Keystone Kops Nick Numerals

March 29, 2005 9:39 PM

"Freedom of speech does not exist, don't try to test it." Anarchist web portals Infoshop.org and flag.blackened.net are under investigation by the FBI. While site operators are under gag order and cannot discuss the specifics of the situation that prompted this action, they confirm that logged IPs have been handed over under threat of arrest and seizure. This is eerily familiar. Just how slippery has this particular slope become?
posted by Embryo (70 comments total)

.

[this is really bad]
posted by schyler523 at 9:55 PM on March 29, 2005

Jesus, the poor guy, having to choose between his family's well-being and what he considers his integrity. By that I mean that I think anyone with a family can hardly blame him.
posted by Wataki at 10:01 PM on March 29, 2005

.
posted by c13 at 10:24 PM on March 29, 2005

The problem is the Bush administration doesn't-BANG! [shot in the back of the head]

Bit by bit by bit it'll get worse no matter who's in office.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:36 PM on March 29, 2005

It's a lot easier to thumb your nose at The Man when he is not paying attention to you.
posted by nightchrome at 10:39 PM on March 29, 2005

Holy shit! There are Anarchist among us!
posted by lacus at 10:42 PM on March 29, 2005

.
posted by Tlahtolli at 10:46 PM on March 29, 2005

Dang.

Big fat . from me. I often go to infoshop.org for their news features.
posted by spinifex23 at 10:53 PM on March 29, 2005

Why do these people even keep IP records to begin with? Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the site, so I don't know what functions might depend on it.
posted by sbutler at 10:55 PM on March 29, 2005

Are there any sources on this story aside from Infoshop.org ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:56 PM on March 29, 2005

.
posted by ManicExpressive at 10:58 PM on March 29, 2005

As an Anarchist myself, this scares me. I visit both sites mentioned almost every day.

I really hope this doesn't affect SEANET.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 11:07 PM on March 29, 2005

Steve: no, but I couldn't think of any reason why an anarchist would make something like that up... it's in no one's interest for this to happen. What anarchist community would want to provoke attention that way?

I will be as interested as anyone to hear further details, if they are forthcoming...

I'm actually not an anarchist, at least not practically speaking, but I guess that didn't really seem like the point. Many anarchist ideas and principles are of great interest to me, however, so there is also ideological similarity that in part drives my concern about this. What I want to know more about is what kind of theoretical accountability exists for the FBI to do something like this. If a MeFite knows, and would be so kind as to chime in, I would greatly appreciate it.
posted by Embryo at 11:20 PM on March 29, 2005

Are the FBI asking for anything more than one or two IPs?
posted by Wataki at 11:32 PM on March 29, 2005

I'm not actually an anarchist either, I just play one at protest.
posted by lacus at 11:38 PM on March 29, 2005

Wataki: from the sound of it, it's some subset of their IP logs, and that's all. The sites aren't being shut down, although they are clearly compromised and depending on how worried one is about being arrested for what one thinks and says, it is conceivable that one might not want to say much there anymore.
posted by Embryo at 11:51 PM on March 29, 2005

I couldn't think of any reason why an anarchist would make something like that up... it's in no one's interest for this to happen. What anarchist community would want to provoke attention that way?

I am not saying this is the case, but I would be more interested in details left out, more so than things being made up.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:52 PM on March 29, 2005

>I would be more interested in details left out

I think there are many details left out of this story and many stories like it, I guess it's called concision or gag orders, depending on one's point of view. I would hope a book is written about the subject to illuminate all the left out details. I'm a little conflicted about that, because buying or reading the book would be aiding and abetting a known anti-American or anti-Fascist group.

Decisions Decisions.
posted by gsb at 12:16 AM on March 30, 2005

What anarchist community would want to provoke attention that way?


One that isn't just pretending to be anarchist?
posted by shmegegge at 12:17 AM on March 30, 2005

.
posted by sninky-chan at 12:34 AM on March 30, 2005

I am not saying this is the case, but I would be more interested in details left out, more so than things being made up.

