A server operated by the Italian anti-capitalist and anti-fascist group Autistici/Inventati was seized by Dutch police in Amsterdam after a request from U.S. authorities, raising questions about international cooperation, political offences and the treatment of digital infrastructure.
Server Seized in Amsterdam
The server was taken from a data center in Amsterdam’s eastern district last week. It belonged to Autistici/Inventati, commonly known as A/I, an Italian internet provider that offered free email and web-hosting services to organizations and activists.
Dutch authorities are now handing the server’s data to the United States, according to reporting cited by Decrypt. The seizure followed an August decision by the U.S. administration to designate A/I as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist.” Washington said the group provided digital infrastructure to “violent Antifa cells and other far-left militants.”
A designation of this kind restricts U.S.-based individuals and organizations from conducting business with the targeted group. After the designation, A/I disbanded as users and donors faced the possibility of legal or other repercussions.
The case has drawn particular attention because the server was located in the Netherlands, while the U.S. designation does not appear to have been adopted by either the Dutch government or the European Union.
How the Legal Process Works
The seizure was carried out by Dutch police rather than American officers. Yuriy Brisov, a lawyer and partner at Digital & Analogue Partners, told Decrypt that an FBI agent in Amsterdam has limited authority and must rely on the host country’s legal powers. Requests of this kind between the United States and European countries are handled through a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, or MLAT, signed in The Hague in 1981.
Under that framework, Brisov said, the action takes place under Dutch law, using Dutch officials and Dutch powers, but in response to a U.S. request. Prosecutors generally operate according to what he described as a “trust principle”: they do not necessarily reassess whether the foreign investigation requires the material or whether the requested seizure is proportionate.
That does not mean the Netherlands has no ability to reject a request. Brisov said Dutch authorities can refuse when a request harms essential national interests, concerns a political offence or would create a double-jeopardy problem. He also said the alleged conduct must be a crime in both countries and carry a possible prison sentence of more than one year before a seizure is permitted.
The legal expert questioned whether Dutch officials examined the political-offence issue in this case. He said the U.S. label formed the basis of the request even though the Netherlands does not share that designation. Under Dutch law, he added, the question of whether a political offence is involved is reserved for the country’s minister of justice and security, David van Weel.
Brisov also noted that being designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist does not require a criminal conviction or a court hearing. He further said internet hosts are generally not liable for the conduct of their users, a principle reflected in both U.S. law and the European Union’s Digital Services Act.
Privacy and Sovereignty Concerns
The seizure has prompted criticism from privacy advocates who view it as an example of political pressure being applied to online infrastructure. Harry Halpin, chief executive of privacy infrastructure company Nym, described politically motivated server seizures as a “terrifying precedent” in comments to Decrypt.
Halpin argued that A/I was targeted because of its political beliefs and criticized Dutch cooperation with the U.S. request. He said countries concerned with sovereignty should resist requests that are politically motivated.
His concerns extend beyond this individual server. A/I provided hosting and communication services for activist organizations, meaning that information held on the equipment could relate to users and groups that were not themselves accused of wrongdoing. The seizure therefore highlights the broader challenge of collecting data from a service provider when the investigation is directed at the provider’s political identity or alleged affiliations.
Halpin also argued that decentralized, multi-jurisdictional systems could make it harder for any single government to disable digital infrastructure. His comments referred to approaches used by some blockchain projects, although the seizure itself involved a conventional server operated by an internet service provider.
Current Market Picture
Moneyiar market data recorded at 22:23-22:24 on October 19, 2026, showed mixed performance among the listed digital assets:
- Polygon (prev. MATIC), now listed as POL, was priced at $0.0928868706, up 2.71% over 24 hours but down 7.58% over seven days.
- Sei (SEI) stood at $0.0609663203, gaining 0.74% in 24 hours and falling 5.71% over seven days.
- Rootstock Infrastructure Framework (RIF) traded at $0.0746259595, up 2.24% over 24 hours and down 11.82% over seven days.
The market figures provide context for the broader digital-infrastructure sector, but they do not indicate any direct connection between these assets and the Amsterdam server seizure.
