMC
content is a widely read news medium, with the two
servers transmitting over 3.2 terabytes of
information a month, serving over 18 million page
views a month.

The Ahimsa servers were hosted by Rackspace Managed
Hosting, a San Antonio-based Internet hosting company
that provides dedicated servers to customers.
Rackspace provided initially one, then two, dedicated
servers, supplying the data center, hardware (servers
and other
devices) and Internet connectivity necessary to
operate an online service, but allowed the customer
to directly operate the machines. The first server
went online in September 2001, the second sever came
online in April 2003. The servers were physically
located in Rackspace’s facility in London, England.

Through the Ahimsa servers, Indymedia IMCs had access
to Internet services for news websites and an online
radio server.  The hosted websites included local
IMCs from Western Massachusetts, Andorra, Brazil, the
Czech Republic, Euskal Herria (Basque Country),
Galzia, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom,
Uruguay, multiple sites from France and Belgium and
popular Indymedia Internet radio streams. The
Internet radio streams used the domain
radio.uk1.indymedia.org, providing about ten streams
to the public.

The servers provided email services for BLAG (Brixton
Linux Action Group), syndicate.org.uk, and foref.org
(For Refugees), and a beta test email service at
indymail.org. The servers also contained an archive
of
the email communications from the ahimsa techs.

In addition, the servers hosted www.blagblagblag.org,
a website offering BLAG (BLAG Linux And GNU), a
version of the Linux operating system, along with
technical support and forums for communicating about
the software.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is
representing Indymedia's interests. EFF is the
leading civil liberties organization working to
protect rights in the digital world. Founded in 1990,
EFF actively
encourages and challenges industry and government to
support free expression and privacy online. In
addition, various particular IMCs are represented by
lawyers in their countries, working in cooperation
with
EFF.

The Seizure

On or around Thursday, October 7, 2004, Rackspace was
served with a Commissioner’s Subpoena, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1782 and a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
(the “Seizure Order”). A Commissioner’s Subpoena is a
special subpoena issued by the District Court in
which
the entity holding the requested information resides.
Since Rackspace is based in San Antonio, this would
be the Court in the Western District of Texas.
Ordinarily, an Assistant United States Attorney for
the relevant district is appointed as the
Commissioner, and is
empowered under the statute to issue a subpoena.

While Rackspace has refused to provide a copy of the
Seizure Order or even discuss its contents, in an
October 7, 2004 email, Rackspace explained that it
had “received a federal order to provide your
hardware to the requesting agency.” The hardware was
seized the same day, and all of the news media and
other material on the Ahimsa servers was silenced
around 17:18 GMT on October 7, 2004.

On October 8, 2004, Rackspace further explained:

 "In the present matter regarding Indymedia,
Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with
offices in London, is acting in compliance with a
court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty (MLAT),
which establishes procedures for countries to assist
each other in investigations such as international
terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace
responded to a Commissioner’s subpoena, duly issued
under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in
an
investigation that did not arise in the United
States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate
citizen and is cooperating with international law
enforcement authorities. The court prohibits
Rackspace from commenting further on this matter."

Rackspace has refused to provide further explanation,
or even the name or contact information of a
government representative with whom anyone could
discuss the Seizure Order, contending that the case
was “under
seal.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation has
contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Departments of State and Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s
Office in San Antonio and the US District Court for
the Western District of Texas in an effort to
independently determine the origin of the Seizure
Order, but no agency has accepted responsibility.

On October 12, 2004, Jason Carter, an Account
Representative of Rackspace, said that “the court
order is being complied with and your servers in
London will be online at 5pm GMT.” Rackspace did not
explain why the server was returned, or provide any
further explanation of why the server had been seized
in the first place.

Italy

On October 13, 2004, Morena Plazzi, a public
prosecutor in Bologna, Italy, admitted --
unofficially -- that the she requested IP address log
information from the Italy Indymedia server through
the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, but did not seek
the seizure of the server
hardware. Efforts are underway to obtain a copy of
this request.

While the Servers logged aggregate traffic
information, pursuant to the IMC policy of preserving
privacy, they were configured never to log the
specific Internet Protocol address of the computer
that reads or posts
news and information to IMC sites. An Internet
Protocol address, or IP address, is a unique number
used by machines to refer to each other when sending
information through the Internet.

UK

In the United Kingdom, Sheffield Member of Parliament
Richard Alan plans to ask a question in the House of
Commons to determine what, if any, involvement the
Home Office had with the seizure.  The answer is due
to become public on October 19.

The Nantes Dispute

On Wednesday, September 22, 2004, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation contacted Rackspace regarding some
images and material hosted on the Ahimsa servers by
the Nantes Independent Media Center. According to
Rackspace, the FBI alleged that a particular article
on the website
nantes.indymedia.org contained personal information and
threats regarding two Swiss undercover police
officers. Immediately upon receipt of the inquiry
through Rackspace, the Ahimsa systems administrator
reviewed the article on the Nantes server, and
determined
that it contained neither threats nor names or
address information, finding only photographs of the
officers disguised as anti-globalization protesters.
Nevertheless, Swiss request was conveyed to the
Nantes IMC webmasters, who then digitally masked the
faces of
the officers in the photos.

On Friday, October 1, 2004, the FBI followed up with
a visit to Devin Theriot-Orr, the registered agent
for the Seattle Independent Media Center. The agents
again incorrectly alleged that the Nantes article
contained personally identifying information about
the Swiss officers including their home address and
phone numbers. During this meeting, FBI Special Agent
Eric Meuller clarified that they were not contending
any laws had been broken, and that there was nothing
wrong
with the photos of the officers, but were rather
passing on a request from the Swiss government.
Theriot-Orr informed the agents that the Seattle IMC
has no authority regarding the Nantes IMC and that
they
should direct their request directly to the Nantes IMC.

On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, Jennifer O’Connell, the
Rackspace Acceptable Use Manager, wrote to say “I
have received no further communications from either
the FBI or the Swiss authorities, so I feel
like we can close this issue.” Accordingly, since the
faces were obscured, no threats or personal
information were in the article, and the FBI seemed
to have forgotten about it, Indymedia considered the
matter resolved.

While the FBI inquiry and visit suggested that the
Commissioner’s Subpoena could be related to Swiss
concerns over the Nantes post, there has been no
confirmation that the Swiss government invoked the
MLAT in this instance. Indeed, Special Agent Eric
Mueller, when contacted by EFF on October 12, 2004,
denied any knowledge of the seizure, and inquiries
with the Swiss General Attorney in Généve,
Switzerland have not led to any confirmation from the
Swiss.