A man has been arrested in connection with comments posted to the activist news site Indymedia. The postings on January 21 included the personal details of a prominent High Court judge who had earlier that day handed down prison sentences in a landmark animal testing extremism trial. A spokeswoman for Kent Police said the …
I notice that extreme views always seem to go along with cruelty. In Coomunist Russia, a fervid dedication the the Proletariat apparently freed many to be atrociously cruel to those who did not measure up. Forced Pregnancy forces (who call themselves 'pro life') have actually killed doctors and nurses and patients. Animal extremists inflict suffering on humans that should, one would have thought, be abhorrent to those who sicken at cruelty to animals. The cause doesn't seem to matter. Is the adherence to extreme politics simply a cloak for, and permission for, the expression of cruelty?
Do unto others...
...As you would have them do unto you (Quote by some old messiah)
Surely the two posters would be rather miffed if their details were posted on the internet. Name, address, phone number, the location of their dead relatives' graves, etc. Flaming is just about acceptable, but what these guys have done is endagered human life and promoted human suffering.
Time for Karma/Poetic Justice... Post their details on the BBC homepage, the Sky News ticker and the Countryside Alliance forum. See how they like it
You could post all their details but most of us have no more time for Redwatch or their Ilk than we do for the ALF. So if you're going to do unto others as you would have done unto you it would appear that you agree with them.
"Indymedia responded that it had configured its Apache server software not to log IP addresses in order to protect its users' privacy."
Yeah, because that certainly makes you look *not* guilty in the eyes of law enforcement.
Police everywhere, justice nowhere....
" Post their details on the BBC homepage, the Sky News ticker and the Countryside Alliance forum. See how they like it"
Isn't that what the tabloid press is for? Can't let the proles get out of line and question the judgement of their betters, can we?
Child molesters get lighter sentences than the SHAC folk got for running a website but apparently that's all OK.
Jumping to conclusions
The arrest may not be based upon evidence gained from the server, and it might not even be the person or people who posted the comments, it may be an IMCista being held on some intimidatory charge of obstruction or RIPA. Given that possibility then we can't draw any conclusions yet. and I'm going to bite my tongue until IMC release a statement.
would be interested...
to know what grounds for arrest were in fact. Seems over the top and abuse of process. That Judge is an ass anyway.
Sooooo...Indymedia wish to protect the privacy of people who violated the privacy of someone they didn't agree with, all on one of their servers?
I need an Alanis Morrisette check here. That *is* ironic, isn't it?
People like this make it all the harder to keep "safe harbour" laws on the books. I thought everyone knew that it wasn't polite to post anonymously except in the comments to articles published in The Register.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
If the judge has done nothing to hide...
surely he should not mind having his details spread about!
The Indymedia folk removed the identifying comments thus protecting the judges privacy.
They don't log IP addresses to protect the activists who post there who are at the bleeding edge of the police state.
To see irony in that principled stand is to misunderstand the concept as badly as Alanis did.
"It's like rain on your wedding day" is not ironic, that's just weather.
Indymedia allowed details posted to be published on the Inernet for public view without moderation, they then removed those details when someone bothered to look at the post. That did not protect the Judge's privacy in any way, it bolted the stable door after the horse had long gone. Indymedia should either have pre-publishing moderation or log posters, in light of the nature of post likely to be made they should have moderate before publication.
Are you saying all websites should have the comments moderated in advance or just Indymedia? Most websites don't, most forums don't and most blogs don't. The reason these sites don't is because they have the staff that professional - paid - media outlets do, so a law that insists they did would only benefit corporate press.
Indymedia don't log IP's, are you saying message boards should legally require surveillance ? Cos then you'd need decicated cameras trained on every messageboard in every community centre and shop.
This is the equivalent of being prosecuted for graffiti sprayed on the wall of your building that you'd already painted over.
A wider point, I bet the person didn't know the judges details, I bet he looked it up somewhere like the internet or a telepone book, or one of the 'Uk Info' disks that are perfectly legal and which businesses and judiaciary use to identify ordinary people. This is the absurd scenario where 'Gathering Information Useful to a Terrorist' means possessing a telephone book or a Who's Who.