Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Under Fire

kan0r writes "The transparency group WikiLeaks.org currently seems to be under heavy fire. The main WikiLeaks.org DNS entry is unavailable, reportedly due to a restraining order relating to a series of articles and documents released by WikiLeaks about off-shore trust structures in the Cayman Islands. The WikiLeaks whistle blower, allegedly former vice president of the Cayman Islands branch of swiss bank Julius Baer, states in the WikiLeaks documents that the bank supported tax evasion and money laundering by its clients from around the world. WikiLeaks alternate names remained available until Saturday, when there seems to have been a heavy DDoS attack and a fire at the ISP. The documents in question are still available on other WikiLeaks sites, such as wikileaks.be, and are also mirrored on Cryptome. Details of the court documents have also been made available."

74 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. But why? by jrothwell97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikileaks is an interesting website, and I can see no reason why anyone would want to take a site hosting confidential leaked documents from governments and big business offline...

    Speaking seriously here, I wouldn't doubt it being a corporate or political DDoS attack, considering the confidentiality of the documents, and how damaging they could be to said companies/governments' reputations. Not a bad thing in my opinion, but they would think otherwise.

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
    1. Re:But why? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not a bad rendition of the answer:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGmA1Cpmldg

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:But why? by utnapistim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it was a bad move on the part of whoever did the attack, if their intention was censorship: it only created more publicity for the documents.

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    3. Re:But why? by Jurily · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what if they did it themselves? :)

    4. Re:But why? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting, but not likely. WikiLeakS is already well-known and they have plenty of traffic on their site. The publisher of the leaks themselves is known and WikiLeakS is just a neutral party to this really -- they just serve up what people post.

      Besides, what about the mysterious UPS fire? I find that interesting because UPSes, especially commercial grade ones installed in server rooms, typically have safety mechanisms (read: big breaker switches) in them that prevent them from overloading and catching fire. In 15 years of working in server rooms, I've never actually seen one catch fire, though I've heard of a few freak accidents.

    5. Re:But why? by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because everyone loves Krusty the clown and getting him in trouble with the IRS over his secret, illegal account in the Cayman Islands is going to make everyone mad!

    6. Re:But why? by josecanuc · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www-viz.tamu.edu/staff/kglueck/images.php3?list=vizfire

      Wasn't a UPS, but a 3-phase power conditioner for a machine room. Yes, it was a freak accident.

    7. Re:But why? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2

      Maybe it's related to the DDoS.. the routers just burst into flames :)

    8. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It generates more free publicity and advertising for the bank's tax-sheltering and money-laundering services, with the reassuring message that the U.S. courts are standing behind you should you patronize aforesaid bank.

      Meanwhile Wikileaks gets to have it's operating premises reinforced, play victim, garner more support, funds, etc.

      So you see, it's a win-win strategy all around. What, me cynical?

    9. Re:But why? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think they are simply attacking something they don't understand.

      "The internet is a bunch of TUBES!!!"

    10. Re:But why? by ediron2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What do pics datestamped 2001 (and involving Texas A&M) have to do with the wikileaks UPS fire? The way you reply, you could be saying 'yeah, this *sort* of freak accident can happen', but it comes across as 'here's pics, it wasn't a UPS but a PCU'. Care to fill in a bit more info?

    11. Re:But why? by josecanuc · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's truly irrelevant to the meat of the discussion. Just some photos of a fire in a machine room.

    12. Re:But why? by D-Fly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hard to believe, but they were taken offline by court order in the United States. A corrupt Swiss Bank, Julius Baer, objected to wikileaks posting documents showing malfeasance on the part of the bank, so this crazy judge, Jeffrey White, who really doesn't understand the First Amendment (and was nominated to the Federal bench by Bush of course), ordered the site to be taken offline. Here's a BBC link describing what happened. And another one from Counterpunch.