I would have liked to have had everybody know why we're at war before we went Steve. Details haven't meant a damn until now. So what's your excuse?
posted by crasspastor at 12:47 AM on March 30, 2005

Is there a news report about this from somebody other than Infoshop.org? I don't doubt the story, but it's hard to test the credibility of the details when the only reporting is coming from the very site that is directly involved. Third-party information would be nice.

To be more blunt, it's hard to trust somebody who seems honestly worried about being shot in the back of the head at random. ("[FBI agents] will blindly follow any order to kill or disrupt without question")

The story to me seems to be that somebody who used a subdomain of the site did somethign very bad (kiddie porn, threatened the President, etc) and the FBI is trying to track that person down. If you edit out all the editorial comments about the Gestapo it sounds like a pretty routine search warrant.

The author of the post even admits that the people on the subdomain did something very bad. ("The people who have foolishly compromised us all will shoulder the burden for their selfish actions"). It sounds like the subdomain users did somethign really stupid and now the host is taking the heat. He tries to accuse them of sabotoge (" they are trying to make flag vulnerable to government intrusion") of the site, which again makes the FBI action seem more reasonable.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:53 AM on March 30, 2005

This is going to make me sound really paranoid, but we rarely hear stories of people actually being shot in the back of the head, etc., because the people in question got shot in the back of the head, etc. before they could tell their story.

And this is going to make me sound like a dumb believer in urban legends, but once you've been forced often enough to poke through the barrier between the extremely provable and the anecdotal (say, because you really do know the people in question personally), you start to get a feeling that not EVERY anecdotal story (say, about the FBI) can be false. Given all the anecdotal stories I've heard (say, about the FBI), stories like this worry me. A lot.
posted by sninky-chan at 1:02 AM on March 30, 2005

Quit being so paranoid about being paranoid. It's okay. Use you head.
posted by crasspastor at 1:11 AM on March 30, 2005

The problem is also that, while we're assuming the "selfish actions" were something wrong, like child porn or assassination-planning, they could also plausibly be other things that are also illegal, but we might not necessarily consider them wrong.

ie., In this case, the IPs may lead the FBI to a potential murderer. But the same process could conceivably lead the FBI to someone trying to set up a non-violent protest against the School of the Americas or something.
posted by Wataki at 1:15 AM on March 30, 2005

the same process could conceivably lead the FBI to someone trying to set up a non-violent protest against the School of the Americas or something.

Somehow I don't think that the site owner would consider such a protest a "selfish action" that opened up the site to FBI scrutiny.

The gag order makes it tough to tell, but if somebody who calls the FBI the "Gestapo" thinks that the subdomain owners did something wrong then it's probably something pretty wrong.

Don't get me wrong: I do not think that this is a Good Thing, but it's also not the end of "Freedom of Speech". Let's try to reduce the crying of wolf so that when something more major happens there is still a defense.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:19 AM on March 30, 2005

Somehow I don't think that the site owner would consider such a protest a "selfish action" that opened up the site to FBI scrutiny.

My point was exactly that. Even though in this case it was probably something bad, maybe next time it isn't. By our standards, I mean, rather than the State's.
posted by Wataki at 1:25 AM on March 30, 2005

OK - someone read the article. Time to STOP FREAKING OUT. Let's try to look at this objectively and not knee-jerk.
Consider the following:

1. If you are the govt, you will have a watch on sites like this anyway, to know in advance about protests, actions, people, etc. This is normal.
2. According to this release, two messages were posted which were "completely out of line for consideration here at flag" - let's assume they were semi-serious death threats against the president or something equally serious. Anything less grave would not be being investigated by the FBI. These messages are detected by the watchdogs and reported.
3. As a matter of national security, the FBI should investigate every possible threat, no matter how slight or improbable - it's their job, and this kind of threat turns up from time to time.
4. In order to investigate things, they need access to the offending posters' sites/ips, that kind of thing. Is this really such a heinous request? The evidence is being subpoenaed - THIS IS NORMAL.
5. The anarchist community is paranoid - not to say overly paranoid - but they are, let's not joke around. They see the FBI subpoena a popular anarchist website and they see a goddamn bullet in the head. Time to take a chill pill.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:34 AM on March 30, 2005

Don't go lohan on me, guys.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:52 AM on March 30, 2005

I agree that, if it's not worse than it seems on the site, it's not all that bad.
posted by Wataki at 2:03 AM on March 30, 2005

Interesting report. Anarchists are paranoid, but with good reason. They believe in the eradication of the FBI and the government, and vice-versa. The differences being that anarchists have not been able to do any serious damage to the government, while the government is restricted from wiping out anarchists by its own laws.

