Slashdot Mirror
Collapsed UK Bank Attempts to Censor Wikileaks
James Hardine writes "Wikileaks has released a couple of hilarious legal demands over a confidential briefing memo entitled Project Wing — Northern Rock Executive Summary. Northern Rock Bank (UK) collapsed spectacularly late last year on the back of the sub-prime lending crisis and was re-floated by the Bank of England at a cost of over £24bn. The memo was used by the Financial Times, the Telegraph and others. It attracted a number of censorship injunctions, as reported by the Guardian, which only Wikileaks continues to withstand. In their legal demand to Wikileaks, Northern Rock's well-known media lawyers, Schillings, invoke the DMCA & WIPO, claim it'll be 10 years in prison for Wikileaks operators for not following the UK injunction, but then, incredibly, refuse to hand over a copy of the order unless Wikileaks' London lawyers promise not to give it to Wikileaks. Finally they claim copyright and more — on their demands! The letters raise a serious issue about the climate of censorship in the UK, where one can apparently easily obtain a censorship order — a judge made law — that everyone is meant to obey, but no one is meant to know."
All your leaks are belong to us!
I guess that they have been censored.
I'm just a clueless American, but as the blurb says "£24bn", I would guess reads "24 billion pounds". Is that billion as in "million million" or billion as in "thousand million"? I always wondered how that verbal discrepancy got started, seems that accountants on either side would get a bit huffy about a potential 1:1000 error.
[
See the full Wikileaks story here!
...Seriously, I nearly soiled myself. What is this, Monty Python?
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
.. I never realised until recently with the whole NHS thing on the news that we even had laws that tried to silence people.
Thanks for these good news, seems like Wikileaks is still holding up!
Time some people in this world realize that truth actually is a factual reality and that people will stand up for it. That people will not run with the first stupid threat in sight. Now lets just all hope the majority of the public will realize the massive tool this represents and make a use of it.
Tearing down the house of lies, brick by brick!
Northern Rock has not collapsed. It's share price has, but the bank itself is still trading normally.
Modern banking does rely an some non understanding and/or acceptance of the system to work. This video explains how banks today came to be, and why our governments are so entangled with them. The UK government bailing northern rock doesn't surprise me, nor does their desire to keep some things out of the public eye. Its scary that our press can be silenced so easily.
https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/Project_Wing_-_Northern_Rock_Executive_Summary.pdf
grab it before it gets taken down.
when i lived in the usa i got quite peeved by the way bills were just put into place by companies who "owned" congressmen and senators (dmca is a prime example). now i'm back in the uk the practice seems to have followed me - it wasn't my fault honest!
#include <sig.h>
Taking a page from the business of assassination: censor the censoring documents.
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
In the era that I grew up, no one would try to use copyright laws to censor wrongdoing. Edward R Murrow would not have even thought that leaked documents could not be used as a news source.
History will show that the DMCA is one of the most evil laws ever past in the country, and is the lynch pin to Fascism.
The whole WIPO organization is simply there to protect the rich, and do no good whatsoever for the common man.
But it is censorship, not music that the DCMA is about.
Just try and see how far anyone gets getting congress to repeal this one.
This is the keystone of total control by the rich.
Have a nice day.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
You can't put out wildfires by spitting on them.
"The letters raise a serious issue about the climate of censorship in the UK, where one can apparently easily obtain a censorship order" It's all very well saying that but I'll believe it when I see it enforced. As you point out, the Guardian is still talking about it and it was used elsewhere at the time.
They care about getting things done (as anyone else in corporate culture). And it means using all means necessary, even fraudulent cease and desist letters, copyright claims, etc. Think SCO, but as common sense in lawyer's mind.
I hope Wikileaks will get trough this and will be stronger than ever.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The bank hasn't collapsed - yes loans blah blah - possible nationalisation - blah blah.
