Indymedia Answers
The Home Office have now replied to my Parliamentary Question on Indymedia and a similar one from Jeremy Corbyn MP as follows:
Indymedia
Mr. Allan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which UK law enforcement agencies were involved in the seizure of computer disks containing material published by Indymedia from the London offices of Rackspace. [192111]
Caroline Flint [holding answer 18 October 2004]: I can confirm that no UK law enforcement agencies were involved in the matter referred to in the question posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers, and acting under what information, officials of his Department seized web services belonging to Indymedia; and if he will make a statement. [192814]
Caroline Flint: I can confirm that no UK law enforcement agencies were involved in the matter referred to in the question posed by my hon. Friend. In the circumstances I do not therefore believe that it is necessary for me to make a statement.
I suspected that this would be the answer though the Home Office have obviously spent a few days checking with all agencies to ensure that they can accurately deny any involvement. What this means is that any action will have to be directed against Rackspace rather than the UK authorities. Indymedia may have both civil and criminal complaints to bring against them if they have acted illegally. The nature of any such action will depend on their legal advice. I will do what I can to press the UK authorities to assist where necessary.
Ah, interesting… as you said this means that the potential for taking legal action against Rackspace in the UK needs to be explored — were any UK laws (eg the Data Protection Act 1984 or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) broken…?
Hello. Thanks for your efforts on behalf on Indymedia.
This article has some interesting points, in case you haven’t read it, though I’m sure you have.
TTFN,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/indymedia_home_office_denial/
Damian
Hi, Simon here from Canada. I just wanted to thank the MP for raising these questions in the House. This case is being watched around the world, and his actions strengthen the cause of free speech, especially in the Commonwealth. I hope the UK gets more wired MPs like Mr. Hallam in the next election. Good luck.
I’d like to second Simon’s comment. Including the bit about being Canadian. Sorry I can’t vote for you, glad to know that someone in the UK still believesin privacy, civil liberities, and the Magna Carta. As an aside, I wonder if the Home Office is considered a “Law Enforcement Agency”. The Register’s article also thought that an interesting follow up question would be: “If no UK law enforcement agency was involved, why not? — why are foreign law-enforcement agencies and instruments being used in the UK without UK gov’t knowledge?”
Jeremy Corbyn MP is circulating an early day motion:
That this House expresses deep concern at the seizing of web servers belonging to the independent media organisation Indymedia; requests that the Home Secretary explains under what authority their wholly independent news service was prevented from functioning; and expresses its disquiet at this attack on freedom of speech via the internet.
So far 15 signatories, I wonder if party allegancies means that Richard Allan won’t sign it…?
More info on the ukcrypto list archive where it was found…
I’d like to second the comments from Simon from Canada. I’m from the United States, and I am appreciative of someone reminding us how government should be done. I wish I could vote for a person in this country who would bring these issues up properly and promptly. Thanks!
I think it’s disgusting, we’re living in a police state.
As a Yank involved with NYC Indymedia, I just wanted to than the MP for all his attention to this important matter. Its nice to know that someone somewhere cares about this.
From The Register’s story, an important question–
“The Home Office’s apparent lack of interest in court orders from non-UK jurisidictions being enforced on UK soil without the involvement of UK law enforcement agencies would however seem a fertile area for further questions.”
An oblique inquiry, but would make for very interesting answers, if you were able to extract from them something less dodgy than their last non-answer.
I am glad these questions are being asked. The seizure of Indymedia’s servers clearly looks like an infringement of free speech and so far no one has provided any information regarding who took the servers or why.
I also wanted to make sure you were all aware of Indymedia’s petition regarding this matter at http://solidarity.indymedia.org.uk/ which is available for signing until Oct. 31st.
Anyone from the UK reading this blog, please write or email your own MP as well. I have done so. If no domestic agencies were involved, then this is a ‘virtual incursion’ into what’s already becoming a client state.
I’d suggest that anyone who posits the ‘alliance’ idea look at the asymmetries. The US can extradite from here, seize servers here etc. I doubt that we can do the same.
Chris B asked whether the Home Office was a law enforcement agency. I got an answer from the Home Office just after I posted the story, and edited it. Essentially, no. The Home Office has no direct enforcement capabilities/powers, and is therefore not an enforcement agency. It declines to comment on matters involving mutual aid, so it also is not possible to absolutely rule out its involvement in some form of US-UK mutual legal aid request. I think I also recall from the US-UK treaty that it’s possible for an urgent request to be communicated verbally, and followed up with the paperwork within, I think ten days. I can’t as yet figure out if it’s possible for a judgment by a foreign authority to be executed in the UK without reference to the UK Central Authority (i.e. Home Office MLA unit). If a witness in the UK is prepared to cooperate, then that is the case, but execution and seizure of evidence looks like it OUGHT to be different.
These are probably less fruitful lines of enquiries than shaking lawyers at Rackspace and hoping they point at somebody, though. (-:
john
I too like Richard Allan, shame he’s leaving political life at the next election. He’s actually my MP at the moment, and it would have been nice to vote for him..
>>What this means is that any action will have to be directed against Rackspace rather than the UK authorities.<<
That depends what is meant by action. Legal action perhaps, but that is not the only form of action.
The Home Office have told us that “legacy” powers relating to access to data do not have to be repealed. Although they added dozens of agencies to RIP so they can access data the Home Office assures us that these agencies will not use these “legacy” powers. As far as I can tell the Home Office will give any agency that tries a hard stare.
In order to give these agencies a hard stare the Home Office will have to know what is going on. In this case they claim not to have known what was going on. That is a fruitful avenue to ask questions about.
thankyou for your efforts so far, mr allan. i guess this is a public inquiry by me and an observation comment of caroline flint’s response. on investigation from an article in the register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/indymedia_home_office_denial/page2.html and discussion with John lettice, i am not personally happy with the ministers statement.
inspecting her comment only mentioned ‘UK law inforcement authorities’ and did not make any mention of the MLAT office or the home office itself. i feel that her answer is fudged and designed to spin. furthermore, i beleive the home office is ‘gagged’ and i suspect their position is one of ‘we cannot confirm or deny’ when pushed. from the register:
Caroline Flint’s answer says no UK law enforcement agency was involved, which leaves us with the question of who the persons unknown were, where they were, what status they had, and where the servers went for their week’s vacation. The Register has asked the Home Office for a clearer idea of the agencies it considers as being covered by the term “law enforcement”, and if we’re right in presuming that the Mutual Legal Assistance unit is included. If this turns out to be the case, then there was definitely no request for assistance from either Italy or the US to the UK.
Maybe. As the UK-US MLAT includes a confidentiality clause (these are factory-fitted), the Home Office might not be able to admit it. But if such a secret request existed, UK law enforcement would probably have been involved, accompanying the persons unknown, or acting for them.
I would lik to ask to ask a further question on behalf of Indymedia and myself to clarify the points of whether the home office is hiding behind this clause and would clarify UK MLAT unit’s position. however i await your advice on these issues.
i will try and talk you on monday. thankyou
Good work.
Congratulations from a Sheffield constituent. This action is further Neo-Labour (?Neo-Con) debasement of British political life. In a country that now accepts evidence obtained by torture! I am relieved to know that at least one Sheffield MP still has p;rinciples.
Good on ya mate! – from New Zealand.
I hope this means there’s a case against the ‘organization’ that _did_ take the servers. Hmmm, using coercion while posing as a agency holding UK law enforcement powers, that can’t be legal… can it?
I’m well impressed with This Richard allan Guy.
I don’t believe in parlimentary democracy – but if I did i’d certainly vote for him!