Of course, they're freaking out pretty bad. It's like being stopped for a speeding ticket by a cop who hates your guts. There's an overwhelming fear of abuse of authority.

It wouldn't be difficult for the FBI to seize all of their servers. Next to being killed, an anarchist's greatest fear is being silenced. Like death-defiers, they love close shaves, it makes them look legitimate and cool.

So what's all this mean? Some asshole on one of their subdomains likely posted some stuff that openly threatened terrorist acts. I'd think any threat on Bush would be handled by the Secret Service, but that may have changed recently. In any case, either of those would be unsurprising from a real wingnut, very stupid, and definitely deserving of an IP trace and investigation.

And all the while, the fear of the government not only makes this seem to be a bigger deal, but actually compounds the problem.

It's all a big game, but the stakes are high, everyone's dead serious, and anyone who laughs at the absurdity of it all is shouted down.
posted by Saydur at 2:07 AM on March 30, 2005

I wish these people would put their idealism where their mouth is and just start a futile rebellion and all be killed already.
posted by angry modem at 2:24 AM on March 30, 2005

Yeah, idealists, what have they ever done for us?
posted by asok at 3:15 AM on March 30, 2005

...next they came for the anarchists, but I didn't mind, I gave up anarchy for lent.
posted by Goofyy at 3:53 AM on March 30, 2005

Lent is over.
posted by Dagobert at 4:16 AM on March 30, 2005

Steve@, yeah, it'd be nice to know what details have been left out. Not being allowed to discuss specifics by court order seems to prevent that though. This bit is interesting though

Though it pains me to comply with the State in any manner, I have to choose option #2. The people who have foolishly compromised us all will shoulder the burden for their selfish actions. Frankly folks, they know better - we all know better.

posted by substrate at 5:16 AM on March 30, 2005

At this point let me say, in all honesty and conviction, that if I end up dead by strange means - suicide, overdose, drunk driving accident (I never, ever, ever drink and drive), "accidental" gunshot to the back of the head while sleeping ala Fred Hampton, car jacking, or anything else reasonably suspicious, contact the FBI in Chico, California for more details.

ROFL!
posted by quonsar at 5:32 AM on March 30, 2005

BUSH IS TEH ANARCHRIST!11!!
posted by quonsar at 5:32 AM on March 30, 2005

Who knew? Apparently anarchists have martyr complexes. Color me surprised.
posted by shmegegge at 5:46 AM on March 30, 2005

Honestly. I dislike anything impinging on individual rights to free speech (goddamn "free speech zone" went from coast to coast last I heard, Mr. President!! People died to keep it that way, you smug transplanted Massachussetts carpetbagger!)

However, the "bullet in the back of the head" crowd sort of irritates me. Much like people complaining about how horrible Group X has it today in the US.

To all of these people, I'd just like to say: Shut up. You know fuck-all about oppression, government conspiracy, etc. You live in the goddamn United States. Try a different, less-stable country for a little while. Government conspiracy? Faugh. Nobody's being "disappeared". We don't have torture and rape rooms in the White House. Christ. This is not an oppressive country, just one that is poorly run and often mis-managed.

As my brother put it, "The damn government isn't coordinated enough to even pay me (he's active military) on time. How the hell does anyone think they can organize a massive cover-up?"
posted by caution live frogs at 5:49 AM on March 30, 2005

I remember when the FBI shut down my cooking site because they deemed my awesome Cheesecake of the Gods recipe a threat to society & could be used to kill hundreds of thousands of people (slowly, over many years).

Stop the madness, start the movie!
posted by password at 6:15 AM on March 30, 2005

We don't have torture and rape rooms in the White House.