/FACT/
./ers ignore the facts eh.....
hasn't collapsed
strange that
"re-floated by the Bank of England at a cost of over £24bn."
and of course the first thing they do is spent as much of it as possible on lawyers for frivolous suits. You've fucked up once, why not try it a different way this time?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Well, maybe. I can claim anything I want, and unless you can put a dollar figure on the cost of my making that claim, you don't have a legal claim against me. In some ways the more outrageous the claim, the safer I am in making it. I can claim I own everything written on Slashdot because God told me it was mine. If Slashdot shut down, and sued me for damages, I suspect the judge would throw the case out on the basis that we're both as crazy as a bedbug.
The art, I suppose, is to make a threat that is credible enough to make others do your bidding, but not so credible it can't be construed as fraud. Making wild DMCA claims is pretty borderline. What you're really saying is that while I'd almost certainly beat the snot out of you in a court of law, life's short and is it really worth my while just for this? If there were quantifiable money on the table, I'd got to court, but if I could assuage you for nothing, I might well do so, even if I wouldn't bother if you were asking nicely.
With respect to this being censorship -- well whether it is or not depends on whether the content is the deciding issue. If you break into my house and steal my diary, and a judge orders you not to print my diary, it's not censorship, because the issue here is ownership. If you anonymously mail the diary to my local paper, I can get an injunction against their publishing it. It's not the content of the diary that is at issue, it's the fact that I have a common law copyright to my private, unpublished papers.
If you want to publish your diary and I don't like what you have to say about me, my stopping you would be censorship, except if it were defamation.
There are two issues here: freedom of expression and privacy. I don't like the term "balancing", because that gives a false impression of what has to be done. The two issues have to be reconciled. Freedoms to do something do not, in general, mean you are free of obligations that might restrict you. If you have a document I created, the question is what duties do you have to me relating to publishing that document and disclosing its content? Whether you have a right to even posses the document certainly matters. Your duties to others and the public certainly matters. If I carelessly leave a private letter in the coffee shop, and it just has personal (although amusing) information, a reporter who discovered it would, I think, be duty bound to return it to me unpublished. If it details my involvement in embezzling public funds, the reporter's duty to the public is paramount.
It's not cut and dried.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Does lettre misplecament cosntitute the legla asnwer to copyrgihts?
I say let's kill some lawyers this time not just the nobles.
Unicorn
"The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." - Tom Wolfe
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Does it? From the linked newspaper article:
But the judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, rejected a more stringent prohibition that Northern Rock had sought - to ban news coverage of the memo on FT.com and other websites.
"We were looking at funding a principled legal case about news that was looking increasingly historic by the day," said Paul Murphy, the editor of Alphaville.
Northern Rock failed to win an injunction against the Telegraph after the paper revealed details of the sales document sent out to prospective bidders.
The bank failed to force the Daily Telegraph to reveal its source for the article and failed to get the newspaper to remove its article.
Even as a British taxpayer, I struggle to work up much concern about "censorship" when clearly no-one's freedom of speech is being curtailed. A judge says newspapers can't publish private documents, and the newspaper drops the "public interest" appeal because it's already become old news. In the meantime, newspapers remained free to publish their articles and protect their sources.
It's quite a leap to go from those decisions to taking a mercenary law firm's typically overstated demands as being a "serious issue".
p.s. on the subject of not being serious, I can't be the only one who would struggle to take a judge called "Tugendhat" seriously. Tug who's end into who's hat, I'd like to know...
Life imitates art once again.
While I accept this this Orwellian vision is not quite the same as the instance contained in the story, it seems the logical conclusion. If a law is secret how can one obey it? If a law cannot be read does it even exist? If we are to be punished for breaking laws that cannot be shown to exist then what hope is there for our Freedoms?
The letters raise a serious issue about the climate of censorship in the UK, where one can apparently easily obtain a censorship order -- a judge made law -- that everyone is meant to obey, but no one is meant to know.
This is false. There is no legal basis in the UK for what they are doing. They're chancing their arm, and hoping that the threat of big scary lawyers will frighten away the... other big scary lawyers. I can't see that working.
