Newsletter
Last week, the police in Amsterdam, Netherlands, seized a server belonging to the anti-fascist organizations Autistici / Inventati (A/I), in response to a request from US authorities.
On Saturday, NL Times reported that the United States listed the organization as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” in August, referring to it as providing digital infrastructure for “extreme left-wing militants.”
The seized server belongs to the Italian internet service providers Autistici / Inventati (A/I). This organization is an anti-capitalist, anti-fascist group that provides free email and website hosting services for activists. The police seized this server from a data center in the eastern part of Amsterdam, and Dutch authorities are currently transferring the data on it to the United States.
Privacy advocate Harry Halpin told Decrypt that the politically motivated seizure of servers has set a "terrible precedent." Other legal experts question whether the Dutch authorities have considered whether they have the legal right to refuse such requests.
He is still the CEO of both Halpin and the privacy infrastructure company Nym. He stated to Decrypt that the Trump administration targeted the Autistici / Inventati servers "because of their political beliefs," and added, "The Dutch authorities cooperated with them to shut down one of the servers, which means that the Netherlands is nothing more than a colony of the United States."
In August, the United States listed Autistici / Inventati as "specially designated global terrorists," accusing them of operating the digital infrastructure for "violent Antifa groups and other far-left militants."
This designation will prevent individuals and organizations within the United States from conducting business with them. Subsequently, Autistici / Inventati also disbanded, as their users and donors faced potential consequences.
A legal expert stated that this designation has no effect in the Netherlands, and another type of legal authority applies instead.
Digital & Analogue Partners Partners of the law firm Yuriy Brisov told Decrypt: "Agent FBI in Amsterdam only has the permissions of a tourist. Therefore, countries will request permission from each other. For the United States and EU countries, the rule for requesting permission is the 'Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance' (MLAT), which was signed in The Hague in 1981."
Brisov explained that all actions were carried out 'in accordance with Dutch law, by Dutch officials, using Dutch authority', but were entirely at the request of the United States. Therefore, he stated that it was the Dutch authorities, not the United States, who seized the servers.
This legal expert told Decrypt that the prosecution operates under the 'principle of trust', which means they will not assess whether the seizure is proportionate, nor will they evaluate whether the American investigation truly requires these materials.
However, Brisov indicates that the Netherlands may choose to reject such a request if it “endangers its core interests, involves political crimes, or constitutes double prosecution.” Detention is only permitted when the alleged behavior constitutes a crime in both countries and is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.
Brisov also added that it is important to note that designating an organization as a 'specially designated global terrorist' does not require a conviction, nor does it necessitate a court trial. However, neither the Dutch government nor the European Union has followed the United States in making such a designation.
Decrypt Questions whether 'anyone in The Hague has ever asked whether Dutch law reserves the issue of political crimes to be decided personally by the Minister of Justice and Security David van Weel.' Brisov pointed out: 'Internet hosting service providers are usually not responsible for the actions of their users,' and added that this rule is enshrined in US and EU law through the Digital Services Act.
Halpin told Decrypt that, given the political nature of this request, it should have been subject to censorship.
He said, "Any country that believes in sovereignty should take countermeasures against server seizures driven by political motives. This indicates that only by adopting a truly decentralized multi-jurisdictional architecture, as many blockchain projects are attempting to do, is there any way to defend against attacks on national-level digital infrastructure."
