A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Info Page: Indymedia UK server seizure 2009

On 22 January 2009, an Indymedia server was seized by the Police in Manchester (UK). This was related to postings about the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) trial in the UK [IMC UK feature].
This page provides a timeline of the events, statements of support, media reports, and further information.

Indymedia targeted

General info

Indymedia UK is part of a global network of Independent Media Centres (IMCs) worldwide. IMC websites provide alternative open-publishing online platforms, allowing anonymous contributors to post newsworthy content on the web. The IMC UK website is heavily moderated according to editorial guidelines and a privacy policy. Users are discouraged from posting personal information about third parties.

The seized server was run by volunteers from Indymedia UK and hosted at UK Grid, a Manchester-based Internet Service Provider offering internet hosting facilities. The contract was held by someone who is not part of Indymedia UK. The server hosted the following sites: Indymedia London, the wiki platform docs.indymedia.org, containing the documentation written by all 165 IMCs worldwide, a mirror site of Indymedia UK, and a development site for Indymedia UK.

Indymedia UK is being represented by Tuckers Solicitors, who have an well-regarded history of dealing with computer and IT law as well as complaints against the police.

Timeline

21.01.09

An anonymous user posts a comment containing the home address and telephone number of Judge Butterfield, who a few days previously had sentenced seven animal rights activists to a total of 50 years between them in prison.
An anonymous email about the comment is sent to the imc-uk-moderation list. Subsequently, the personal information is removed in accordance with Indymedia UK’s privacy policy.
The comment is reposted by the same or another anonymous user.
A Detective Sergeant from Kent police contacts the person who holds the hosting contract with the ISP UK Grid. He advises the officer to contact Indymedia UK via the imc-uk-contact email list.

22.01.09

A Detective Sergeant from Kent police contacts Indymedia on the imc-uk-contact list and requests the removal of the two comments containing details about Judge Butterfield.
He requests removal of comments from two posts:
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/419663.html?c=on#c213666 and www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/419665.html?c=on#c213632
The details in question had already been removed from the first post in compliance with the Indymedia UK privacy policy.
The personal information is also removed from the second post as soon as the email from the police is received. No Indymedia UK administrators had been aware of this post prior to the police email being sent.
Indymedia UK is informed by UK Grid that the police are on the way to the hosting facility, and that the police say they have a warrant for the Indymedia UK server. Staff at UK Grid say that they will ask to see the warrant when the police arrive – and before they give them the hardware – and will keep a copy of the warrant to give to Indymedia UK.
In the afternoon, Kent police arrive at UK Grid’s hosting facility. UK Grid said that no search warrant was provided, and that they initially refused to hand over the server without a warrant. UK Grid claim that in response to this refusal, the police said that they could phone and get a warrant. At that point UK Grid management caved in and the server was handed over to the police. The police left a receipt for the machine.
Throughout the evening and night, Indymedia UK volunteers are busy restoring the affected websites from backups. London Indymedia was back up by 22:00 GMT – less than 12 hours after it had gone offline.

23.01.09

Kent police tell Indymedia’s lawyer via telephone that a warrant had been issued, signed by a senior police officer.

Indymedia Press Releases

26.01.09 - Press Release #1: "IMC Server Seized by UK Police"

Statements of Support

27.01.2009 Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC): "When police seized the Manchester server of Indymedia, they were carrying out surveillance and intimidation against everyone who posts material onto that site, thus attacking their freedom of expression. This seizure had no plausible aim of investigating or preventing crime. Rather, it turns all Indymedia participants into suspects. Likewise, under so-called 'anti-terror' laws, many special powers and police practices are creating suspect communities. We oppose such abuses of power."
22.01.2009 Lee Salter, Lecturer in Journalism (University of West England): "Journalistic material is protected by law, and the police should not gather more information than is relevant for their investigation - by seizing this server they are not only getting information on Indymedia but also on wholly unrelated groups. The police should know that Indymedia does not hold personal information on its participants, so it is a concern is that the police are collecting random information on participants."
26.01.2009 SchNews, weekly news bulletin, Brighton: "The seizure of the UK Indymedia server is a blatant attack on one of the main thorns in the side of the British corporate media stitch-up. The fact that Indymedia is one of the few websites which protect the privacy of the people posting onto it (by not logging IP addresses) - in contravention of the EU Directive on Data Retention - allows it to function as it does as truly independent media. While there is a plethora of blogs, wikis and other sites which allow 'free speech' on the internet, these all mostly do log IP addresses, which is information police can use to establish the identity of those posting on these sites. Indymedia is a notable exception. The recent seizure of an Indymedia server is linked to a police attempt to gain the IP address of an IMC poster relating to the SHAC trial, and given that this information wasn't even on the server, the seizure amounts to a crude attack on Indymedia. Indymedia achieves a great deal with a minimum of resources and voluntary workers, so all users of it are urged to respond to any call-out for help."
02.02.2009 Albert Weidemann, human rights campaigner: "Thanks to Indymedia for all they have done in the past and continue to do for those in the world who suffer persecution, torture and even death. For having the courage and conviction to speak out against human rights abuses where ever they happen in the world. Indymedia gave me the support in highlighting Zimbabwe's ongoing human rights abuses for that I am most grateful and in this time and hour support you in your collective endeavours to shed light and question motives of why the police did what they did."
09.02.2009 Arne Hintz, Program Director, Center for Media and Communication Studies, Central European University, Budapest: "The seizure of the Indymedia server is a serious interference with media freedoms and, particularly, with community and citizens media which serve as crucial platforms for independent journalism and for people's right to freedom of expression. It is deeply worrying if the police obstructs the workings of independent media by taking away their technical infrastructure and trying to gain access to confident information."