      --
      \
    13. Re:But why? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hard to believe, but they were taken offline by court order in the United States.
      What's so hard to believe about this?
      Europeans want to vote in US elections: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2825
      People in the US want to extend US rights to non-US citizens, variously in Guantanamo Bay and for those present on US soil in less than legal circumstances.
      Treaties like the UN Law of the Sea Convention want to set up international bodies that can fine countries.
      Are we not oozing towards a single world government?
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re:But why? by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How kind of you not to mention any reasoning behind the order.
      The selected document evidence exhibits "A" through "O", comprised of selected portions of Plaintiffs' confidential and protected bank files, records, data and consumer account information
      Even if they are committing a crime, banking privacy laws still apply.

      Now, having said that, I hope the IRS go after these folks.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    15. Re:But why? by Nasajin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think that it should be considered a bad thing for countries or big business to be held accountable for their actions. In the argument you seem to be giving, then Saddam Hussein's government should never have been toppled, the Vietnam War should never have involved troops that were not Vietnamese, Cuba's political position should be irrelevant to any embargos, and North Korea should be left to its own devices. I think that human rights violations in certain countries should be confronted and stopped, and it's not going to happen from within those countries. Organisations like Wikileaks helps people to know information about countries and organisations that they would otherwise not know. While I don't think it is a perfect system at all, I still think it's a very important site for collecting leaked information about illegal or inhumane practices.

      Also, in response to your question, "Are we not oozing towards a single world government?", I doubt it. Given the effective power of international organisations like the UN (having nearly no money or resources) and the fact that there is an increasing social distance between different parts of the world due to political, religious, and ideological differences, there's really no indication that global government is happening -- unless you count the somewhat unified interests of international corporate enterprises.

    16. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Missing Iraq & Katrina money perhaps? Inquiring minds want to know.

    17. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      extend US rights to non-US citizens

      The rights mentioned in the constitution are considered to be unalienable rights extended to all of mankind by the Creator Himself (for definitions of man that have varied throughout time, generally in a more-encompassing direction. I hear some places even let retards and cripples marry these days). Furthermore, within the constraints placed upon the entire federal government (yes, even pudge's "all powerful" executive) "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" does not say "except for non-Americans". "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" does not say "except for non-Americans" (and the judicial section of the Constitution does not provide for any options except for "criminal" or "civil", there is no "other" (except for the military courts regulated by the legislative branch and dealing only with military issues, and the administration refuses to permit its captives to go down that road), even for non-Americans (or for Americans who fly to the middle-east and get rejected from Al Qaeda)).

      It's just convenient for the people in power to convince the public otherwise.

    18. Re:But why? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just convenient for the people in power to convince the public otherwise.
      Suspending disbelief momentarily, pending legal review, I have this question:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
      Are you really sure about the document's scope?
      I suppose if you mean the physical territory of these United States, then anyone standing within the borders could be seen as "People of the United States".
      Too, WRT Guantanamo Bay, the fact that the detainees are not in CONUS may be seen as keeping them out of legal theory range.
      Not here to shill for anybody: it's a debate that reasonable people can chew on for a while.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    19. Re:But why? by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, no one may know what information was intended to be censored- there are enough companies, governments and individuals who would have motive to take the site down that the culprit has a certain level of anonymity amongst the crowd of them. For once censorship may not have the typical backfire we're used to.

    20. Re:But why? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you would be OK with the CIA assassinating you if you just happened to be on a trip to Mexico?
      I dunno. Am I beavering away on plots to spread mayhem north of the Rio Grande?
      This is certainly a fine extreme case, and it's a good thing that we do consider things like waterboarding. The will of the people seems to be strongly opposed. Excellent. Wouldn't want that carried out on me. Like a minefield in the enemy harbor, though, waterboarding isn't so much about the actual yes/no should it be used on prisoner X at time Y, but rather the threat of doing such. Which is exactly why the executive branch, and the US in international treaties, is very careful about where and when specific language gets set down.
      In the highly-charged emotional debates, this fine point seems missed.

