FBI preparing to serve Indymedia?

I've heard back from another Politech member who had additional knowledge of what the FBI wanted. Apparently FBI agent Esposito said he'd be happy to provide all the necessary legal documents, but he wanted to know who had access to the logs and who should be served.

-Declan

---
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 14:32:19 -0800
To: declan [at] well.com
From: Jim Warren <jwarren [at] well.com>
Subject: Re: FC: FBI allegedly wants San Francisco IMC's web logs?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011103115354.00aabec0 [at] mail.well.com>

> The below report sounds fishy. If the FBI wanted the web logs from the
> Independent Media Center of SF, they wouldn't screw around chatting up
> some volunteers over the phone.

Oh not necessarily!

When the two federal investigators showed up at my house in the early '90's -- pursuing information about Phil Zimmermann (since I'd published the details of how PGP had first been propagated around the net) -- they began with a civil and cordial chat ... with which I cordially cooperated (AFTER turning my tape recorder and so noting in our conversation <grin>).

It was only during the conversation that they mentioned that they ALSO had a subpoena, if I preferred to go that route. (Since the evidence I had -- notes of phone conversations that I took at the time of the uploadings -- was clearly beneficial to Phil, and it was obvious that I'd be a great witness for Phil, they ended up not wanting me anywhere NEAR their lapdog fed grand jury <grin>).

So ... they HAD a subpoena, but they BEGAN with a civil conversation.

The same thing happened to me, back in the anti-war '60s, with an FBI agent who was "investigating" us nasty ol' commie pinko peaceniks. He began with a pleasant enough phone call, then an equally pleasant f2f meeting (I insisted on meeting on neutral turf; a local cafe :-) ... and we had a pleasant-enough and VERY-interesting (at least to me :-) conversation. Only near the end did me mention that he had a subpoena(?) but felt he didn't need it (or maybe it was a search warrant for the radical Midpeninsula Free University of which I was Gen'l Secy at the time; the "facts" have faded over the decades :-).

My impression is that it's only when they ASSUME that they have belligerent antagonists -- especially potential criminal opponents -- that they go in with guns drawn and warrants blazing (of vice versa :-).

> They'd serve the guys with physical custody of the server with legal
> documents -- after all, this is what the FBI did before

Also, we have had various instances here in the Bay Area, where the feds have shown more common sense and civility, than we've seem from 'em in some other areas. (E.g., they didn't even TRY to question Bay Area attendees at the Hacker's Conference, when they were trying to track down some "liberated" Apple source-code. I think it was Barlow who reported that, when asked if they had talked to any of us locals -- near Apple -- they said no; they thought we would be uncooperative. Many of were DEEPLY hurt <grin!> that we weren't given the opportunity to confuse any of the investigators. :-)

However, admittedly, no two cases are the same. (E.g., the Secret Services' 1990 Sun Devil raids on alleged teen-age crackers of all ages ... almost none of 'em charged with any crime ... who merely had their computers "confiscated" sans any trial or conviction. Those were more the gang-buster's kind of wild-west raids that one would expect from outa-control feds.)

--jim

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/