I know I'm a bit ahead of the calendar on this, but there is one thing that the French did right - Bastille Day is how they celebrate it. Now, I'm not advocating that anyone use their second amendment rights to do anything rash, but now might be a good time to buy some ammo from Walmart.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
While I am as wary of any kind of censorship as the next guy, we would also do well to remember that the entire Northern Rock episode was basically caused by media over-hyping a short term liquidity problem, which is a relatively benign, if somewhat unusual, banking situation.
The way the credit crunch/government loan issue has been portrayed in the mainstream media, even relatively decent sources like the BBC, has made it sound disastrous, thus prompting a full scale run on a bank. Given that the entire consumer banking industry basically runs on a trust system, everything would probably have worked out fine, but the resulting panic has exacerbated the problem and now we have had the big government bail out.
So, while I'm all for free speech, I'm also all for people using it responsibly. The responsible thing to do before would have been for the media to explain that Northern Rock had a relatively sound loans book in the long term (they actually have far less exposure to sub-prime losses than many of the big banks), and that the central bank (well, "the government" in this case, argue it how you like) stepping in to smooth over a temporary liquidity problem is the correct response to this, economically speaking. Indeed, it seems unlikely that these circumstances are specific to Northern Rock: much the same could have happened (and perhaps more deservedly) to many other banks in the current economic climate. NR were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, metaphorically speaking. So it would be better if the average person had some understanding of the basic economic idea, so we don't see a repeat performance when the next big bad announcement is made by another bank.
The responsible thing to do now would be to allow Northern Rock, the government, Virgin, and whoever else is playing behind the scenes to get on with making a deal. All leaking confidential documents mid-process does is make it harder to find a mutually beneficial way out of the current predicament, which ultimately just shafts everyone, including the taxpayer and potentially those who have money held by NR.
Censorship has a chilling effect, but so does irresponsible spreading of half-truths and misinformation by the tinfoil hat brigade on the pretence of defending free speech. With freedom comes responsibility, always.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Great quotes. By the way, I've seen that some goons around here are starting to criticize anyone using liberal quotes, calling them unoriginal non thinking copy pasting drones. Ad hominus, are still quite popular it seems.
But... the future refused to change.
The text of a legal document sets forth a demand, a contract, etc. The writing is not creative, it is just a listing of facts or positions. I was told this by one of the top partners at WSGW (top legal firm in Silicon Valley) when he advised me to copy another company's contract. The formatting of the contract (e.g. the forms you can buy at a stationer's store or download pdfs online) is creative layout - you can't just photocopy the contract and use it as that is a copyright infringement. But if you want to make your own form with a different layout and using the exact same words, that is perfectly legal.
Of course, lawyers can CLAIM copyright on their legal documents, but that doesn't mean they are correct. Lawyers make false claims all the time, when it suits them or suits their case. Recently the RIAA made a claim that it is illegal to rip music from your own CDs to listen to that music on different devices that you own. In the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in Sony VS Universal Studios, this type of personal use copying was ruled as fair use, but that didn't stop the RIAA from making this new outrageous claim.
"I'd much rather be mistaken as a lesbian by a bigot than be mistaken as a bigot by a lesbian."
Unless, perhaps, you wear braces (or a 'retainer').
which is totally what she said
As I have my mortgage with NR, but I think I'm going to re-mortgage if this is how they're going to behave.
You mean like the RIAA and MPAA?
send + more == money?
Ahem... I believe that good form requires you to mention Hitler and Nazis at this point in your ./ rant. ;)
goto http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forums/ There is always a good discussion on UK houseprices and Northern Rock and its credit abuse is always a hot topic. Lots of bears on there but as somebodys HPC sig says its always 100% correct guaranteed.
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
Since the Blair government. The wholesale overturn of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688 with the thought-crime laws and the disarmament of the Englishry-in-Arms, and the establishment of the Panopticon - the once-imaginary ideal prison - over all of England with the cctv Surveillance State has created Orwell's Oceana, where once there was an England.
