EFF, ACLU Back WikiLeaks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @02:21AM from the scratching-eachother's-backs dept.

souls writes "Seems like the forces to protect freedom-of-speech in the groundsetting Wikileaks.org case have spoken: Henry Weinstein at LA Times reports that a coalition of media and public interest organizations today urged judge Jeffrey White to rescind the shutdown of Wikileaks.org, which presents 'restraint on free speech that violated the First Amendment,' and is generally considered to become a representative case for free online speech. The dirty dozen organizations fighting for your voice and mine include the EFF, the ACLU, The Times, AP, Gannett, Hearst, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Society of Professional Journalists. Lets hope that is enough muscle to stop a judge running wild in favor of a bunch of offshore bankers! Meanwhile wikileaks is still going strong via all available other domains, and is currently organizing support and donations."

116 comments

Let me be one of the first dozen people to say... by NetDanzr · 2008-02-27 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

UCLA != ACLU
free speech can be overriden by kevgaxxana · 2008-02-27 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny

during times of war or when a threat of national security is imminent. wikileaks poses a threat to national securtiy and should be shut-down

--
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
1. Re:free speech can be overriden by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  yeah! if you leak too much, you will sink!
  
  that's the way any fascist state works.
2. Re:free speech can be overriden by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 02:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wikileaks IS national security. it secures against the threat of the corrupt and criminal within our own government. They are the anonymous that watch the watchmen.
3. Re:free speech can be overriden by marzipanic · 2008-02-27 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as one who had her Hospital records "lost" due to a blunder, I (along with a massive amount of others) would be grateful for such things to be exposed instead of being buried and passed off as another statistic.
  
  We know most of these things anyway, it is just nice to read the "proof" although it does state frauds do happen.
  
  How exactly does it pose a threat to National security? It is things we all ready know, half the world has the data disks for and as for the war, the true heroes are the fighters not the powers that be.
  
  Freedom of speech, bring it on. The master criminals will surely be reading "wikileaks" to find information and get ideas NOT have a team of covert hackers, undercover spies etc breaking into national security databases or say, making off with data disks. Wiki's or hard facts?
  
  --
  In the name of sticking up for someone with autism, f**k you! Prejudiced bastard.... that is unlawful and linuc for dumm
4. Re:free speech can be overriden by Ice+Tiger · 2008-02-27 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which nation?
  
  --
  "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
5. Re:free speech can be overriden by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Speaking as one who had her Hospital records "lost" due to a blunder, I (along with a massive amount of others) would be grateful for such things to be exposed instead of being buried and passed off as another statistic. How would you like to have your personal medical details posted as a part of a posting on wikileaks ? .. if your insurance company refused to renew your medical insurance as a consequence ? I'm not saying that wikileaks should be shut down - but I'd like slashdotters to think twice before resorting to the routine "everything should be posted online for everyone to see". Peoples lives will be ruined as a consequence of this.
6. Re:free speech can be overriden by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm old enough to remember when Americans proudly pointed out their country had more freedoms...And those freedoms were earned by the blood of many soldiers over many generations.
  
  We now hear it is necessary to put a stop to these freedoms, and they will endanger our soldiers, or our country.
  
  Interesting perspective on the same facts.
  
  Q. Remember what we used to call leaders of countries, who strong-armed everyone in order to run everything their own way?
  
  A. Dictators.
  
  I can think of numerous dictators, over the centuries, that would support that very same perspective.
7. Re:free speech can be overriden by adpsimpson · 2008-02-27 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Which nation?
  
  Good question, I'm glad you asked.
  
  Certainly not Iran.
  
  Maybe Pakistan found something blasphemous? Or maybe China found something against their national interest? Maybe Canada got disgruntled by the unauthorised distribution of copyright data on it?
  
  Or then again, maybe a corru^H^H^H^H targeted US company found all of the above?
  
  --
  Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
  John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
8. Re:free speech can be overriden by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2008-02-27 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  The bank in question is Swiss.
9. Re:free speech can be overriden by MWoody · 2008-02-27 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When was the last time the US government wasn't either at war with someone or claiming that a threat to national security was imminent?
10. Re:free speech can be overriden by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Pick one. Freedom of information is dangerous to every single national government, even if not all of them are as ironically honest as the US, China, Pakistan, etc. in admitting this.
11. Re:free speech can be overriden by Wandering+Wombat · 2008-02-27 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yup... thanks to Wikileaks, there's no corruption in our government anymore.
  
  --
  I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
12. Re:free speech can be overriden by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-27 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wikileaks would not post the actual data, it would post a story about how the data had been compromised. They are in the business of reporting whistle-blowing activities - not committing the same crimes they are trying to prevent by making them public.
  
  And if they did post protected medical information, it would be very easy to legally have it removed under the HIPAA laws, and would likely be fined heavily for the violation.
  
  *read-->think-->understand-->post* in that order only
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
13. Re:free speech can be overriden by immcintosh · 2008-02-27 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  during times of war or when a threat of national security is imminent. [citation needed] wikileaks poses a threat to national securtiy and should be shut-down [citation needed]
14. Re:free speech can be overriden by kelnos · 2008-02-27 09:11 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, if you RTFA (I know, I know...), it references a landmark case during the Nixon administration that ruled that prior restraint cannot be applied in these matters, even in cases where so-called "national security" is at stake.
  
