Slashdot Mirror

Ok here's the full list of Wikileaks domains:

        * http://www.wikileaks.org/
        * https://secure.wikileaks.org/
        * https://wikileaks.cx/
        * http://wikileaks.org.uk/
        * http://www.cauce.us/wiki/Wikileaks
        * https://secure.wikileaks.be/
        * https://secure.freedomsbell.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
        * https://secure.libertypen.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
        * https://secure.ljsf.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China
        * https://secure.sunshinepress.org/ â" alternative name to bypass the Great Firewall of China

Wikileaks is mirrored in many countries, so no single court anywhere in the world has jurisdiction over all of them. It is hard to say which if any of those sites is actually the original.

A list of mirror sites is available at each mirror. Save the source of this page on your local host, so you can have access to mirrors after your favorite wikileaks site is taken down: http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks:Cover_Names

The fact that AP news articles do not contain links is a gross oversight. Is is inconscionable that a responsible journalist could write an entire story online without a link to a primary source. The most ridiculous thing is when an entire AP story, based on some document received though FOIA, is without a single link to the actual report. ATTN: Reporters. If you are citing a document on the Internet, you must provide a link to the original! It is easy, and you probably have an intern or underling that you can get to scan the document also. Other people could actually verify your story themselves instead of taking everything you write on blind faith. Look it is easy!

You forgot http://wikileaks.cx/

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...). : )

More alternative links, besides www.wikileaks.be:
www.wikileaks.ws
www.wikileaks.cx

WikiLeaks information about the story at the Sunshine Press copy of WikiLeaks: Cayman Tax Avoidance.

The way WikiLeaks recommends to find stories about the censorship: Google News.

Excellent article: Wikileaks' Leaked Documents Blocked But Unbowed. I got all the above information from that article.

Quotes from the Cryptome.org story mentioned in the parent comment:

"The website WikiLeaks.org has been taken off line in many parts of the world. "

"Several factors have taken the site off line including DDoS attacks, which was followed by a fire which took out the main servers hosting the site in Sweden..."

Wikileaks previously published hundreds of documents obtained from a whistleblower of the Swiss Bank, "purportedly showing offshore tax evasion and money laundering by extremely wealthy and in some cases, politically sensitive, clients from the US, Europe, China and Peru."

Posted anonymously for legal analysis. The following is my opinion and my opinion only.

Every lay discussion of the orders in this case have gotten it wrong about what happened. The judge did not have second thoughts about granting the injunction. There are two orders, and they are directed at separate parties, even though they are part of the same case.

The first order is the settlement with the registrar. The registrar Dynadot settled with Bank Julius Bear to dismiss any claims BJB may have against it, in return for the permanent injunction that you see there. Dynadot agreed to do, among other things, lock the domain, disable it, preserve all DNS data, and produce all information it has about who registered the hostname and who had access to it.

This permanent injunction, between BJB and Dynadot, is not binding on Wikileaks, because Wikileaks was not a party to it. I think this is the big story here. Essentially Dynadot rolled over and settled with BJB without letting Wikileaks participate in the process or have any say whatsoever. Depending on the terms of its registration agreement, Wikileaks could very well file a complaint against Dynadot for unjustly terminating its service. Be wary of your registrars and internet service providers, because if this stands, they can agree to terminate your service without your involvement.

The second order is a temporary restraining order against Wikileaks, prohibiting them from publishing the documents at issue. They are listed at the end of the order. Unfortunately for BJB, due to the the way Wikileaks is architected, the operators of Wikileaks do not host the documents themselves, nor can they order their removal. Is Wikileaks concerned about any legal consequences? The answer is no. "We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers." That's why those who run the company have nothing to do in response to the injunction and why the documents are still online. Wikileak's response is due tomorrow Feburary 20th at noon, and the hearing will be on Friday February 29th at 9:00am at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California 94102 at the US Courthouse, so be sure to show up!

Posted anonymously for legal analysis. The following is my opinion and my opinion only.

Every lay discussion of the orders in this case have gotten it wrong about what happened. The judge did not have second thoughts about granting the injunction. There are two orders, and they are directed at separate parties, even though they are part of the same case.

The first order is the settlement with the registrar. The registrar Dynadot settled with Bank Julius Bear to dismiss any claims BJB may have against it, in return for the permanent injunction that you see there. Dynadot agreed to do, among other things, lock the domain, disable it, preserve all DNS data, and produce all information it has about who registered the hostname and who had access to it.

This permanent injunction, between BJB and Dynadot, is not binding on Wikileaks, because Wikileaks was not a party to it. I think this is the big story here. Essentially Dynadot rolled over and settled with BJB without letting Wikileaks participate in the process or have any say whatsoever. Depending on the terms of its registration agreement, Wikileaks could very well file a complaint against Dynadot for unjustly terminating its service. Be wary of your registrars and internet service providers, because if this stands, they can agree to terminate your service without your involvement.

The second order is a temporary restraining order against Wikileaks, prohibiting them from publishing the documents at issue. They are listed at the end of the order. Unfortunately for BJB, due to the the way Wikileaks is architected, the operators of Wikileaks do not host the documents themselves, nor can they order their removal. Is Wikileaks concerned about any legal consequences? The answer is no. "We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers." That's why those who run the company have nothing to do in response to the injunction and why the documents are still online. Wikileak's response is due tomorrow Feburary 20th at noon, and the hearing will be on Friday February 29th at 9:00am at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California 94102 at the US Courthouse, so be sure to show up!