Stealth hosting

[Spathiphyllum]

Yikes! I wonder if a certain Houston-based internet company will be getting some extra business via more conscionable clients from another certain Houston-based internet company? You can bet that if I found out my host was "well-known for hosting terror sites" (or even marginally known), I'd move faster than you can say Internet Haganah.

[Rye Seronie Oh]

Robert Marsh has previously made a public statement on this topic. Perhaps you should look it up before you start passing accusations around?

[Vin DSL]

You know, when you get into this sort of stuff, it defies scrutiny.

I remember watching a U.K. documentary on PBS, years ago, on espionage. It explained how spying worked, in the modern age. The significance of spies, double-spies, intelligence, counter-intelligence, yada, yada...

During the making of this series, 'they' discovered that the CIA was involved, through an intricate web of deceit, in training terrorists in Libya to hijack and blow up airliners.

To make a long story short, after much prodding, someone from the CIA (Deep Throat style) told them the reason 'we' were training terrorists in Libya was because if the Russians trained them, 'we' wouldn't know what 'they' were teaching them, e.g. 'we' wouldn't know what 'they' know.

Please, don't be so presumptuous, Spath, to think YOU have 'it' all figured out, or even there's a single thing YOU can do about it...

[Spathiphyllum]

Robert Marsh has previously made a public statement on this topic. Perhaps you should look it up before you start passing accusations around?

First, did you read the entire WND article and follow the links? Second, it's not my accusation but rather a link to research on the topic whatever you may think of its merits. Third, who is Robert Marsh and where was he referenced in this story (links please)?

Edit: Apparently, Marsh is the CEO of EV1. I'm still Googling for any quote to which you may be referring.

Internet Haganah is, according to its website, "a global open-source intelligence network dedicated to confronting Internet use by Islamist terrorist organizations, their supporters, enablers and apologists."

And why is that "bandwidth" so important? The Frontpage Magazine piece noted, "Terrorist groups like ... to use American Web hosting companies because the prices are cheaper than found overseas, and U.S. firms have the greatest bandwidth – that is, the power to reach the maximum audience over phone lines and cable."

Using three different services to investigate 357Hosting produced a different electronic address (67.15.122.9 as opposed to 63.223.72.186) and a different ISP. This time, it appeared the Houston-based Everyone's Internet, well-known for hosting terror sites, is at least helping keep 357Hosting online and may be hosting the controversial company.

Internet terror researcher Johnathan Galt said, "My opinion (is that) 357Hosting is at Everyone's Internet. Perhaps they just moved there."

Requests for comment sent to three e-mail addresses at Everyone's Internet were not immediately acknowledged or answered.

Galt suggested the records of the first electronic verification service may have been a few days behind the second one. Rechecking the first service a couple of days later proved Galt's contention: Everyone's Internet was now listed as the online home of 357Hosting.

Now on to the Internet Haganah DB: Terrorist sympathiser listings

Of note:
3 active for Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
1 inactive for Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

If you follow the FrontpageMag link [August 10, 2004], you'll find:
5 listings for pro-Al Qaeda supporters
1 listing for Hezbollah

We can certainly interpret this our own different ways but these facts speak for themselves. Let each webmaster and their conscience interpret such data as they see fit. Might tracking by ISPs/Web hosts of such stealth attempts from terrorist organizations/sympathizers be difficult? Perhaps. Is it possible that some don't try hard enough to purge such material because profits trump all? Entirely. Based on what I've seen in my somewhat cursory review, I'd say a Houston-based host deserves a bit more scrutiny.

[Spathiphyllum]

Please, don't be so presumptuous, Spath, to think YOU have 'it' all figured out, or even there's a single thing YOU can do about it...

I'm not presuming anything. I thought the article was interesting and quite coincidental that Jaguar and the other web host/ISP were both based in Houston and that, as principle and living in the U.S., I'd not host with a company that did not take purging of terrorist material more seriously. My comment will have zero impact on webhostees anywhere and I'm not even going to get into conspiracy theories on webhosting. Why bother when such material is so freely disseminated throughout the globe?