      No, it's a debate that unreasonable people can and will use to convince easily frightened and uneducated people that it is necessary to give up some of their rights.
      Not sure that you've modeled the problem well in this phrasing.
      There are citizens, foreigners, and a constitution. The constitution says what it says. Reality is what it is. Government overachieves frequently, e.g. the District of Columbia ban on firearms. Labelling some viewpoints as tools to frighten the uneducated hardly helps debate.
      Presidents tend to have a very expansive view of their job. The Congress checks that view, or, often, writes checks to support that view.


      Some wandering thoughts, not necessarily on this topic:
      The sad nature of the current political tautology is that, even if there was an impeachment proceeding against Bush and Cheney, any verdict less than "guilty" would be interpreted as a sign that the proceedings had been corrupted. In other words, the question is not one of facts and reasonable debate, but has passed into the realm of the religious.
      In this kind of discussion, I'm left to wish that history could support experiments, and drop some of the members of the peanut gallery in key positions, just to see them react to the sorts of challenges that have been faced by the post-9/11 leadership. Ah, Teddy.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    21. Re:But why? by jproffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldnt be surprised, if this isnt an attempt to censor or take down wikileaks, but rather an attempt to discover, and possibly gain control of, the owner(s) of the website. You notice in the judge's order, part of it was to remove any privacy protection and to turn over all records, current and past, of all administrative, technical, and billing contact person(s) since the creation of wikileaks. Want to bet, that the judge was pressured by someone (or some people) in the US govermnent who have accounts at said bank in question at wikileaks? :)

  2. Restraining order? by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hereby judge that WikiLeak's DNS entry is not allowed to pass within 100 feet of any US DNS server, on penalty of having to memorise himself in IPv6 form

    --
    which is totally what she said
  3. Insult + Injury by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great idea. On top of a DDoS attack lets add the Slashdot effect. I can smell the smoke pouring off their servers.

    --
    Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  4. To those behind the attacks... by Loibisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To those behind the attacks: It's too late!
    Remember: What's once on the internet stays on the internet...one way or another.

    Just deal with it.

    1. Re:To those behind the attacks... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, maybe I am a few links shy on my paperclip necklace, but don't you think it kind of conspicuous that while said DoS attack is going on, this submitter not only informed Slashdot about it, but actually pointed us all to the still-left-standing mirrors... as if to try and trigger the Slashdot effect.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:To those behind the attacks... by petermgreen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the /. effect is WAY overrated, if you are suffering from it you either have big file downloads, really shitty hosting (think home DSL/cable or similar) or a badly designed dynamic site (this last one is probablly the most common).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    3. Re:To those behind the attacks... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After all, "The Slashdot Effect" can't be more than what Slashdot itself feels, and it survives fine. It's even dynamic.

      Still, Slashdot has been designed to handle this much load. Those poor webservers that feel "The Effect" have probably been running perfectly fine at a lower use for years until someone uses them to announce a breakthrough of some sort with images and video and, shortly afterwards they burn out.

      Though you missed the 4th possibility: The webserver is a Commodore 64. We only linked to that one once :(

    4. Re:To those behind the attacks... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Though you missed the 4th possibility: The webserver is a Commodore 64. We only linked to that one once :( I think we actually hit it twice, but it stood up very well. Admittedly it was only hosting a 100-byte text file, but it was responsive when I tried it. Perhaps everyone assumed it would be down and skipped the link?

      The page about the C-64 web server, hosted elsewhere and full of pictures, only lasted a few minutes, as I recall.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Must be doing someting right... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you're slapped with a restraining order, you get hit with a dDOS, and one of your UPS units "accidentally" ignites , you know you must be doing something right.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Must be doing someting right... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      When you're slapped with a restraining order, you get hit with a dDOS, and one of your UPS units "accidentally" ignites , you know you must be doing something right.
      If this were an episode of 24, they'd kidnap WikiLeaks' daughter, too.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Must be doing someting right... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it "accidentally" ignited so that they could get rid of damning evidence.