Indeed. They got rid of those to make spare bedrooms for when Jenna and Babs want to stay over.
posted by clevershark at 6:17 AM on March 30, 2005

We don't have torture and rape rooms in the White House.

Are these rooms OK for the US to have because they exist in other places? Like the Caribbean? Or the Middle East? Just not down the hall from where the president sleeps? I'm not sure I follow you on this one.

Should we be waiting to complain until the situation is just as bad as in those "less-stable" countries?
posted by rxrfrx at 6:36 AM on March 30, 2005

caution live frogs:

Your brother completely misses the point. If the government was competent, then there would be nothing to fear if you had nothing to hide. I know a couple of people that have been targets of govt harresment, despite being decent citizens with nothing to hide. Being a decent citizen with nothing to hide doesn't save you from being the victim of incompetence or corruption or overzealous dragnets.

This is a government that isn't coordinated enough to pay your brother, yet this same government is actively locking people up for YEARS without the safety-check of trial or due process, on shockingly flimsy suspicions, engaging in secret arrests, compiling citizen watchlists, etc etc. No massive cover-ups are needed when people are naive enough to think that nothing to hide means nothing to fear, and those that aren't are powerless to get past the usual brushoff - "We don't feel like releasing information about our screwups, as it could hurt our careers, so whatever your question, the answer is 'that's a matter of national security matter', ie bug off".
posted by -harlequin- at 6:49 AM on March 30, 2005

Read it again. I think it's a viral ad for a new movie.
posted by fungible at 7:11 AM on March 30, 2005

Read it again. I think it's a viral ad for a new movie.

"it's a viral ad", "it's fake", etc. is starting to sound like a standard MeFi response for anything out of the ordinary... if it is a viral ad, infoshop.org has signed its own death sentence as a web site (a bit like if slashdot.org decided to go the .NET route).
posted by clevershark at 7:20 AM on March 30, 2005

i appreciate all the thoughts and comments here, in my first FPP. grin.

I don't think that what the content is changes the truth of the statement that I attached the link to. That's the way the anarchists see it, at least, because restrictions on freedom of speech are restrictions on freedom of speech, period. I am definitely interested in the details that have been "left out" (i.e., gagged) -- because given the volume of potentially litigatable speech on the internet, I think it is very telling whom the FBI chooses to go after.
posted by Embryo at 7:26 AM on March 30, 2005

APRIL FOOLS!
posted by Eamon at 7:28 AM on March 30, 2005

We don't have torture and rape rooms in the White House.

speaking of rape rooms, where the HELL did that concept come from? i had never in my life heard that phrase uttered until i heard it fall headlong out of shrubs mouth a couple of years ago. since then it seems to have become rather common currency. wtf is a rape room? did saddam have signs at abu ghraib along the corridors? rape rooms 111 - 121? attention: rape rooms are for forcible sexual penetration only. please conduct other torture in the appropriate areas?
posted by quonsar at 7:46 AM on March 30, 2005

i had never in my life heard that phrase uttered until i heard it fall headlong out of shrubs mouth a couple of years ago.

Indeed. Kinda like "evildoer". The President is making up for his lack of vocabulary by inventing new expressions he can pronounce.

Personally I always wondered if there was a penalty for not engaging in sexual torture while using a rape room. Then again I'm one of those persons who think that Dubya's pulling an awful lot of that sort of thing right out of his ass.
posted by clevershark at 7:49 AM on March 30, 2005

speaking of rape rooms, where the HELL did that concept come from?

Isn't that part of the Yale Skull & Bones frat initiation?
posted by gsb at 7:52 AM on March 30, 2005

Relax, maybe they were just after some plagarists... and we all know nothings too good for scum like that.
posted by soulhuntre at 8:44 AM on March 30, 2005

freedom of speech are restrictions on freedom of speech, period

Are you talking about the gag order? They are pretty standard in investigations so that the person being investigated doesn't have a chance to delete everything before the FBI gets there. Nothing to see here.

There are plenty of restrictions on speech. I can't say "I'm going to kill the President", nor can I yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. "Free" speech has always been subject to limits.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:17 AM on March 30, 2005

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..........