Common sense in a commercial world dictates that profits trump censorship. The natural conclusion is that there will be a differing interpretation as to what gets hosted or not hosted based on the bottom line regardless of the financier and their motivations. An ISP/host will protect both their business model and their "integrity" if they claim that they will not intervene on hosted material. Such a position provides a defense against critics and an advertisement to the less savory that they are indeed open for business. It's fence-straddling at its best, er worst, depending on one's position. I've disclosed mine.

[Jaded]

Is there a difference between those sites and say this?

Or is freedom of press, religion, etc. only acceptable when the content coincides with the view of the controlling / ruling class?

America is becoming more and more like it's father.

[Spathiphyllum]

Some Robert Marsh references for balance:

RE: Terror Websites

EV1 response to guest on O'Reilly factor:

Our company, operating according to established industry practices, does not pre-screen resellers. We also do not review individual websites that resellers add to their servers. Or content that site owners or their visitors post on their websites. It would be impractical and unreasonable for us to monitor and censor all communications that take place on our network. More importantly, we do not have the legal or ethical authority to do so.

OK. Some of this seems reasonable until one gets to the bolded portion. I suspect they do have the "legal or ethical authority" given the AUP:

1. Illegal use: EV1Servers's services may not be used for illegal purposes, or in support of illegal activities. EV1Servers reserves the right to cooperate with legal authorities and/or injured third parties in the investigation of any suspected crime or civil wrongdoing.

Hmm. This one's a bit tricky as advocacy for terrorism could be perceived different ways. Is terrorism illegal? Or is there legal vs illegal terrorism?

20. Violation Of EV1Servers Virtual Accounts: It is absolutely forbidden to host pornographic content or IRC servers on Virtual Server Accounts. Virtual Server Accounts found hosting this material will be subject to immediate cancellation without refund.

Now this one's pretty clear cut and indicates that they will readily make "ethical" decisions based on judgement. What is "pornographic"? Well, apparently they know this quite well enough to screen. This contradicts Mr. Marsh's open response to the O'Reilly report.

For the time being, I still stand by my original interpretations notwithstanding any covert operations on their behalf to aid the investigations of illicit activity... conspiracy theories noted.

[Spathiphyllum]

Is there a difference between those sites and say this?

Interesting source of link... a liberal arts college in Massachusettes. I'll take it on faith that it is an unbiased source of analysis and reportage. (Anyone wonder if I'm a cynic?)

Or is freedom of press, religion, etc. only acceptable when the content coincides with the view of the controlling / ruling class?

Yes, I see the following from the likes of the NYTimes continuously:

...Stephen Botein explains:

"Very gradually . . . there arose from the Revolutionary experience a revised understanding of what it was to be an American printer. Responding to and perhaps also promoting a new belief that sharply antagonistic opinions might properly be articulated in the public forum, printers in America began to discard their neutral trade rhetoric, in order to behave aggressively and unapologetically as partisans.

Clearly we plebes must peruse with great scrutiny the articulations from the ruling class - aka the MSM. Oh, sorry, Jaded... that's not what you meant.

Without hashing the entire reference for there is considerable material to debate, I, of course, want a free press/religion/etc. to extol the virtues/sins of life regardless of the controlling class. What I abhor is the dissemination of propaganda or an incomplete message of truth however nebulously defined. Narrowing the discussion a bit, I still have difficulty equating the American Founding Fathers and their dissent from English tyranny via printing to the dissemination of digital snuff/martyr propaganda wired by Islamofascist "believers". To do so denigrates those truly seeking a freer and less oppresive world. That is one take-home undertone I get from your inference. Is this what you are implying or am I reading in between the wrong lines?

Actually, a more interesting quote was this one:

Even those printers who wished to keep aloof from politics would have found it difficult to do so. The printer's income derived from those who sponsored the newspaper (for example, the government in the case of loyalist printers) or from the advertisers and readers. (Benjamin Franklin offered a humorous but serious argument that printers should not necessarily be held responsible for the opinions expressed in their publications in his famous "Apology for Printers") However, advertisers and readers became unwilling to support the production of papers that presented views antithetical to their own.

