Comments on: Comments on 14341

Post number 14341

yesster — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:33:53 -0800

Raisethefist.org shut down? This hasn't been picked up by major media yet, but does appear in the Progressive Review. Apparently, raisethefist.org was shut down by Secret Service, FBI, and local law enforcement, for unspecified reasons. Is this a First Amendment issue? Is this a police state in action? Or does anybody have credible evidence that there's genuine illegal activity behind the shutdown?

By: yesster

yesster — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:39:30 -0800

I'm not sure of the credibility of the story, yet. Could be that some actual violations of law took place, could be the "takedown" is a hoax. As of yet, I haven't seen a reliable source pick this up. So I'm not going to run around saying the sky is falling, yet. But if the general picture provided at the link provided, and at the Progressive Review (you have to scroll down a ways to see this story), is generally accurate, this is very disconcerting. Right now, I would prefer postings that link to other sources of info on this - can we save the proselytizing until the facts are clearer?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:51:24 -0800

It's actually raisethefist.com, which you can find a copy of at the web archive, but it keeps crashing my IE6 when I load it. I've never heard of this site, but it appeared much like indymedia.org when I did see it a second ago. Just ultra-lefty news and articles.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:52:03 -0800

According to folks I know at the ISP that hosted their site, this sort of thing happens if not all the time, at least sometimes. The ISP will get a fax from the FBI stating that the website is in violation of federal law and indicating that at some point in the future - directly pre-raid - the ISP will be asked to freeze the site as evidence. Usually these websites are your basic extreme porn or anarcho-hacker type sites. I'm not 100% sure what the deal with this one was [on any legitimate footing anyhow], but I know the shutdown has been in the works since late 2001. The ISP is basically forbidden from telling the owner of the website that anything is afoot under penalty of being considered an accomplice to the "crime". The website is now up, after a fashion with links to old text, you can decide for yourself.

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:55:47 -0800

well, if we study our history, we'll see that even if this story isn't completely true, it's believable. ask anyone who worked for steve jackson back in '94. christ. i knew this shit was going to happen. in the name of this 'war on terrorism', the gov't is going to clamp down on EVERYTHING it doesn't like, and give cheap excuses for it. like the 'drugs fund terrorism' crap. ugh. UGH! it's 1984. just later than we expected. i'm SO pissed at this. i can SEE how bad it's going to get, but heaven forbid i say anything 'anti-american' or i might be silenced in the name of 'counter-terrorism'. i've got a car, a belly full of rage, and i live 20 minutes from NYC. i also have no plans for the next few days. maybe i should show up for the 'action'.

By: revbrian

revbrian — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:02:48 -0800

We have found a complete backup of raisethefist.com online. We will need U.S. $300.00 Three Hundred in order to obtain a copy from that host. Please contact the founder if you wish to donate. The contact info is on the bottom. -Founder - From the site You would think the media would be all over this if it's true. Why all the guns though? It's not like there was a unarmed child in there or anything...

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:10:32 -0800

"Right now, I would prefer postings that link to other sources of info on this" Declan McCullogh has been covering this on his weblog and I trust his information. Oh, that's politechbot.

By: Danelope

Danelope — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:13:46 -0800

christ. i knew this shit was going to happen. in the name of this 'war on terrorism', the gov't is going to clamp down on EVERYTHING it doesn't like, and give cheap excuses for it. like the 'drugs fund terrorism' crap ugh. UGH! it's 1984. just later than we expected. i'm SO pissed at this. i can SEE how bad it's going to get, but heaven forbid i say anything 'anti-american' or i might be silenced in the name of 'counter-terrorism'. Gee, how about you start over-reacting a little about an unconfirmed, unverified report? To hear you tell it, the world's about to end. Take your ritalin already...

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:24:37 -0800

i'm not 'over-reacting a little about an unconfirmed, unverified report', i'm reacting to a downward trend that's been going on for quite sometime now. camel, meet the straw. but you would have known that if you reread both our posts before you hit the 'post' button.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:35:05 -0800

You would think the media would be all over this if it's true. I've spoken to the folks at the ISP that hosted the site this morning. They can confirm the freezing of the website, the FBI raid on the 25th, and the advance warning of same, to them, from the FBI. They can not confirm number of agents/guns, stuff taken or anything else that would be "had to be there" data points. I know it would be more pleasant if this were a boy who cried wolf situation, but it really doesn't appear to be. Here's an okay collection of links, including a report of an FBI confirmation. It does raise an important issue -- how do you confirm an event like this if the media gives it no coverage whatsoever?

By: schlyer

schlyer — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:47:05 -0800

I cannot post any contents of the warrant online. Yes I have a copy of it ... I can't discuss the specifics over the internet Why? Its a warrant, its a public document - or am I missing something.

By: chris0495

chris0495 — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:50:14 -0800

i guess any kind of government resistence/societal improvement movement is going to have to adopt the "cell" model. At least we wont have to be willing to die for change. As long as the movement is non-violent, we'll just get thrown in jail. Nelson Mandela sat in jail for over 20 years before South Africa changed. Peltier and Mumia are still in jail here in America. I think one way to get some momentum behind the "movement" - i don't know what to call it b/c it's so many things, enviroment, anti-international corporate-ism, education, war on some drugs - is for more people to get arrested and jailed in the process of asking for change. There will have to be sacrifice, and, right now, the number of people willing to put up are far outnumbered by the number of people willing to shut up.

By: owillis

owillis — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:53:34 -0800

I'm still in shock at putting Nelson Mandela and Mumia in the same paragraph. Sheesh, get perspective.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:06:56 -0800

According to the FBI, Austin allegedly defaced at least five commercial Web sites since 1999 using the nickname "Ucaun." On three of the sites, Austin left behind a hacking program named troop.cgi that was designed to attempt to log in to a computer operated by the U.S. Army, the FBI affidavit stated. Ah, there's the reason that he can't discuss the specifics of the warrant.