Time for a revolution indeed!
posted by Yer-Ol-Pal at 9:28 AM on March 30, 2005

thedevil: i'm talking more about the ideas behind the second part of what you said, not the first. although either apply. we don't know exactly what there is to see here yet, but clearly there is more than nothing.
posted by Embryo at 9:33 AM on March 30, 2005

Actually, you can say "I'm going to kill the President." We both just did.
posted by klangklangston at 9:36 AM on March 30, 2005

I think it would be a good idea for everyone to get out there and read about life in Soviet Russia under Stalin's time as well as Mao's China. Whether you want to accept it or not, we are heading down the slippery slope of that kind of existence in this country. Who seems more like Maoist Red Guards in this country now? Ineffectual, imaginary sock-puppet 'liberals' or Bush's 'New Red Guard'?
posted by mk1gti at 9:51 AM on March 30, 2005

What the US does in other countries is largely at the whim of the current administration. The main point I was trying to make here is that we do not have an oppressive, paranoid government that will stop at nothing to stay in power. There are people who will go a long, long way to gain the Oval Office - but every four to eight years these same people will quietly turn the office over to the next leader. Governments that are really out to get their own citizens don't generally allow those same citizens any real say in who the next leader will be. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Il Jong, Saddam, Pol Pot... these sorts of people get in charge, stay in charge, and eliminate the opposition. You think Stalin would have let an anti-Stalin information source openly exist in his own country? Hell no.

I'm not trying to say the US Govt. is a paragon of virtue that can do no wrong. I'm just saying that before we start looking for snipers and black helicopters here we might want to think about how realistic the fears are. Let's face it - If the US really wanted to shut these people up, they'd be shut up. We're damn good at blowing up whole countries when we set our minds to it. An anarchist website wouldn't be that hard to take down.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:21 AM on March 30, 2005

Actually, you can say "I'm going to kill the President." We both just did.

Yes. You know what I meant. You can't say it in such a way that it's clear that you mean it. Or post detailed instructions about how you plan to go about it.

Hang on, there are some guys in black shirts and jackboots at the door...
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2005

nor can I yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. "Free" speech has always been subject to limits.

Yes, you can, if the theater is in fact on fire.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 11:17 AM on March 30, 2005

caution live frogs

You have a point there. . . So, show me some examples where the citizenry in this country actually have a voice, where we are not being disenfranchised, where elections were conducted fairly, where there still is a large, liberal media heard every night on television, where politicians are conducted off to prison for corruption, malfeasence, etc.
'Cause I'm certainly not seeing it here since . . . Oh, around 1970 or so . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2005

where politicians are conducted off to prison for corruption

Governor John Rowland of Connecticut.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:39 PM on March 30, 2005

I only see one example, I don't think it's too much to ask for examples from say, 1970 forward. Seems like there should be several. If the people still control their government, let's see some examples. Corporations turned back for violating environmental practices, substantial lawsuits decided for plaintiffs against corporations (within the last five years, more than one example, please). I want to see large amounts of perp walks here, not just one.
posted by mk1gti at 2:18 PM on March 30, 2005

substantial lawsuits decided for plaintiffs against corporations (within the last five years, more than one example, please).

How are these?:

July 2001 - 9th Circuit upholds $260 million compensatory damages verdict against Exxon for Exxon Valdez oil spill, plus $4.5 billion in punitive damages.

2004 - $4.25 billion settlement in Fen-Phen diet drug litigation. MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.)

2001 - $1.1 billion jury verdict against State Farm for installing aftermarket auto parts and calling them OEM.

2000 - $206 billion tobacco settlements against Big Tobacco.

I don't have time to find more. Google has good information.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:32 PM on March 30, 2005

Corporations turned back for violating environmental practices

Wouldn't an absence of litigation actually be the ideal on that front? Ie - the regulations are being followed and thus there's no need to drag things into court. Most EPA actions are out-of-court and probably not publicly documented.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:39 PM on March 30, 2005

Absence of litigation is because corporations are aggresively contesting the ability of anyone to litigate against them.