      Storing data on a UPS? That would be security through obscurity.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. You know you're doing something right by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when they start shooting at you.

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
  7. Yawn by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wake me up when the anchor of a ship accidentally cuts every cable around the WikiLeaks server buildings..

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  8. Winner: Counter-productive move of the year by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Could the people leaked about on WikiLeaks really be this dumb? Is there anything that will guarantee that this information will be more broadly distributed and read and more likely to come to the attention of the main stream media?

    Why don't they just go the whole hog and DDoS the BBC and CNN at the same time to close the loop.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Winner: Counter-productive move of the year by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could the people leaked about on WikiLeaks really be this dumb?

      Fortunately, yes, they can, and it seems they are. Not 'dumb' per se, mind you, but operating without any idea of how things work in this day and age, when any information that finds its way onto the Internet is effectively immortal, and any attempts to suppress that information only succeed in calling even more attention to it.

      There's no way to silence the truth directly anymore in this new medium. Indirect methods, however, like repeating a lie loudly and often enough, can still be effective.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Winner: Counter-productive move of the year by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Joe Garelli on NewsRadio said it best:
      "You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool."

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Winner: Counter-productive move of the year by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no way to silence the truth directly anymore in this new medium. Indirect methods, however, like repeating a lie loudly and often enough, can still be effective.

      Actually, the simplest way to "silence: the truth is to drown it in misinformation (one of the applications of the indirect methods you referred to). Once nobody can tell what the truth is, and what the lies are, then someone trying to hide the truth can breath a little easier.

      Modern-day PR hacks are really good at this kind of thing, Third World repressive regimes are still learning how to do it effectively.

    4. Re:Winner: Counter-productive move of the year by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the way to get things off the net is NOT TO TOUCH THEM.

      There were quite a few entries linking my nick to my real name in the past - accidential leaks. Nowadays Google provides only false positives. All the old data has expired, died forgotten. If it still exists, it's not being indexed.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  9. Streisand effect by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Informative

    the Streisand effect should be kicking in about now...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

  10. Doesn't necessarily have to be big business/ gov't by usul294 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know it could always be some 14 year old prankster who figured out how to DDOS a server, and correctly thought "Hey, if I can effectively shut off WikiLeaks, everyone will assume that groups which suffer from WikiLeaks were responsible." I mean it takes alot of brains to maintain a big business, I doubt the CTO or CIO of a giant firm suggested DDOSing a fairly well-known website in order to prevent access to content.

  11. If it can help... by this+great+guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    $ dig wikileaks.org
    ;; ANSWER SECTION:
    wikileaks.org. 864 IN A 88.80.13.160
    wikileaks.org. 864 IN A 87.106.162.82
    ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
    wikileaks.org. 198841 IN NS ns3.everydns.net.
    wikileaks.org. 198841 IN NS ns2.everydns.net.
    wikileaks.org. 198841 IN NS ns4.everydns.net.
    ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
    ns2.everydns.net. 101251 IN A 204.152.184.150
    ns3.everydns.net. 12596 IN A 208.96.6.134
    ns4.everydns.net. 601 IN A 64.158.219.3


    (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)

  12. This is why.... by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..WikiLeaks is a flawed idea.

    What they should have is a very simple page at WikiLeaks.com instructing people on how to easily download, install and use FreeNet, with FreeNet links to a FreeNet-hosted WikiLeaks website.

    Then the site would not easily be able to be brought off line, because no one would know where it was hosted (since it is not actually hosted *anywhere*)

  13. Re:Doesn't necessarily have to be big business/ go by CHESTER+COPPERPOT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are also a number of "citizen groups" out there that want to shut down wikileaks because they think it is anti-democratic. It seems a lot of them are affiliated with the guys who "hunt" terrorists online. One such blog of note is the "Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group". See this blog post here. Though they seem to be from a psychological operations bent rather than hackers.