Reports

A collection of international media coverage on the 2009 Indymedia Server Seizure

Indymedia Coverage

Most of the early Indymedia articles are based on the original IMC UK feature.
[en] 22.01.09 – Indybay – “Indymedia UK Server in Manchester Seized By Police”
[cat] 23.01.09 – IMC Barcelona – “Servidor d’Indymedia UK segrestat per la policía”
[en] 23.01.09 – IMC UK – “Police Seize UK Indymedia Server (Again)”
[po] 23.01.09 – CMI Brazil – “Polícia apreende novamente servidor do Indymedia Reino Unido UK”
[de] 23.01.09 – IMC Germany – “Spiegelserver von Indymedia UK beschlagnahmt”
[en] 23.01.09 – IMC Athens – “Police Seize UK Indymedia Server (Again)”
[en] 23.01.09 – IMC Ireland – “INDYMEDIA IMC UK Server seized”
[en] 23.01.09 – IMC New York – “Indymedia server seized”
[po] 23.01.09 – IMC Poland – “UK: kolejne przejęcie serwerów Indymediów”
[it] 24.01.09 – IMC Switzerland – “Inghilterra Sequestrato server di Indymedia”

Other Coverage

[en] 23.01.09 – The Register – “Police seize Indymedia server (again). Linked to animal rights extremism case?”
[en] 23.01.09 – SchNews – “Are you being served”
[de] 23.01.09 – Gulli – “Polizei beschlagnahmt Server”
[de] 24.01.09 – Annalist – "Indymedia-Server wegen “Öko-Terrorismus” beschlagnahmt"
[de] 24.01.09 – heise online – “Erneut Beschlagnahme von Indymedia-Server in Großbritannien”

imc-uk

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

Policeand server company

25.01.2009 17:17

The fact that someone from Kent police contacted the person who holds the hosting contract within what must have been a few hours of the comment being posted is revealing. The police don't work that fast normally. It sounds like the comment was posted by the police, or someone working with them, in order to give them an excuse to steal the server.

People should remember the poodle like actions of the hosting company when deciding where to have servers.

There appears to have been no warrant. A piece of paper signed by a police officer is simply a piece of paper signed by a police officer. There is not enough separation for the piece of paper to have any validity.

Me could well be right

25.01.2009 17:52

"It sounds like the comment was posted by the police, or someone working with them, in order to give them an excuse to steal the server."

And this sounds even more like a possibility when you consider the email that was sent saying that this was going to happen:

http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-moderation/2009-January/0121-cv.html

Furthermore the Police took a mirror -- they must have known they were taking a machine that *couldn't* have the evidence they claimed to be after.

Me Too

Big Brother is watching

25.01.2009 18:47

There is huge increase in the amount of surveillance in the UK, from CC TV, to ID cards, with proposals to log every email, phone call, text message, and web site hit.

for instance see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7805610.stm

http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39168692,00.htm

This incident is just an eviction notice from the UK, and the thin end of the wedge. The message it sends is
"If you host UK IMC, in the UK expect to get pulled"

I expect it to extend to any political web site in the UK soon, unless its hosted by the NSA ( sorry, i mean google )

evicted

A timeline includes times

25.01.2009 18:47

21.01.2009 15:13 1st Post
21.01.2009 20:32 2nd Post
Wed Jan 21 09:54:32 The anonymous email to the list.

Why does the list email have a timestamp before the posts? I assume its is because the computers are not both on Greenwich Mean Time, but what are those listed times in GMT?

Also, apart from breeching guidleines, what is the legality and morality of the details posted ? Can I still say who lives in 10, Downing Street and Chequers and one ot two other addresses that are widely available and published? Activists have carried out peaceful actions at the homes of politicians and heads of corporations that required them knowing the details of the address so it is justifiable in my opinion, if not in law. Similarly, the original post would presumably have been better suited to email.

The anonymous email to the list could be a well-intentioned warning but if so why publish it to a visible list instead of emailing an IMCista privately?

Us3

I don't buy the conspiracy theory line

25.01.2009 19:31

"It sounds like the comment was posted by the police, or someone working with them, in order to give them an excuse to steal the server."

I think this is a highly unlikely conspiracy theory. The cops wouldn't want to put a judge at risk, unless of course, the address was incorrect. If they wanted an excuse to seize a server (just a mirror) they could have just posted some general incitement to some illegal act.

v3g4n

The anonymous email to the list could be a well-intentioned warning?

