Slashdot Mirror

"WIKILEAKS: Free speech has a number: http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] "

Wikileaks.ch ch ch changes!

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly.

As a note, this has happened to wikileaks before, and the result was exactly as you describe. After the take down, news websites and forums exploded with the wikileaks IP address, and encouraged visitors to see what all the fuss was about. In addition, the judge had ordered the takedown of only wikileaks.org; wikileaks.net, wikileaks.co.uk, wikileaks.fr, wikileaks.cn, secure.ljsf.org, secure.sunshinepress.org, and dozens of other wikileaks websites with alternate names and identical content remained online.

Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

Well, Wikileaks has survived attacks (even physical attacks). And the important distinguishing factor between TPB and Wikileaks is that Wikileaks is providing documents the public wants to know about ... they may be copyrighted and protected but they contain newsworthiness. In the United States (before the DMCA), that used to be enough to protect people trying to get the word out. Not anymore. But if another country chooses to uphold that sort of common logic about what should be protected to benefit the public than you're not going to have a TPB repeat.

And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly. If those people are trying to stop you from disseminating information, you must be doing something right if not interesting.

GET it.slashdot.org/post?user=Anonymous%20Coward&pw=hi HTTP/1.1
Host: it.slashdot.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; zh-TW; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.5.5
Accept: text/html
Connection: keep-alive
Referer: http://88.80.13.160/custom_feed.xml
Cookie: __unam=ff611ea-121c61ef92e-7d0ca25d-4; PHPSESSID=g4cu6pdclgqverrf2a522uofl1

Well, Anonymous Coward will never get caught out this way!

It might well be part of this effort:

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Mind_Your_Tweets:_The_CIA_Social_Networking_Surveillance_System

Fairly obvious--it's about money laundering. Look 'em up on wikileaks if you're curious.

www.wikileaks.de
www.wikileaks.be
http://88.80.13.160
File archive torrent

Still there at

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Their DNS is, of course, another question.

Well the Guardian isn't known for fact checking.

Currently wikileaks is at http://88.80.13.160, which belongs to "prq Inet - Access" based in Sweden. Greenham Common itself has been returned to civilian use, and most of it is being turned back into countryside and held in trust. The missile silos are being turning into a historical monument. There is a small business park, which does have a company providing secure hosting in one of the old bunkers (which I guess is sort of "an abandoned US nuclear weapons base at Greenham Common", but not quite, saying abandoned gives the idea of secret hackers stringing ethernet at night whilst no-one sees). The same company also hosts in an old radar station in Kent, at, Marshborough Road, Sandwich.

However the UK is not a good choice for hosting this sort of thing; our libel laws are open to all sorts of abuse these days, there's a tendency right now for individuals to sue in the UK high court for libel over publications which aren't even available in the UK, so called "libel holidays". Whilst secure hosting is all very nice marketing speak when the laws of the land will conspire against you then the security of your hosting is secondary; after all, really, what are they worried about? A company hiring a rogue agent to fire bomb the hosting? Most hosting facilities have large fences, gates and security, and a bunch are undergound. Being ex-military land doesn't improve security that much.

Incidentally for some reason, wikileaks, that dares to stand up against governments,huge money laundering banks, terrorists, seems to be scared to leak on Scientology.

http://88.80.13.160/w/index.php?title=Scientology&action=edit (Posted with IP as DNS is down)

The page is blank and no editing allowed.

Plz Digg : http://digg.com/world_news/Wikileaks_locked_out_empty_Scientology_page

I don't know if this in the above posts...there are too many to check every one. But here are three ways to reach wikilinks: 1) The IP:' http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks 2) The Belgium Site: http://www.wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks 3) I forget this domain's country: http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks And all are in english. Blog this overreaching of a judge's power, and post these links on your blogs! (Just maybe not on U. S. servers...). : )

Your site promotes, encourages and facilitates the publication and distribution of stolen, illegally and/or tortiously obtained corporate records and private records of third-party consumers, including that of my client and its consumers.

The above part is hard to disagree with in itself. No doubt, most documents posted to the site were obtained by breaking a law (hence illegally) and/or some company's internal policy (thus violating contract, hence tortiously — funny, the word itself is not known to my browser's spell checker).

People like lawyers and judges (often — ex-lawyers) are all about law and contractual obligations — there is nothing surprising about their contempt and distaste for anyone encouraging/rewarding either. The judge is neither "stupid" nor "a monkey" — he acted as should be expected.

Cringley's point is about the stupidity of the bank making itself infamous overnight. This is hard to disagree with, but Cringley's sympathy for Wikileaks shows (he even provided the direct link), so it is valid to discuss the case itself.

And the case boils down to the oft-asked, but never answered question: Do we want 100%-effective law enforcement? Judges certainly strive to achieve that, and we pretend to agree. But do we agree? Answering "yes" would mean condemnation of WikiLeaks (pertaining to documents in our and other free countries, at least). Answering "no" could mean making it impossible for you to stop dissemination of some information about you... What if a site posted SSNs and addresses of everyone they could?

WikiLeaks shouldn't have tried to hide — they were asked for contact information repeatedly. It is no wonder at all, that the judge agreed with the plaintiffs and imposed the injunction. He could've found them in contempt too, and imposed a fine in addition...