  14. This is What Freenet Was Made For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "DDoS attack"

    This is why WikiLeaks, although good in theory, won't be able to survive in practice. It is centralized, and being as such it can be subject to attack, threat and intimidation.

    Those running WikiLeaks should also post their material to Freenet. This is advantageous for two main reasons: First, insurance against the site going down due to attack, lack of funds, etc. Second, it will prevent attacks in the first place since the attackers know nothing can be gained, there material is already out there and won't be able to be taken down. So even if Freenet isn't to be the main site, it is still useful to have the content on Freenet too.

    1. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but there are problems with FreeNet :

      1/ It's slow
      2/ No one uses it
      3/ No one uses it because it's so slow
      4/ It's so slow because no one uses it
      5/ It's not preinstalled on all computers
      6/ Its installation is as much jumping through hoops as a first use of Windows Vista

      So yeah, backups on FreeNet is a good idea, but hosting the main site? Not if they want to be acessed sometimes.

      I'd rather d/l the full archive off The Pirate Bay or Mininova, though. A lifetime of reading about "why all the systems should all be completely transparent to any one in the general public".

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    2. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      7/ Still carries a stigma of being associated with child porn.

      I would like to see an update to the bittorrent protocol which allows 'dynamic' torrents. The hashes and files of a directory could be changed as a file is added or changed. Build in some mechanisms so that only the original seeder can make changes and set it up and point it to /wwwroot/.

      First download might take a little long, but everytime someone added/changed a file it would be almost instantly replicated across the torrent network. I know that I'd donate some HD space and an open 'dynamic torrent' in rtorrent for something like this.

    3. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you haven't used one of the recent builds, you should try it again. Currently I have it set to use a max of 18KiB/s outbound bandwidth (I'm on a somewhat slow connection), and CPU usage varies from about 5% to 25% on a 1.2GHz Athlon. Memory usage is under 100MB. Both CPU usage and memory will grow with increased bandwidth usage, but it's way way better than it used to be.

    4. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Freenet has improved remarkably. It's certainly not what you'd call fast, but for popular content or anything small (text documents, for example) it isn't bad at all. You'd probably end up waiting several minutes for a 1MiB chunk of text that wasn't overly popular, but that's hardly problematic for something like this.

      My usual browsing experience is that Freesites load their text in somewhere between 10s and 60s, with the pictures loading over the course of the next 2-3 minutes. Some load instantly if they're popular enough for your node or one of its immediate neighbors to have a copy already. If you haven't tried it recently, check out the current build. Be patient, and give it a couple hours of uptime to get thoroughly integrated, but it's way better than it once was.

    5. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by FreenetFan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you tried Freenet recently?

      1. It's slower than the regular internet, sure, but that is to be expected. Anonymity and encryption isn't totally free. But it is perfectly usable for things like this.

      2. An rapidly increasing number of people are using it. About a year ago, numbers were estimated at about 500. Today it is more like 5000. Due to the anonymity, numbers aren't definite, by design, but there are mechanisms to guess the network size.

      3. I don't think Freenet's slowness is the main reason for people to not use it. It is easily fast enough for websites (known as freesites), forums (using the Frost message board software) and filesharing of songs, movies and ebooks.

      4. I don't think the network size makes it particularly slow. The routing algorithm is designed to scale to millions of users. With a larger network, popular files will possibly be faster to download if your peers are also downloading them but I don't think it will have a massive effect. At the moment you can see that popular Freesites and content are very fast to retrieve.

      5. No p2p software is installed on all computers, but millions of people still use it. I realize you are comparing this to website where a web browser is pre-installed on all computers, but I think this will only be a barrier to the casual user.

      6. The installation process for Freenet is very simple and getting easier all the time. It's just a few clicks on an installation wizard and you are ready to go. It is designed to work through firewalls so they shouldn't be too much of an issue.

      I agree that at this moment in time it isn't feasible to move wikileaks wholesale onto Freenet, but I predict that what will start happening more is that sites such as this will move contentious sections off their main site and provide links to a Freenet site that can't be censored.

