Can we TRUST Indymedia?

[elbows]

Its much safer to assume your IP address is logged for pretty much everything you do on the net, regardless of who manages the server.

If you run/manage a server then whether you log IP addresses either through the web apps or the web server (ie apache logs), makes no difference to the risk of having your server taken away by the law. What you need to minimize the risk is a rough understanding of the law, a vigilant attitude, and the resources to moderate very dodgy stuff within a short space of time.

 

[laptop]

it is said things are best served cold, these pages are to open for me to go into what, but keep kicking it will brake,

I see.

I was right.

You're no better than a tout yourself, then.

 

[e19896]

I see.

I was right.

You're no better than a tout yourself, then.

No one is not, but bunny and myself go back way back, i do respect some indymedia people, but jump into bed with former trotsky members paranoied anarchist then in time the shit will it the fan, as said brought on by the actions of people at indymedia you can not say this would not happen:http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2009/02/421839.html?c=all
just why are post been hiden?

 

[laptop]

No one is not,

No, lots of us are better than touts...

but bunny and myself go back way back,

...and lots of us can tell the difference between politics and a feud.

You've not recently been locked out of IM moderation, by any chance?

 

[_float_]

I don't quite see what the point of indymedia even is these days anyway. anyone with a story to tell has 1000s of outlets to tell it, many with much larger audiences than indymedia.

It is still the best place to go to see pictures and accounts of UK (liberal/left) demos and protests: having material spread across 1000s of blogs/forums/sites doesn't help someone who wants to find this kind of stuff or have it all in one easy-to-read place.

 

[_float_]

Meh.

1. It's better that indymedia exists than that it doesn't.
2. The nature of indymedia is that you don't trust it: you evaluate each post made there separately.
3. Asking whether you trust the content of indymedia is as stupid as asking whether you trust the content of the internet.
4. The likely effect of the text in the OP is that indymedia gets to be the test case for an order to turn on IP logging if the facility exists, and create one if it doesn't.
5. Silly billies.
6. Or people trying to drop indymedia in the shit?

My understanding of this thread is that the OP isn't asking about trusting indymedia *content*.

They are asking about trusting Indymedia decision-making and openess, for example their statements about IP-tracking and/or whether they hold open meetings versus secret meetings etc.

 

[laptop]

My understanding of this thread is that the OP isn't asking about trusting indymedia *content*.

They are asking about trusting Indymedia decision-making and openess, for example their statements about IP-tracking and/or whether they hold open meetings versus secret meetings etc.

Meh.

It was a pormanteau reply to the entire thread so far...

See 4,5 & 6 for response to OP.

 

[derf]

The fact that IP logging can be turned on - and I'd be surprised to see an server where it can't - doesn't actually mean that it is. On the other hand this really just confirms my impression of a good slice of vocal indymedia users as the sort of people who ban phones from meetings in case MI5 have bugged them.

I suppose the point is that if you post info on the web about serious illegal activity the cops will try to get that info by any means available including having the servers away and getting the information.
So no, you can't trust any computer and frankly you have to be daft to post it in the open anyway.

 

[_float_]

I was going to add to my last post:

...If they do decide to have an ani-troll/anti-spam IP-screen, they just need to warn people that it exists, and that if someone is really desperate to post untraceably then they the poster themselves need to take the responsibility for using appropriate techniques (eg posting from a webcafé, logging onto an unsecured wifi network or using some kind of proxy).

 

[e19896]

No, lots of us are better than touts...



...and lots of us can tell the difference between politics and a feud.

You've not recently been locked out of IM moderation, by any chance?

Oh desr persumtion, how wrong you are and no, one would nver take such a thankleass task, nither would i desire to work with some of those involved, not that i would be asked i have allway been an harsh basterd.

 

[e19896]

Hiding Your Identity Online

http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page6042.cfm

 

[Steve Booth]

Anonymity

The fact is they do hide the info of there meetings, or at least you have to be part of the inner group, i have been to a some of those meetings and the wiff of paranoia was strong, as was the unwillingnass to talk as there was an outsider ie myself there.

This is an example of the criticism often levelled against radical groups about their cliqueishness. I can identify with what you're saying here because I can think of other examples of this, and I've been to meetings like that, as I'm sure other people on here have.

Part of the general problem with the internet is with the idea of anonymity itself. I can see why people try to hide their identities, or to post using proxies, or pseudonyms, but really, in the long run, I think it is better for people to be honest about who they are. To some extent the problems Indymedia experience regarding this are a consequence of anonymity. If people know who each other are, then they can disregard comments made by people they disagree with or have no respect for, certainly. But they can also more readily identify with the people they do agree with, and I think in the long run their effectiveness as a group will increase.

The pseudonymity problem comes when people parachute in to somewhere, make a controversial or a dodgy posting, and then clear off. To some extent the pseudonymity problem is overcome if people consistently post using the same name. You don't need to know who they are, if you see postings made by people like Butcher's Apron and others. You may not always agree with what they are saying, but usually you can see that they make good comments about stuff, and you can understand their point of view.

As a broader point, there is a kind of restlessness with people. It's a trend or fashion, where people change their names around.

People need to take responsibility for their opinions. The parachutist is not responsible, but more likely just playing games, or being malicious. People who are consistent and keep going, also take responsibility for what they believe and say, and are best placed to put it into practice and make a real difference.

On the whole, I think it's quite good to know that the Indymedia project will be 10 years old this coming November.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Indymedia is not perfect, but it is a phenomenal resource and tool nonetheless. We all know the mainstream cant be trusted, and we all know the score with Indymedia - it might be biased or inaccurate and that's fine so long as you go into it with your eyes open.