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 never realised until recently with the whole NHS thing on the news that we even had laws that tried to silence people.
We have pretty much standardised nowadays on the 1000 million version, primarily because it allows newspaper editors to use the word 'billion' a thousand times more often.
[FUCK BETA]
Northern Rock has not collapsed. It's share price has, but the bank itself is still trading normally.
Indeed, linking to the full Northern Rock vs. Wikileaks page is more useful, because it contains links to the all (hilarious) letters that have been received in that context
At the end of that page, you find links to:
Being able to read the letters in the right context is much more useful. The first censorship demand (a fax in PDF format) is well worth reading.
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 *
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 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...
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.
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."
Twice a million is two million. What the hell do they teach in math classes these days anyway?
Who is John Galt?
You mean like the RIAA and MPAA?
send + more == money?
The problem with that video is it confuses fractional reserve with tort money and as a result its conclusions are nonsense.
If the system were as that video states than banks would never go bust - they could make infinite money just by lending it to each other!
The wikipedia article covers what really happens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
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?"