      It already happens to some extent now, content that is at risk of being censored gets uploaded to Freenet fairly rapidly. I see that trend continuing and Freenet becoming more mainstream.

      See my homepage link to download and try out Freenet.

    6. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by FreenetFan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Freenet has a built-in web proxy called FProxy that you use to browse freesites. These are just regular HTML webpages but without dynamic content. FProxy has filters that strip out anything that could compromise your anonymity, such as links to the regular internet.

      You visit sites by using a standard web browser and visiting an address like this:

      http://localhost:8888/USK@....../wikileaks/23/

      where the dots are a string of characters that provide keys to the location of the site within Freenet and the decryption keys for the content. The number 23 is the version of the site; Freenet will automatically fetch updates as they are inserted.

      It is trivial to expose FProxy so that it is visible to the whole internet. The reason people don't is that you could find yourself in legal trouble if forbidden content is accessed from your IP address. To browse anonymously you have to run a Freenet node yourself, I don't think there is any way round this.

    7. Re:This is What Freenet Was Made For by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've thought about exactly that type of design myself, in a reasonable amount of detail. Some bullet points;
      • swap from a list of hashes in a torrent file to a hash tree for block verification, don't hash nodes together that have no sibling, instead maintain a list of hashes for the current right edge of the hash tree
      • the tracker returns the current right edge hash list for the torrent with every response
      • when the torrent is updated, the tracker adds the new block hashes and returns the new list of hashes for the right edge of the hash tree
      • add p2p messages to [ request / respond with ] any hash in the hash tree
      • change the global identifier of the torrent from a hash of the meta data to a hash of the master tracker URI
      • copy / move meta data from the torrent file to the end of the data blocks, peers can then bootstrap everything from the tracker or other peers knowing only the torrent URI
      • add semantics to the meta data to include "patch process from previous version" instructions, include size information so the location of the previous meta data blocks can be determined by the client
      • clients should respect 3xx http redirects and use them to identify other trackers
      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  15. Re:Questions by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it possible to overload a power supply to the point of fire from a remote location? I've heard of black hats getting into the climate control systems of certain areas and loading up the heat and frying certain parts of computers, but a power supply? There are UPSes with intelligent controllers, of course. I don't really know how easy or difficult it would be to make these cause a UPS to overload, maybe someone else here has knowledge I don't. I would hope anyone using such a controller would take proper safety precautions, such as making them inaccessible from outside the internal network, but you know how smart some people are ... :)
  16. Clouds on the Cayman tax heaven REPOSTED HERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Clouds on the Cayman tax heaven From Wikileaks

    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 ones 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 APAs 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 polygraph tests as in the United States.

  17. Re:Doesn't necessarily have to be big business/ go by alx5000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean it takes alot of brains to maintain a big business
    Sure it does...
    --
    My 0.02 cents
  18. Re:Questions by BadHaggis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, it is possible to hack modern UPS's. That's one of the reasons it is important to keep the firmware up to date, mostly to prevent some type of SNMP snooping/monitoring software from being used. However, I'm not sure if once hacked if the UPS could be made to self destruct, it might be possible if you could turn off the charge monitoring and force an overcharge on the batteries. Just a theory, and I'm sure there are people who know better than I if this is possible.

    --
    Homo homini lupus
  19. Privacy for all or nothing by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with Wikileaks and other "expose" sites like it is that they rationalize what they do by choosing selective enforcement of privacy rights. They say that it is ok for them to trump an interest in privacy because doing so benefits the public good. While this might be laudable at the service, a more studied approach to this would show that one could also use the selective revealing of private documents to advance a political agenda. Everyone's private documents "look bad", and so, cherry picking which documents should be revealed, really just undermines the people being cherry picked.

