Slashdot Mirror
A Comparative Study of Internet Censorship
An anonymous reader suggests we visit the home of the watchdog group Global Integrity for a breakdown of online censorship: "Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a US court's recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: This is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn't work very well... The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."
WikiLeaks is available at it's IP address: http://88.80.13.160/ also a mirror site: http://wikileaks.be/ For the docs at the centre of the controversy, you can get them at http://cryptome.org/wikileaks-bjb.htm
Barbara Felden claims prior art on the flip phone, sues Motorola, Nokia.
*This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth. Further, the rulings of one low level judge does NOT make law.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This is not going well for Bank Julius Baer.
Press reaction is very favorable to Wikileaks. The New York Times even published the IP address of Wikileaks. There's favorable coverage in The Associated Press, the British press, the Australian press, etc. Since it's on the AP feed, it's going to be in papers across the US tomorrow. Not much TV coverage yet.
Bank Julius Baer is trying to take their US business public. Their proposed billion dollar IPO could be derailed by these disclosures.
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!
Nah. Juries can also decide that they won't convict regardless of the facts. It's called jury nullification.
Just because the police don't come and get you for calling your daddy a loser, doesn't mean that your momma won't.
Oh, and the Co$ is one SCARY bunch. Anonymous marches on March 15...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Things are not looking good for Dynadot. I can't see anything that would enable Dynadot to enter into arbitrary settlements affecting a registrant's rights without their input or participation. They don't seem to be covered because the injunction is solely between BJB and Dynadot, not Wikileaks or their domain name. Dynadot was not compelled to enter into this agreement (i.e., entering into the settlement was not "necessary to comply" with any court action); it appears to have been entirely voluntary.
Rubbish. The US has less freedom of speech than most European countries. Don't just take my word for it though:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025
The fact you think you are freer just makes it even more disturbing.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Yes and yes. Go back under your bridge little troll.
I have issues with the RSF methodology. They conflate two problems, government suppression of speech and other groups suppressing speech. For example, Italy fares poorly not because of government action but because "journalists continue to be under threat from mafia groups." And one of the strikes against the US is the murder of Chauncey Bailey, which appears to have been a criminal act due to his investigation of "Your Black Muslim Bakery," and not due to government suppression. Only a fraction of the issues are directly due to the government, for example the jailing of Josh Wolf because of his refusal to turn over video tapes subpoenaed in an arson investigation. And in that example, there is plenty of grey. My point, is that the RSF rankings need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.