By: rcade

rcade — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:08:10 -0800

It does raise an important issue -- how do you confirm an event like this if the media gives it no coverage whatsoever? Pester reporters. There's got to be someone at the LA Times or one of the free weeklies there who would be interested in the story.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:09:07 -0800

SlashDot now has a good collection of links, including some that might be characterized as "major media."

By: revbrian

revbrian — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:25:48 -0800

From the article : In the interview, Austin acknowledged that he vandalized the Web sites and that he knew it was illegal to do so. But he defended the act by saying it was necessary to get his message out... "If I go to jail, then I will go to jail not based on my actions, but based on what I think," Well, enjoy your jail time. What you think isn't a crime, defacing others property and stealing their bandwidth is. Attempting to hack into US Army computers while we are in a 'state of war' is both illegal, and IMHO downright stupid.

By: rcade

rcade — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:49:16 -0800

The guy's a maroon. I would hate to think we've reached a point where you can deface a few web sites while living with your parents and be considered a revolutionary.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:38:26 -0800

The spelling errors on that site are a federal crime. Lord save us all from $cRiPt kIdDi3Z who think their hacking constitutes legal political dissent.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:06:50 -0800

dhartung - Many years ago, when I was young and dumb enough to find such post-B1FF spelling amusing, a friend facetiously wondered aloud about a courtroom scene involving the reading of such a text: attorney: "What does this writing say?" hax0r: "It says 'You are not elite.'"

By: MidasMulligan

MidasMulligan — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:27:43 -0800

This guy hacks commercial sites, attempts to hack the freakin' US Army, and thinks he got arrested because he is so effective in getting his message of - as, after all, he was getting 700 whole unique users a day? Yeesh ... I see a Darwin Award looming somewhere in this guy's future.

By: joemaller

joemaller — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:50:43 -0800

hax0r: "It says 'You are not elite.' NortonDC, that cracked me up. The article does a good job reaping fear, which is easy since as mentioned here before, I still feel restricted regarding what I can freely do in America. I think most dissent is being kept quiet these days, mutterings between friends. Except of course for most Bush related MeFi threads of late (which I find pleasantly cathartic).

By: ezfowler

ezfowler — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:59:59 -0800

This sounds a lot like what Sf Liberation Radio and Free Radio Berkeley went through with the FCC and raids. The heavy handed swipe at personal freedom ranges from these cats, all the way to little poets like Sarah Jones, who is suing the FCC for banning her song from a Portland, Ore. radio station (which was fined 7k) despite the fact that it did not contain any of the seven words prohibited by the FCC.

By: phatboy

phatboy — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:59:48 -0800

Does anyone else find the use of passive voice in the URL kind of funny (i.e. "Raise The Fist")? RaiseYourFist must have been taken. People advocating revolution shouldn't use passive voice : ).

By: Mo Nickels

Mo Nickels — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:00:31 -0800

the seven words prohibited by the FCC. This is a myth. There is no list of seven dirty words. The restrictions are community standards-based, not key word based.

By: Mo Nickels

Mo Nickels — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:04:55 -0800

Except for Carlin's list, of course. Otherwise we'd be able to say, "dick ass bugger carpet-muncher quim frigger," wouldn't we?

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:35:36 -0800

this hit a webzine list on the 25th--lots of indymedia ties to the list. I dig indymedia. I love the concept. But i'll be damned if i can read half of what is written there without wanting to bash my head in...the writing hurts my head, and they present cliches instead of simple concise facts. [this link is better, the stories as they break are just big yelps of words thrown together.] [i love using 'simple' and 'concise' together like that.] another thought i had was this: if you are a cyberactivist of some sort, keep your nose clean. Don't do stupid things like defacing a website. Don't fill your system up with pirated software--that is like giving the FBI balloons and ice cream when they get to your house. [i'm just guessing that like your average computer nut...cracks, serial lists, copied cd's etc,...litter his computer space.] my main problem with raisethefist was the undercurrent of imminent violence. i miss the spell check. ...people be drop'n revolution, like it was a pick-up line. you wouldn't use that word if you knew what it meant... -sekou sundiata

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:46:25 -0800

I still feel restricted regarding what I can freely do in America. I don't. I won't. I respect those who fought and died to create and preserve this country AND THE IDEALS UPON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED too much to capitulate to the petty tyrants and fearmongerers. See you in Guantanamo.

By: joemaller

joemaller — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:11:08 -0800

Uh rushmc, I was referring to my government. I imagine the odds for incarceration are much higher than becoming a victim of a terrorist attack. Anger towards military or police is generally misplaced. These people do their jobs. The government's role to define those jobs. There is a general attitude in place which is no longer tolerant of slightly unusual behavior. Curiosity towards something like powerplants, airport terminals or security cameras is now a threat to national security, not a viable creative subject. Of course the emotional qualities which made these things interesting is also different now. Times have changed, and it's going to be a while before they change back. But anyway, I'm sorry I mentioned it, the whole topic is kind of boring by now.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:15:23 -0800

the seven words prohibited by the FCC... This is a myth. actually, there's some truth to the seven words thing

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:04:42 -0800

Uh rushmc, I was referring to my government. I imagine the odds for incarceration are much higher than becoming a victim of a terrorist attack. Yes, joemaller, I was responding to exactly what you meant (what "petty tyrants" did you think I was referring to? bin Laden?? Don't make me laugh).

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:25:32 -0800

here's the search warrant, for future reference.