Taming The Internet
By Bobbie Johnson
14 October, 2004
The
Guardian
It
is a story with components that would have most conspiracy theorists
running for the nearest tinfoil hat shop: a radical media organisation,
the FBI and an apparently anonymous foreign government.
Last week, Rackspace,
a hosting company with headquarters in Texas, handed two of its London-based
web servers to the FBI after a subpoena for their contents was issued
by a US district court. The servers contained material belonging to
the Independent Media Centre - better known as Indymedia - a conglomeration
of global radical anti-globalisation sites produced by ordinary citizens.
Indymedia claims it was not informed of the decision to seize its content,
nor has it been told the reasons, despite the fact that 20 sites and
more than 1m pieces of content were affected.
The FBI has said
it was acting on behalf of a foreign government, though for the American
subpoena to have power in the UK, it would need approval from either
the British courts or the home secretary. Such agreements would usually
be made over investigations into terrorism, though nobody involved has
been able to confirm this.
Rackspace said it
is complying with a court order "which establishes procedures for
countries to assist each other in investigations such as international
terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering". Clearly, such serious
allegations against any media organisation - even one produced by amateurs
- could be devastating.
"The site crashed
last Thursday at 4pm," says one Indymedia UK volunteer who asked
to remain anonymous. "Since then, the only official communication
we've had was from Rackspace, but they would only say they couldn't
tell us what was going on. No one at the FBI has talked to us about
this, and we have not been told anything."
With the situation shrouded in a legal fog, the often-controversial
grassroots news organisation has struggled to operate its sites across
countries including the UK, France, Belgium, Serbia, Portugal, Italy
and parts of South America.
"This seizure
has grave implications for free speech and privacy," says Kurt
Opsahl, staff attorney of Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital
rights campaign group working with Indymedia to uncover the root of
the FBI action.
It is not the first
time Indymedia has come to blows with law enforcement. During the G8
summit in Genoa three years ago, buildings used by Indymedia journalists
were among those raided by Italian police. Computers were destroyed
and equipment seized in an action that international press watchdog
Reporters Sans Frontieres described as unprecedented and incredibly
violent.
Founded as an anti-globalisation
news source covering the protests against the World Trade Organisation
summit held in Seattle in 1999, Indymedia quickly turned into an international
network of citizen journalists. It provides a voice of underground political
opinion around the world, though its open door policy has seen the occasional
publication of unsavoury and offensive content, including anti-semitism
and incitement to violence - though representatives are quick to disown
these.
The latest raid
is more than just emblematic of the conflict between one radical anti-government
organisation and the establishment. It highlights the potential for
conflict between law enforcement agencies and citizen publishers and
sends a warning to anyone involved in web publishing operations.
"Certainly
on face value it looks like an attempt to gag an independent media organisation,"
says Barry Hugill, a spokesman for civil liberties organisation Liberty.
"It is just possible that there is a legitimate reason for this
action, but we certainly need more clarification."
At a time when mainstream
media is being opened up to the masses, such crackdowns deal a blow
to citizen journalism. Threats to the freedom of web publishers could
damage the amateur investigators and webloggers who are the lifeblood
of independent online journalism. The lack of information given about
these seizures raises the potential threat that anyone could see their
content removed without warning or explanation. It shows how fragile
internet publishing can be - even in the hands of major media organisations.
"It is easy
to go after the provider or the hosting company to close down a website,"
says Yaman Akdeniz, the director of Cyber Rights and Civil Liberties
and a lecturer at the University of Leeds cyberlaw research unit. "Unfortunately,
arbitrary censorship exists. There are less risky places to publish
information and there are more risky places. I do not recommend anybody
to rely on a hosting company in the UK, and certainly our cyber-rights.org
servers are run outside the UK for a variety of reasons."