25.01.2009 19:57

The anonymous email to the list could be a well-intentioned warning, but if so why chose such a nickname?

Gladys Hammond

deadgranny@googlemail.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_the_Newchurch_Guinea_Pigs#Removal_of_remains

Is this a nick name that someone with good intentions would choose?

Once you change the times into GMT the first comment was posted at 15:13 GMT and the email sent at 17:54 GMT.

v3g4n: it's not a "highly unlikely conspiracy theory" or "a line" it's a *possibility*, like it's a possibility that many (at times it seems like most) of the comments posted to this site are from disinformation operatives...

Me Too

speculations useless

25.01.2009 21:50

I don't think we'll get anywhere by speculating who sent the warning email. We will never know. There will always be anonymous emails, and in the near future it is likely that police undercover activity continues.
But this doesn't mean there is no way to protect the indymedia - and the wider movements - infrastructure.
The movements can learn to use media tactically. If someone wants to publicise a private adress, they can consider if this information is worth loosing vital movement infrastructure. It's about political intelligence, as the posting from barcelona said.
Grassroots movements can hook up with civil liberty and other advocacy groups to make their issues more visible. It is possible to create a stir in the public sphere, and maybe even to shift public opinion. So that it is no longer seen as legitimate to demand IP logging for criminal investigations, for instance.
In a situation like now, the indymedia collectives in the UK need support. Collaborations, people who engage in maintaining the websites, and participate actively in the project. It looks as if the website runs by itself, but it doesn't.

oliv

Indymedia needs a better commenting system

26.01.2009 00:30

Anyone can post a comment to Indymedia under any name, so it is impossible to judge comments by the previous reputation of the poster. This leads to paranoia and confusion.

I think what is needed is a more fully-featured commenting system, similar to that found on sites like

http://slashdot.org

It means a slight reduction in anonymity, since people can set up accounts and post under those accounts, but it means you know for sure who is talking, based on their previous posting history.

Another useful feature would be a moderation system of some kind, where users can mark up good comments and mark down spam, trolls, and gibberish, which get hidden by default. I imagine this process is largely centralised at the moment?

v3g4n

to fromslashdot

26.01.2009 15:37

although it is unlikely that the original author of the comment from slashdot will read this:
The details of the Judge were removed from the indymedia website even before the police asked for it.
Indymedia, even if it wanted to, has no possibility to dicover the identity of the poster, as it does not keep IP logs.

Indymedia does not keep IP logs because it is a matter of civil liberty for citizens to wander about the web without every move being documented, profiled and fed into government databases. Since - as the server seizure shows again - the police seem to have unlimited access to servers in the UK, Indymedia is right in not keeping these logs in the first place.

So: Indymedias policy to keep no IP logs is not to protect one particular campaign. In fact, postings publicising personal data by third parties are taken off the website). It is about civil liberties.

Question is: Is it justified for the police to seriously affect civil liberties by damaging the infrastructure of an open publishing alternative media project, only because they don't believe that Indymedia does not log IP adresses, because they don't believe that the server was a mirror, or because they dont know that mirrors dont log IP adresses?

The action of the police does not protect the Judge in any way whatsover. It will not lead to the anonymous poster of the adress, and the adress was removed anyway.

So - whats the point??

commenter

Unfortunate

26.01.2009 16:16

You wrote :

"The animal liberation front people are sick and very dangerous, not to mention misguided at the end of the day - they don't seem to have any interest in millions of animals subjected to factory farming but attack people doing medical research who experiment on a few dozen animals."

Sure that factory farming is not nice at all but it still has a purpose which is feeding people.

Animal experiments in medical research also seem to have a purpose, which is helping design drugs that are safe for human use, or helping define at which quantities a drug or a substance becomes a poison, and things like that

But here we have got a big problem cos animal expirements offer no guarantee that the data obtained by testing on animals is actually of any use for humans.

This makes animal testing mostly a gratuitous and sadistic activity that has no real purpose.

As for what actually goes on in those labs, it seems most of what they do consist into generating DL50 data for a variety of commercialised chemicals or formulations.

So they are kiling, torturing to death scores of different animals they breed for that purpose with lipstick, UV creams, shampoos, etc, etc, etc...

Worse even than the above, as even more useless and killing and torturing much more.

But hey this a business, and businesses are the most sacred things there are those days, doesn't it ?

a dude

animal liberationists certainly do attack the meat industry!

26.01.2009 23:53

"The animal liberation front people are sick and very dangerous, not to mention misguided at the end of the day - they don't seem to have any interest in millions of animals subjected to factory farming"

I'm not sure who this quote is from, but they clearly don't have a clue what they are talking about. Have they been living under a rock for the past 20 years? Animal liberationists attack the meat industry on a regular basis, and quite rightly so.

Just because vivisection is flavour of the month with the news at the moment doesn't mean that is all animal rights people think about.

anon