    For this reason, if you want truth, and are that interested in the truth, then you should advocate the full public disclosure of all corporate, charitable and government documents. Since this covers just about everyone, it follows that there should be no privacy at all and we ought to live in a world where everything is online. The alternative is to accept that there is a right to privacy, and if so, then institutions such as wikileaks ought to be viewed with a well deserved deep distrust, as the outcome can only be ultimately political.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Privacy for all or nothing by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The exact same argument goes for piracy as well. You can have one of 2 things : privacy or piracy. Privacy OR thepiratebay.org.

      Just killing the privacy of "the rich" (like e.g. the riaa currently is) will unfortunately cause the elimination of everyone's privacy (and this is not "Bush's fault", not even China's, and not anyone's, it's a somewhat-less-obvious truth of the world we live in, like gravity is). Enforcing everyone's privacy rights, including the right of "the rich" to keep their ideas limited to whoever they choose (and profit by that mechanism), will indeed protect everyone's privacy, but obviously will enforce copyright to a rather extreme degree.

      (and the same thing goes for "racism", either you allow racism, and it's consequences, or you disallow it, including any racist ideologies (like islam and communism), you can't have it both ways, muslims or tolerance, choose ONE)

    2. Re:Privacy for all or nothing by Grym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For this reason, if you want truth, and are that interested in the truth, then you should advocate the full public disclosure of all corporate, charitable and government documents. Since this covers just about everyone, it follows that there should be no privacy at all and we ought to live in a world where everything is online.

      I think this is a false choice. Why should we be forced to choose between a complete lack of transparency within government-chartered and/or publicly-traded organizations and no privacy--for anyone--at all?

      There can be a reasonable balance between transparency and privacy. Trade secrets, proprietary processes, and national secrets, I agree, should be undisclosed, but should things like financial records, safety/environmental studies, and so on should be publicly available. If businesses don't like that, then they could easily remain private, un-incorporated entities.

      The alternative is to accept that there is a right to privacy, and if so, then institutions such as wikileaks ought to be viewed with a well deserved deep distrust, as the outcome can only be ultimately political.

      Well, of course wikileaks can be used as a political tool. But if that leads to the exposure of corruption and fraud--who cares?!? I would expect that, over time, organizations like wikileaks, even if they are biased, would come to compete in exposing dirt from opposing sides. In fact, I see no reason why anyone should be against such a situation, because all true capitalists love competition (right?) and everyone wants to end corruption and fraud (right?). So what's the problem?

      -Grym

    3. Re:Privacy for all or nothing by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have, for a long time, advocated the idea that if the concept of privacy was done away with, a good deal of the angst in the world could be done away with. It's a permutation of the 80/20 rule. 80% of what everyone fears anyone else could ever learn about them is dreck they share with the majority. And the remaining 20% would be far less shameful when it comes to light that everyone has their own personal 20% to deal with.

      All of the power of shame is based in the belief that somehow, you are the only one. And most of the power of secrets is based in the idea that you have more power derived from them the fewer in the loop.

      However, you present a false dichotomy. You make a fair representation for legal entities to have no right to privacy, but then make the spurious leap that it would then follow that no one should have privacy. Regardless of my agreement of that view, there are numerous shades of grey between a corporation/government group and an individual.

  20. Missing something by griffjon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands are used for tax fraud???? I thought they were there for decoration. Seriously; I was under the opinion that their reputation along these lines was well-established?

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  21. Re:Doesn't necessarily have to be big business/ go by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By "psychological operations" you mean "operations by lunatics" amiright?

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  22. Stupid is as Stupid does. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If you're silly enough to think that money is god, then you're silly enough to try to attack information on the internet.

    Psychopaths live in utterly false realities where their idea of how things work totally overshadows how things actually work. --But it does make them dangerous and tiresome, because they just keep trying to kill and destroy things and they never stop. It's like having somebody constantly trying to break down your Leggo structure while you're trying to build it. --And they'll also go running to the teacher to try to get you in trouble for the shit they're pulling.

    --And information does vanish if you don't work to keep tabs on it. --The prime minister of Canada was caught trying to hide his millions worth of personal wealth from taxation in such an off-shore scheme, but it's very hard to find that info now.

