Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by Mr.Bishie, Aug 28, 2014.
Yes, and clicking that link will lead them to this thread.
So worried about security was he last week he has started many a thread about it - some real security threatening stuff, he applauded it,even when the consequences for others were spelled out. And if you can't keep it zipped now, you can't ever keep it fucking zipped.
Stop playing the hero frilly, you're a bit old for that to wash.
Thanks for the solidarity all.
I'm somewhat underwhelmed by how long it took between the site admin learning about the court order, and informing their readers of the possible IP recording. Or the idea that open publishing of articles will never be re-enabled because that would entail someone having to reinstall everything. Way to go making the self-publishing revolution seem way harder than it really should be in 2014.
Last week doesn't mean they posted it up as a 2nd thought today, but that they had no access until today. They had not other opp to post it.
Well I don't want to be overly critical without having enough facts, and there are several different ways I could interpret your last message, so I don't really know what to think.
Who did not have access to what until today?
They could not post that message on there until today. Saying 'last week' did not mean they let the thing ride until today. It wasn't even up.
Ta for the clarification. I suppose I shouldn't delve any further for several reasons, including that by pursuing this my criticism will seem stronger than I actually mean it to be.
I would tend to associate this sort of police action with the harvesting of historical data from the server. I can't read the full Times article but it sounds like court proceedings that are used to deal with police gaining access to evidence from journalists were used in this case. In contrast, I expect there are a range of other strategies used when ongoing monitoring and compromising of a server is desired, especially as this case featured a fairly overt method which is incompatible with covert intelligence gathering.
They were given a producer - you don't have to agree with. But the company did. Last famously used in the Duggan case where the BBC didn't bottle it when told they had to.
Not sure what the police expect to do other than briefly close it. Surely anyone saying anything silly will either be saying it through TOR anyway or be already on the payroll.
Had redwatch's servers been raided recently, out of interest?
So think about why they did it. And the answer is not NATO.
Activist website Indymedia shuts down after police raid
Jules Mattsson and Alannah Francis
Last updated at 5:48PM, August 28 2014
Police accessed servers belonging to the Bristol branch of activist news website Indymedia in a move that later ‘forced organisers to close it down’. The raid is believed to be the latest effort in the long pursuit of the “Bristol unabomber”.
Officers have been trying to locate those responsible for a series of attacks in the city — including a fire in a new police firearms training centre that took a fortnight to extinguish — for more than a year.
A copy of the production order, marked restricted but seen by The Times, authorises officers to seize “special procedure” journalistic material. It demands access to the details of administrators and bill-payers, login credentials, information on those who posted articles and the IP addresses of everyone who visited the site over an unspecified period.
Bristol Indymedia initially said: “Bristol Indymedia only knows the information that a user chooses to provide with a post. We do not keep any IP data on users.”
However, a statement on the national site claiming to be on behalf of the Bristol group reads: “Regretfully owing to an administration error by one of the techies all IP address details for the past 16 months were still stored on the server and these have been recorded by the police.”
The post adds that the Bristol site is “now officially closed for good” following the raid. Indymedia said that they are now consulting lawyers.
Indymedia is a global network of contributors and open publishing sites, effectively allowing anybody to post news reports, pictures and statements on activist issues. The Bristol site was previously used to anonymously post claims of responsibility for the series of arsons and other attacks, signed by the “Informal Anarchist Federation/Earth Liberation Front”.
Those involved in the group also called themselves the “Rogue Fire Brigade” in a number of claims of responsibility posted to Indymedia and other activist websites.
Although it is unlikely that the arsonists would have posted without masking their user details, the data now in the hands of police will send chills through activist circles.
Previous actions claimed by the insurrectionist group include burning a communications mast, disrupting broadcasts and emergency communications, sabotaging train lines, burning politicians’ cars and razing other vehicles ranging from the border agency to broadband providers.
The UK cell is one of many insurrectionist terror groups under the same umbrella worldwide. Most UK attacks have taken place in and around Bristol, with some in Nottingham.
In 2012, the same year as the first visible UK actions by them, an Italian cell took credit for the shooting of a nuclear executive - kneecapping him on his doorstep in Genoa. Other cells have claimed responsibility for attacks as far as Argentina and the United States.
The raid on Indymedia Bristol’s server providers Bytemark Hosting took place on Friday August 15 but details of the seizure have just begun to emerge.