Let's keep this rolling, the document in question can be found here.

From wikileaks, the attorney for the Bank is EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ., of LAVELY & SINGER. Their address is 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906, TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501, FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615, www.LavelySinger.com, E-MAIL: espiegel@lavelysinger.com.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Full_correspondence_between_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_Baer

Mr. Spiegel is a pretty senior attorney, so I'm surprised by how inept his actions were. There is no need to write so pointedly. There are times when you need to fight, but they are few and far between. Evan's first message did not mention the DMCA at all; it just asked for contact information. His later e-mails began discussing the DMCA, and then threatened legal actions in the U.S., U.K., and Switzerland. Why didn't he just answer politely in the first place?

It's just bad lawyering, in my opinion. Proof is the fact you can still access wikileaks, and you're reading this post because of all the publicity. Backfire!

This is not going well for Bank Julius Baer.

Press reaction is very favorable to Wikileaks. The New York Times even published the IP address of Wikileaks. There's favorable coverage in The Associated Press, the British press, the Australian press, etc. Since it's on the AP feed, it's going to be in papers across the US tomorrow. Not much TV coverage yet.

Bank Julius Baer is trying to take their US business public. Their proposed billion dollar IPO could be derailed by these disclosures.

WikiLeaks is available at it's IP address: http://88.80.13.160/ also a mirror site: http://wikileaks.be/ For the docs at the centre of the controversy, you can get them at http://cryptome.org/wikileaks-bjb.htm

Well, they're not really offline, just no Nameservice.

This IP is still up. It may be a mirror though.
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Goes to show, attempts at net censorship just make more copies of the information available.

'this great guy' posted IPs already

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Since its site is still running, its own wiki explains the story of the current injunction attack.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Clouds_on_the_Cayman_tax_heaven

Clouds on the Cayman tax heaven
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search

Is David helvetic and Goliath a bear?

DANIEL SCHMITT
2008-02-15

This is the story of Rudolf Elmer of Switzerland, former Chief Operating Officer of Bank Julius Baer on the Cayman Islands. The story of a man suspected of leaking to the press information about the activities of a Swiss bank specialized in hiding and laundering the money of the ultra rich through anonymizing offshore trust structures. It also is the story of a man and his family living with the consequences of being suspected of fouling the nest of a traditional Swiss bank engaging in dubious activities. This story might differ from previous one's related to this issue, mainly because while researching the story, Rudolf Elmer has also been asked for his account of things.

Over the last few months Wikileaks has obtained and published various documents related to allegedly illegal activities in the Cayman Islands performed by Bank Julius Baer and started initial research into these. Regarding the same bank Wikileaks had obtained legal documentation on the case of a Rudolf Elmer, former debuty head of BJB cayman, in a Dec 2007 Zurich court case against Bank Julius Baer. The law suit relates to various irregularities of health-care/social-security payments by the bank, as well as the matter of stalking (including at least one acknowledged car chase) Elmer and his family by BJB-hired Private Investigators Zurich-based Ryffel AG,

Initial research easily turned up that 2002/2003 some sensitive documents had slipped out of the Swiss banks office in the Cayman Islands, apparently reaching US tax investigation units and eventually sent to the Swiss financial magazine CASH, which reported on the disclosure, but possibly due to an injunction or Swiss banking law, not the details. This event also triggered an article in the Wall Street Journal an article in Swiss Weltwoche, titled "The leak in paradise", giving background information on what happened back in 2003 on the Caymans.

When the leak of trust structures was discovered in 2003, Bank Julius Baer initiated legal investigations on the Caymans, involving the search of the home of each employee and when not gaining any insights from that, undertaking a polygraph test on the employees. It still remained unclear where the data went.

The group of people having legitimate access to these documents was small, Rudolf Elmer, who was BJB Caymans deputy head and Chief Operating Officer at that point in time also fulfilled the position of Hurricane Officer, whos duties included keeping backups. Elmer, facing a spinal surgery coming up in a few days time, was on sick leave and had some trouble scheduling the test. He thus became a suspect.
The Polygraph Test

The transcript of the polygraph test conducted by a Lou Criscella and passed on to Wikileaks is very abstract to read with names of clients being substituted with single letters. While not all the context thus is properly understandable, the transcript does not show any wrongdoing.

Reading the transcript one gets the impression that data has slipped out of the Cayman Islands as early as 1997, and timelining the transcript with a couple of later documents will also reveal that Elmer is accused of having leaked data that was produced after the date that he left from the Caymans.

Elmer complained to the American Polygraph Association, the institution his interrogator works for, the Cayman Prime Minister and other entities about the conduct of the test.

Normally sick people would not be interviewed, but the APA's Ethics Commission, stated in a letter that the ethical rules for polygraphing do not apply to the Cayman Islands, and as the test had not been fully carried out, most of the APA rules would not apply anyway. He was informed there are no regulations on the Caymans for polygrap

This court order has blocked the Wikileaks.org DNS. But the site is still up and running at its IP number, which is 88.80.13.160 .

Spread the word. DNS can be replaced, with some inconvenience, with manual labor.

Personally I can resolve the wikileaks.org hostname from time to time only. Their website is still accessible from my network location (SoCal): http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

(special message dedicated to whoever wrote the slashdot lameness filter: foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar foobar)