Meanwhile, look at this:

http://news.google.com/news?ncl=http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050330-022315-9627r.htm&hl=en

So much for no problems with the environment . . .
posted by mk1gti at 4:15 PM on March 30, 2005

you both are going to have trouble proving your points. the system offers plenty of evidence that it works on a surface level, but on the contrary, many more things are getting through whatever filters exist than are being caught.

as for EPA regulation:

a) the federal EPA is run at the whim of whoever is in charge of the Executive Branch, so right now it is entirely useless.
b) state EPAs are also accountable to their state governments. Fining is the most common form of environmental law enforcement, and is a matter of public record, but it is usually done in a completely useless way, so much so that polluters can chalk their fines up to the cost of doing business. (my personal experience with this concerns the state of Maine).
posted by Embryo at 6:47 PM on March 30, 2005

"THIS IS NORMAL."

Yeah, right. Logged IP addresses trace in many cases to individual computers, which amounts to an FBI Shit List.

It'd be funny if after my paranoiac episodes I actually did get investigated (and maybe COINTELPROed), but I don't have any secrets to reveal or not and nobody to turn in or not -- not only by my own efforts but also because "serious" anarchists consider me too flaky to let me in on any juicy conspiracies or "actions"-- so I really ain't got much to fear that I haven't been dealing with for decades anyway. The fact is, for my ~10 year career on the Internet, and for a decade-plus before then, I've been an "out" and vocal anarchist; if they ever do Gitmo my ass all they'd find out is that I'm too fringey and loony for the lunatic fringe, which everybody who's anybody knows already, and plus they'd probably have to cook for me and listen to me sing. (Compared to me William Hung is a veritable opera star; my rendition of "Fairies Wear Boots", if broadcast publicly, might by itself be enough to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.)

But all those people who have something to lose, well... Having one's heart in the right place is still no guarantee of brilliance or of thinking things through. I'd expect too that the "obvious" self-protective measure, "web-surfing" through an anonymizer, wouldn't fool the Thones and Dominions, who might have set those things up inthe first place, and it simply declares to Those Who Know that one has something to hide. ("Hi, I'm scared to reveal myself as someone with unorthodox tendencies!") And then there's the possibility for blackmail. And has anyone mentioned that in pre-1917 Russia many "revolutionary leaders" (such as maybe Stalin) were agents of the Tsarist Okhrana?

Anyway, like I said, IP logs amount to an FBI Shit List, and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot and/or a liar. Those of you with anything to fear should immediately wipe sensitive files from your hard drives (moving them to the Trash folder or even deleting them won't do) and shred/burn any incriminating physical documents or items, cease dealing meth to school kids (or whatever you might get arrested for), and perhaps consider "taqiyya" measures like, oh, say, acquiring a "normal" appearance, subscribing to conservative publications (like the New York Daily News and the U.S News and World Report), and joining a radical right-wing holy-roller church. (But slowly and gradually, not everything all at once, so it looks more "real".)

Repeat after me: "I am not now and never have been a member of the Anarchist Party, nor do I know anyone who might have been. And Senator McCarthy was a fine American and true patriot as far as I'm concerned."

Oh, and by the way: once again, I TOLD YOU SO! One ignores my advice to their peril. Especially when this stuff (like my previous prediction of a second Bush "victory") is so damn obvious -- if I can see it coming then anybody should be able to. (But no-o-o, it's so much easier to accuse me of being a foil-beanie paranoid, uh-huh.) YHBW. HTH.

Oh, and as for me, FUCK THE FBI! J. Edgar sat down to pee!
posted by davy at 7:33 PM on March 30, 2005

speaking of rape rooms, where the HELL did that concept come from? i had never in my life heard that phrase uttered until i heard it fall headlong out of shrubs mouth a couple of years ago.

You obviously haven't been frequenting Christian Forums for the last year. Ahem.
posted by Wataki at 11:18 PM on March 30, 2005

Meanwhile, look at this:

http://news.google.com/news?ncl=http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050330-022315-9627r.htm&hl=en

Linky no worky. Headline?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:57 AM on March 31, 2005