Some might call this capitalism with the understanding that the popular-opinion pendulum will swing in response to the public's changing perceptions of its burgeoning democracy. It happens today and we call it good... the marketplace of ideas continues to ebb and flow with the most radical view becoming, at least temporarily, ostracized. Look at the plummeting publication/subscription rates from the "elite media". As a whole, the country is less enamored with it now than they were a few years ago. Should that pendulum swing too far, there will be a backlash and the elite media will rebound.

This is a bit of a digression but worthwhile in that we may share our views without fear of getting killed. Such is not the case in places where terrorism or religious fanaticsm reigns supreme. I'd prefer to be more restrictive of such domains despite some risk that we are swinging too far to the right. An utterly free press isn't necessarily a good thing since it doesn't always follow that that press will act responsibly and check itself. I'll not try to address how one might go about such checks sans questionable interventions. However, I'd add that I don't mind web hosts restricting some of the most egregious offenses according to loosely defined "ethics". I'll swing with the ones that more closely align themselves with my beliefs and forego any purely economic incentives. I'm sure others will do the same and capitalism will roll along nicely. A few web host shells may be left in the wake.

America is becoming more and more like it's father.

Please explain or elaborate. I think I know but would rather not assume.

[Rye Seronie Oh]

Okay, everyone, let's just censure the Internet because we don't like what they're doing. That's the way to fix things.

[the_ancient]

Is there a difference between those sites and say this?

Or is freedom of press, religion, etc. only acceptable when the content coincides with the view of the controlling / ruling class?

America is becoming more and more like it's father.

"rights for me but not for the"


The Constitution is just a smoldering plie of ash today.

[Rye Seronie Oh]

Unfortunantly, that's true. Who needs Constituational Protection and Rights anymore? The Government is in control!

"rights for me but not for the"


The Constitution is just a smoldering plie of ash today.

[Spathiphyllum]

The Constitution is just a smoldering plie of ash today.

and

Who needs Constituational Protection and Rights anymore? The Government is in control!

I'm more Libertarian than you think but I think I can recognize a legitimate/dangerous threat when I see one. Blaming the governmet for every imposition is not always correct, however. Anyway, I think both of you are misconstruing the topic at hand. I am not advocating censorship in its official connotation because it is not from government that I am expecting more responsibility... not that I would complain in this particular case. The sanction re allowing the continued propagation of terrorist material would be an economic one imposed by customers or potential customers who refuse to reward those companies whose policies they find questionable or lacking in some regard. This is not censorship. It is capitalism.

the_ancient,
To which smoking ember are you referring?

Rye Seronie Oh,
And to which unprotected right are you referring? And do you not think that the sites mentioned in the referenced article's post bear any validity? I gather from "Okay, everyone, let's just censure (sic) the Internet because we don't like what they're doing" that you do not have a problem with these, um, "freedom fighters" (my quotes) and their preachings or video archives. OK, you're fortunately free to think/interpret that and reward such business decisions with your hard-earned money. I'll continue to opt-out of such rewards and, as I've said, stick with companies whose policies correlate more closely with mine. Notice, however, that this is not government intervention that is rewarding/penalizing action... it is free choice among individuals to have the right to retain their own sensibilities. Blaming the U.S. Constitutional government, or any government, is misplaced here since it is citizen action "punishing" commercial endeavor and not the forced muting of independent thought by thought police.

[the_ancient]

and

I'm more Libertarian than you think but I think I can recognize a legitimate/dangerous threat when I see one. Blaming the governmet for every imposition is not always correct, however. Anyway, I think both of you are misconstruing the topic at hand. I am not advocating censorship in its official connotation because it is not from government that I am expecting more responsibility... not that I would complain in this particular case. The sanction re allowing the continued propagation of terrorist material would be an economic one imposed by customers or potential customers who refuse to reward those companies whose policies they find questionable or lacking in some regard. This is not censorship. It is capitalism.

While at the same time you go in to your local Walmart one of the most anti American Companies, a company that has forced more companies out of business by strong arm, and close to illegal tatics

but hey it is all capitalism

Some Nutcase posting on some web site does not effect me, Walmart and other Big Corperations forcing all the Jobs overseas, now that effects me.....

