We are told that Indymedia doesn't log IP addresses or other identifying information about posters, but I wouldn't rely on this - accidents do happen, and there may be other machines belonging to ISPs along the way logging things.So if you are wanting to post controversial information, I would recommend using the Tor program to hide your IP address. It is totally free and fairly easy to install. http://www.torproject.org/ It means that Indymedia, nor anyone else along the way, can link your computer with the visit to their website.After you have installed it, check it is working by going to a site such as http://www.whatismyip.com/ and seeing what IP address it sees you as coming from. It should be one different to your real IP address.Ultimately though, anything of dubious legality is going to be removed by Indymedia fairly quickly, since like it or not, they are bound by the laws of the land, and if they don't, they get shut down.So for absolute freedom of speech, you will need to post information on an anonymous network such as:Tor - Tor has the ability to run "hidden" webservers as well as to mask your IP address on regular websitesI2P - http://www.i2p2.de/ - you can run anonymous uncensorable websites on this.Freenet - http://freenetproject.org/ - this can host anonymous, uncensored websites too.Note that these networks are only visible to other people on them, so your audience will be limited. But they are free to install and use, so the more people that are on them, the better.

ARE YOU BEING SERVED? An Indymedia server was seized by police in Manchester yesterday (22nd). This comes after somebody had posted the address of the judge in the SHAC trial on Indymedia, leading to Kent Police requesting that the relevant posts be removed, and the IP address of their author be divulged (eg the unique number given to each internet connection, which can be used to trace the user). The posts had already been pulled, in line with IMC UK policy protecting privacy, but because Indymedia don’t log the IP addresses of people publishing on it, they couldn’t help police with their enquiries. Indymedia is one of the few websites in the land of blogs and open posting that doesn’t log IP addresses, which puts it in contravention of the 2006 EU Directive about the retention of data, obliging sites to log who’s visiting and posting. Nearly all other sites do retain this data – something to think about when you blaze away in the comments section on sites by blogspot, wordpress, facebook and nearly all others. The police gained a warrant to take this one server, presumably to sift through it to find IP addresses, but Indymedia already knew the police wouldn’t find what they’re looking for as they watched it go out the door. This EU Directive has never been tested in Britain, and it remains to be seen if this will be the first time. But it would be a major own-goal for the police to do so considering the publicity it would generate for Indymedia. The seizure hasn’t affected the running of Indymedia as the server was one of several mirrors. It’s just an inconvenience and has been taken as a general attempt by police to attack IMC infrastructure. Several sites were temporarily affected including London Indy, and sites for an anti-GM group plus a Canadian campaign against the 2010 Olympics. Indymedia continues to be a place to publish and read news which protects your online privacy – visit www.indymedia.org.uk

The "evidence" didn't link them to organising or taking part in direct action, but for reporting that it had happened (as SHAC used to publicise ALF communiques before it became illegal - Terrorism Act 2006). This is where the "evidence came from the autosave function of documents.", because although anonymously sent communiques were deleted afterwards (from whom they were recieved by), auto-save would have left it on the computers in certain circumstances (for example a computer crashing).



But is this actually relevant? Not at all, they only needed to point at the SHAC website to prove that activists had anonymously recieved ALF communiques and released them. Forensic evidence is not in reality part of the picture when they openly and publicily released such statements, unless of course links are broken and the cops didn't get a screenshot.



Either way though, the "evidence" was based on receiving anonymous communiques, not sending them. Crime is essentially now based on one's curiosity over an encryped email, if you open it and read it, you then share an "association" with an unknown criminal (even if you completely disagree with them and don't bother to release the communique to others!)



All in all, the activists were guilty of an "association" with criminals, i.e. recieving anonymous communiques from unknown persons, or reposting them. They are not guilty, as anyone might believe, of an "association" with crime, which is an extreme difference to an "association" with those who committed crime. For example, newspapers can do a report from an anonymous criminal, and that is fine, but if they write an article about their 'personal' association with that crime, it is not. The irony being the former tactic is now also illegal.



For example, Smash EDO web-activists could easily be jailed under the same law, because the website reports regarding illegal direct action (even just reposting from indymedia), as a specific example; the quarter of a million pound damage earlier this year. The campaign would therefore have an "association" with the criminals, especially by financially supporting them, or pomoting such prisoner support for them. "Conspiring with unknown persons" basically means if you do anything (even vocally support an action/individual), you are conspiring with them to commit crime. If that crime is political, you are a terrorist. Isn't it now all so easy, even obvious?



Bottom line: Seven activists got fifty years for reporting on what the mainstream media aren't allowed to talk about freely - illegal direct action. Talking about PGP, or relating it to the SHAC trial, is quite obviously a "red herring".



---



What you might be thinking now is; but they wouldn't send away the EDO 9 for 50+ years, because they can would they? Of course not, yet. A look at history always reveals the answers - always. The reason SHAC received such harsh sentences is because the militant animal liberation movement has been receiving them for decades, and no offence to anyone, but the militant anti-militarist movement hasn't experienced the reality of repression through the courts as of yet, let alone built up an illegal direct action movement (actions: yes, movement: no). It took illegal liberation after liberation before the courts successfully demonised those rescuing non-humans in the 80s, sending them to prison for years by the 90s, in the same way they will begin to demonise individuals taking illegal actions to rescue humans from wars, climate change etc. If you think this is a warped vegan-imagination, then wonder where the prisoner lists are to support all these anti-militarist direct action warriors; that have long term sentences for the actions legal or otherwise. They don't exist, yet.



All in all, illegally saving lives will only be praised for so long within each issue, then it will be swiftly repressed. Smash EDO will be at the frontlines of the repression of the anti-militarist movement, clearly, as are SHAC to the animal liberation movement. But this is barely the beginning for smash edo, as I'm sure those within the campaign are well aware of, the vegans especially I hope ;) Governments don't roll over and die, and more importantly, they don't let their businesses suffer in the same way - just look at the support for the banking system and you'll realise how its going to take a while to shut down the Brighton bomb makers! But this far from mean its pointless and the campaign shouldn't be happening, the opposite is true. Just like G8 and the WTO, EDO are just like HLS, a meeting engagement between the people and the state, with everything at stake; the lives of the innocent. It might take 10 years, 20 or 100, but the fact remains - direct action the only way forward, and it works.

clarity