    One of the most effective ways for information to get lost is when the key word for the issue happens to be the same as for some other totally unrelated item which happens to be many times more current and popular. That one is frustrating.


    -FL

  23. http://gaddbiwdftapglkq.onion by giminy · · Score: 5, Informative

    WikiLeaks on The Onion appears to be unaffected. Gotta love that that server is anonymously located. If you want to read the document, follow the link above and install TOR, then punch in the URL in the subject...

    Guess I should have posted this as an anonymous coward ;-).

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  24. Those "citizen groups" are right by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can't mount a decent psychological or intelligence-based warfare against an enemy if you publish what you're going to do every step of the way. I'm not trying to advocate censorship here but I'd love to hear a *serious* answer as to how you expect any country to mount this sort of effort under the limitations of full disclosure.

    Some specific points I'd like to discuss:

    - What is the point of publishing Coalition "soft spots" to the public? Aren't you just begging for terrorists to attack them? It makes perfect sense to publish this to a limited group of trusted people that can fix the problem but not to the general public. Again, I understand there are times where publishing this information might be appropriate, but for the vast majority of the time it is not.

    - What is the point of publishing real-time army positions and schedules to the public? Is anyone benefiting from this except from the terrorists?

    etc.

    My point is that Wikileaks or others have published certain information in the past that has absolutely no benefit to anyone except the very people trying to kill our troops. It's one thing to publish information which embarrasses governments or big companies, it's another thing altogether to publish information whose sole use is the killing of our people.

  25. The Text: "Clouds on the Cayman tax heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  26. WikiLeaks.org at IP#: 88.80.13.160 by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  27. WikiLeaks.be Address by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    WikiLeaks is also available at WikiLeaks.be, which Belgian DNS is not under the Califoria court's jurisdiction.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  28. BBC - result of the Julius Baer case by pev · · Score: 4, Informative
  29. The war of the injunctions by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The domain is owned by people in Great Britain.

    It would be interesting if a British court ordered ICAAN to transfer the domain registration from Dreamhost to a registrar of Iwein Dekoninck's choosing, under penalty that if it did not, the court would order British ISPs to blackhole anyone using Dreamhost for DNS.

    This would create an international incident no doubt.

    It won't happen in a UK court but I wouldn't be surprised if some small country wanted to flex its muscle in a case like this in the future.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  30. Re: Question? Answer. by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CHESTER COPPERPOT:

    Question:

    "Is it possible to overload a power supply to the point of fire from a remote location? I've heard of black hats getting into the climate control systems of certain areas and loading up the heat and frying certain parts of computers, but a power supply?"

    Answer:

    "The trojan has controllers on the universal power supply."

    http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/33500/threaded#33500

    http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11372/34207/threaded#34207

    --
    ~hylas
  31. It's not DoS, it's by Court Order that shut it by sasha328 · · Score: 2, Informative
    According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm/ wikileaks was shut down at the source by the hosting company as a result of a court order:

    Whistle-blower site taken offline

    The case was brought by lawyers working for a Swiss bank
    A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US.
    Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says.

    The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities. Apparently offshore mirrors are still available.
  32. Is Dynadot to blame? by russotto · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It looks to me like Dynadot may have simply rolled over on their customer to get themselves out of the line of fire:

    The Court, having considered the stipulation between Plaintiffs JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD and JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD. (collectively "Julius Baer" and/or "Plaintiff's") and Defendant DYNADOT LLC ("Dynadot"),


    A stipulation is an agreement between two parties in a lawsuit that a certain fact or issue is not contested. What exactly did Dynadot stipulate to? Was it just that they were indeed the registrar for wikileaks.org, or was there more?
  33. Thank you Julius Baer... by MrOion · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...if it haven't been for you, I would not have noticed Wikileaks and it's mirror sites. Much interesting stuff there. I've also sent them my appreciation via this link:

    http://www.juliusbaer.com/global/en/contact/contactform/Pages/default.aspx