There is no Differance between a Nutcase Terrorist posting how he was to kill us all, and some Nutcase Liberal posting how he wants to control us all.....

the_ancient,
To which smoking ember are you referring?

what do you mean? there is not a single part that document that has not be underminded or flat out nulled. Most of the time in the name of "saftey"

Rye Seronie Oh,
And to which unprotected right are you referring? And do you not think that the sites mentioned in the referenced article's post bear any validity? I gather from "Okay, everyone, let's just censure (sic) the Internet because we don't like what they're doing" that you do not have a problem with these, um, "freedom fighters" (my quotes) and their preachings or video archives. OK, you're fortunately free to think/interpret that and reward such business decisions with your hard-earned money. I'll continue to opt-out of such rewards and, as I've said, stick with companies whose policies correlate more closely with mine. Notice, however, that this is not government intervention that is rewarding/penalizing action... it is free choice among individuals to have the right to retain their own sensibilities. Blaming the U.S. Constitutional government, or any government, is misplaced here since it is citizen action "punishing" commercial endeavor and not the forced muting of independent thought by thought police.

No but the Mere Fact that people think any form of censorship, government sponsored or not, is a "good thing" is alarming.

But after all we live in world that in about 3 secs my Posts about walmart will be torn apart and I will be turned in to a "commie"
all because people are blind to that fact that GREED not "profit" (and yes there is a differance" is a real problem today. but it is all "capitalism" right

[Spathiphyllum]

While at the same time you go in to your local Walmart one of the most anti American Companies, a company that has forced more companies out of business by strong arm, and close to illegal tatics

but hey it is all capitalism

I'm not a particular fan of Walmart's size and hyper-competetive purchasing/distributing power either, but it is Americans that put them in their superior position. It is being rewarded for its business model by vast domestic consumerism among many other things. Don't like the trade and labor policies, then visit the competition. This is exactly what I am advocating in this thread - a social conscience to select a web host based on more than the bottom line. If I don't like Walmart's business practices, I don't walk through their doors. If I don't approve of webhost X's business practices, then I don't traverse their gateways. Just curious... do you shop in China, er, Walmart (or other Walton enterprises)?

Some Nutcase posting on some web site does not effect me...

I'm afraid it does though the effect may be indirect and less easily quantifiable. If "terrorist" advocacy is perpetuated globally and the audience grows to encompass just a tiny portion of the planet's population, a still significant number of activists may decide that they'd like to wage jihad. To ward off that assault requires perpetual vigilance at great cost from the government that you despise... or are you going to fend them off with a rifle in your front yard or with the Minutemen at our borders? Or travel overseas to protect our global interests and allies? As of now I'm not going to do that but I will support those that do on my behalf with public support and tax dollars. I wish we didn't have such needs but the world is a dangerous place. I'll not handtie those assigned such tasks right now.

There is no Differance between a Nutcase Terrorist posting how he was to kill us all, and some Nutcase Liberal posting how he wants to control us all...

No difference?! Good grief.

what do you mean? there is not a single part that document that has not be underminded or flat out nulled.

Hyperbole... and too broad of a statement to respond. I will grant you that "safety" is a nice codeword for interventionist expansion at Federal levels and something about which we should be concerned. However, this Al Qaeda tribe is not some figment of our imagination. It and its associated jihadists desperately want to slit your (and my) throat. I'm still willing to provide some leeway to our Federal branch to purge the Earth of this scourge with full recognition that such genies need be corked at some point in the future.

No but the Mere Fact that people think any form of censorship, government sponsored or not, is a "good thing" is alarming.

Again, only governments can really be called censors. One consideration though is that the debate about terrorism is not being censored... we may debate it ad nauseum; but advocacy to wage such a war surely cannot be a "good thing" either. Since one necessarily needs to make choices in an imperfect world, I'll opt for the private filtering of terrorist material any day over the perpetual and zealous defense of its dissemination and an assumption that such propaganda seems remote and unlikely to affect me directly. That naivete, as 9/11 illustrates, is a deadly proposition. We are less insulated than one might think though we are more insulated than most. You can thank the Feds for that.

But after all we live in world that in about 3 secs my Posts about walmart will be torn apart and I will be turned in to a "commie"

Not by me... you commie

[mattsiegman]

I don't like Walmart very much, but I go there when I need something at 2AM, or something that i really don't know where else i can get it (cooking stuff [pots, pans, knives]. for example)