In part, that's because before the US joined the Berne Convention with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, they couldn't. Documents needed a claim of copyright [the (c) notice] to be considered for copyright, and registration with the copyright office to be able to sue for damages. Now everything, even your post and mine, are automatically considered copyrighted objects.
Fascism has at its core, the philosophy that the people exist to support the government's needs. The first thing that fascist governments usually do is to remove corporate posession from owners and stockholders (a type of corporati). The merging you describe, refers to the people and how their goals and power become the goals and power of the government. Those people's groups (corporata, iirc) then no longer need to exist and, in a fascist state, will not be allowed outside of the government.
Conversely, a trend towards allowing corporate entities more rights and responsibilities removes everyday power from the government and places it in the control of the officers and owners of the corporations. This is a move towards oligarchical control and is the antithesis of fascism.
While a fascist state could itself be oligarchical in nature, it would still seek direct control of power and not divest it to the political systems that exist in and serve corporate interests.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
Previously, there was no equivalent to websites publishing private documents, so you have no basis on which to show that copyright law wouldn't have been the chosen means in a previous era. Further, successful attempts to censor wrongdoing have gone on for time immemorial, so what difference does the DMCA make? The longstanding ability to censor wrongdoing has not led to worldwide Facsism, suggesting your argument is not sound. If the DCMA is the lynch pin to Fascism, how did Fascism come about many years before the DMCA, and in a completely different part of the world?
Hyperbolic rants rarely have any impact - if anything you only act to make the DMCA seem reasonable in comparison. Is that the intent?
I should probably point out here that the DMCA is an American law, not a British one.
The invocation of the DMCA as an extension of the WIPO Copyright treaty seems tenuous at best. If it *is* proven to be valid, both the DMCA and WIPO could effectively nullify each other (everyone's copyright laws are valid everywhere -- WTF?)
We all already know that the DMCA is insidious and evil. The interesting part of the story comes in the fact that a British lawfirm is trying enforce an undeclared British copyright by using an American law.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The lawyers in question are also those who tried to suppress Craig Murray's (former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan) allegations about Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov.
I like your subliminal joke there - you say "wunch of bankers" but the reader's mind auto-corrects it into "bunch of wankers." Then the reader goes over it again and gets the joke - but the meaning remains basically the same.
Or at least that's how I saw it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
told them to pack sand and made out case. Now it sounds like they have to kick old George at home by themselves. Coffee anyone?
Deleted
I find it interesting that they are trying to shut down a public website. This would seem to be the perfect opportunity for this website to move completely to a Freenet website. Eventually this will be a very effective measure, since any censorship would have to be performed on all Freenet nodes simultaneously. It is also perfectly logical that a single Freenet node operator can claim ignorance of the content, since it is designed that way from the start.
I for one welcome these kind of actions, since the more frequently they occur, the faster the population of Freenet nodes, and TOR exit nodes multiply.
I also understand, that ultimately this may make libel harder to defend against since there is no defendant for the plaintiff to sue, but I am willing to sacrifice that to protect our ability to exercise free speech.
In the UK, silence cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, as such.
It's just that, as they say when cautioning you, if you fail to mention something when you are questioned, and that thing turns out to be a significant part of your defence, the jury may be entitled to wonder why you did not mention it at the time you were questioned. They will NOT be prevented from using their common sense - if, for example, it was the sort of detail that might have slipped your mind at the time.
The caution states: You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
Does this mean that copyright law without fair use can be used to suppress evidence of a crime?
" Your Honor, that document can not be used against my client because he/she/it has not given permission for it to be viewed/read/thought about"
Copyright never gave that much power.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
In fact, it's the entire basis of the modern banking systems. If a bank take in deposit of $100, it lends out no just
$100 dollar, but up to $1000 if the reserve requirement is 10%. More prosaically, if you order supplies from a stationer and she extends credit to you and bill you at the end of the month, she has just loan you money she had (cost of goods) and also money that she didn't have (gross profit).
Without these kinds of credit flexibility, there would be a fixed money supply which would slow our economies drastically. Of course, one can argue that that's a good thing....