Because of the citizen journalism element of Indymedia, as well as the open posting of statements, their files have sometimes been treated as journalistic in nature with the associated legal protections.
Matthew Bloch, managing director of web hosts Bytemark, said: “The police turned up unannounced at the office door with the court order, demanding several things from the Indymedia servers.
“Bytemark don’t have any choice about compliance with court orders, but we have never been keen on them.”
A source close to Bristol Indymedia said the first they knew of the seizure was when their web hosts contacted them while the warrant was being executed. They said that they had not seen a copy of the order “or know of the contents of it”, adding that they were unaware of any of the supporting evidence and were not informed of the application.
The legal position is that while normal search warrants can be granted ex parte, without the chance to contest them, this type of special material production order must have both parties informed and present.
In a recent Supreme Court case involving Sky News this principle was reiterated, with a previous decision to allow supporting evidence to be given in secret overturned as unlawful. It is not known what process was followed here.
Mr Bloch also said the web host did not “hand over hard discs or offer up physical access” to the police, saying that they “follow the letter of each order, painstakingly extracting and filtering the information ordered, accessing the bare minimum, even if that takes much more time.”
This isn’t the first time Indymedia have found themselves the subject of raids. In 2005 the British Transport Police seized a server and other IT equipment from the same Bristol group. This was believed to be over a posting to the site that referenced direct action against a freight train, which suffered £100,000 in damage.
In 2009 police in Manchester seized a server after personal information about the judge on an animal cruelty trial was posted to another Indymedia site and in 2004 the FBI seized hardware from their London branch for reasons unknown. Indymedia described police actions as an “attack on their infrastructure in the UK.”
Avon and Somerset Police said: “We have obtained a production order in order to access the server of a website as part of an ongoing inquiry.
“The action was taken to investigate claims made on a website about possible crimes committed in the Avon And Somerset force area. No arrests have been made in connection with this incident.” When asked whether proper procedure had been followed, the force declined to comment due to the “ongoing investigation”.
This latest move by police in the protracted case will prove controversial. After the 2005 Bristol raid the National Union of Journalists and pressure group Liberty condemned the force’s decision, arguing that journalistic material exemptions should have been engaged. Although on this occasion a special procedure material order was obtained, its legality could be challenged with claims of no prior notice of the application.
In a statement posted to the Bristol Indymedia site after learning of the raid, organisers said “we consider this server to be compromised” and that it was “unlikely that open publishing of news items will ever be re-enabled”.
In the further post to the main website they say that are now “closing down” and said “the power of the State when threatened can be immense and we have seen that this week.”
Ta for that 23er. Appreciated.
Reading some of the earlier posts on the website, it sounds like things had been a struggle there for months before the police server stuff.
For example they felt the need in June to make a lengthy post about complaints they had received regarding their policy of not allowing people to post stories that claimed responsibility for criminal damage. And then in July they announced a summer break, wondered if anyone would like to volunteer to be a moderator, turned off open publishing, and didn't sound very positive about whether they'd have the time and inclination to turn it back on.
people should do something special for the ring ding holiday.
Hmmm. I'm not sure how much could, or should, be discussed on here but I'm curious as to if there is a pattern/focus/target to the police attention or if if it's a more generalised scattergun lean on the anarchist "scene" in Bristol.
Regardless, I hope Bristol folk are ok and that they're being looked after.
So looks like ringding is right then. Not
we already have it. I mean THEY already have it
Seriously, if you are a person of interest top them in any way, shape or form, they probably already have your ip address and more. unless you're a seriously good hacker type.
I would delete this thread if I was a mod.
i would be a mod if i could delete this thread
You think the timing is coincidence?
Any threat analysis to the NATO summit would include jihadist terrorist strikes, rioting and this lot.......no matter how little threat you or I think they would be. They will be considered a threat. Whatever groups that are sitting on the security team will be having words with Bristol's plod and saying "what the fuck are you doing about this lot?"
Clown. You didn't even remember what was happening here before you posted last night. It was quite clear that your holiday plans were all that was in your sight.
Aren't we due a visit from lazy hack?
you stupid childish dickhead ffs
It was a joke you tool, go suck a dog or something
would you find it fucking funny if someone joked that you were the person the police are desperately seeking? jesus wept
Next time crimewatch is on tip them his number and photos from the mug thread.
Separate names with a comma.