  --
  Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
15. Re:free speech can be overriden by sumdumass · 2008-02-27 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your actually confused by the shinny lights left from not have countries worse then our that could actually invade and pose a real threat to our direct sovereignty.
  
  You see, there always were limits to free speech and protected national security and top secret information. Now that Russia is free and friendly and the USSR isn't a threat anymore, people like you get confused easily between what it different. All that has changes is your perception.
16. Re:free speech can be overriden by sumdumass · 2008-02-27 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  That would be most likely right before we got sucked into WW2 because of a lack of attention by the European communities which allowed a country that had been sanctioned ignore those sanctions under the guise that they wouldn't be targeted. The outcome of that period of sticking the proverbial thumbs up people's own asses in an effort to sit on their hands was more death and destruction then anything the US has been part of since.
  
  Maybe there is a good reason for this.
17. Re:free speech can be overriden by sumdumass · 2008-02-27 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really think they wouldn't post the actual data? I mean we are talking about this specifically because they posted account and identity information so complete that the complain to the judge who ordered it to be shut off was over the possibility of identity theft from the information.
  
  If it would have just been the reports of it with details of the papers withheld to protect the people, that would be one thing. But the entire problem we are seeing now stems from the exposure of personal information. It doesn't seem to support your conclusion.
18. Re:free speech can be overriden by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-27 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and everything the administration doesn't want to talk about is "a matter of national security". Does that give a judge the right to shut down the entire site, and to stipulate to the hosting company that it couldn't be moved elsewhere? I think that "identity theft" is the "gay marriage" topic on this issue. The real issue is these banks are doing some very shady things when it comes to reporting their client's assets for tax purposes, and neither the bank nor it's clients really want the figures dragged out into the light. "Identity theft" is just the current scare tactic catchphrase of the week.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
19. Re:free speech can be overriden by rtb61 · 2008-02-27 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well I assume you have heard of that rotten apple in the barrel, whilst you wont ever get rid of 'em all, you gotta keep lookin' for 'em an' chuckin' out the rotten ones lest the whole rest o' the barrel go bad.
  So wikileaks is part and parcel of the whole internet revised democracy thing, bear in mind in is still way in the early stages of political reformation but it is happening.
  The wholesale cleaning out of the rampantly greedy and corrupt from government and corporations, it's going to take some time but it is happening, and yes, the corrupt greedy self serving arse holes and going down kicking and screaming after all for a lot of them an extended prison term is in the offing.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
20. Re:free speech can be overriden by sumdumass · 2008-02-27 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  You seem like a very confused individual. The president and national security had nothing to do with this judge closing the site down. And whether Identity theft is like gay marriage or not it pointless too.
  
  You made the assertion that Wikkileaks would protect the personal and identifying information of the GP when this hasn't been shown to happen in current scenarios. I don't think they would take any steps to protect his personal, medical or identifying information. All your ranting doesn't seem to do anything but attempt to justify their current position of not protecting any of that information. It would appear that your "they would only post a story" theory was only made up to get the GP's support. And I would say that the tactic make you wonder about trust, of wikkileaks and you.
21. Re:free speech can be overriden by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-28 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  "You seem like a very confused individual. The president and national security had nothing to do with this judge closing the site down. And whether Identity theft is like gay marriage or not it pointless too."
  
  If you can't see a parallel between the administration making up excuses because they don't want to reveal information, and the bank doing the same thing with Wikileaks, it is you that is confused. And you are right about your next sentence, the "identity theft" angle is pointless, just like bringing up the issue of gay marriage (a total non-issue) before an election. Identity theft was the excuse they used to do what they wanted.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
22. Re:free speech can be overriden by marzipanic · 2008-02-28 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  *read-->think-->understand-->post* in that order only
  
  I did but I also added, my point of view in there (I am not a borg) and also netiquette, both before posting. Freedom of speech and I go off what I see. Re-read the post, if it was giving nothing of value only hearsay and an idea away why shut it down? The first bit was just a nice *thought* of mine.
  
  Have a great day, yoga is a great way to relax
  
  --
  In the name of sticking up for someone with autism, f**k you! Prejudiced bastard.... that is unlawful and linuc for dumm
23. Re:free speech can be overriden by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-28 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Um, not sure if you meant to reply to me, as I was not replying to you, but the AC who replied to you. That comment was directed at AC, not you.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
24. Re:free speech can be overriden by sumdumass · 2008-02-28 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, even if the parallels do exist, they are pointless. It is obvious that wikkileaks wouldn't redact any personal information like you suggested. The only read this Identity theft is remotely an issue is because they demonstrated they wouldn't.
  
  I don't see the parallels, but I guess it doesn't matter if they are there or not. The point is the same.
UCLA or ACLU? by norminator · 2008-02-27 02:25 · Score: 0, Redundant

The headline says UCLA, but the summary and the article seem to mention the ACLU...

I realize they both have the same letters in them, but this seems pretty careless. Unless the Union for Civil Liberties in America is involved...
1. Re:UCLA or ACLU? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Usual candy lemon again
2. Re:UCLA or ACLU? by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 02:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I realize they both have the same letters in them, but this seems pretty careless.
  
  Ewe muss bee knew hear!
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
3. Re:UCLA or ACLU? by Zephyn · 2008-02-27 02:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  > I realize they both have the same letters in them, but this seems pretty careless. Unless
  > the Union for Civil Liberties in America is involved...
  
  "Surely we must be united against the common enemy!"
  
  "The Civil Liberty Union of America?"
  
  "No! The censors!"
Wait, what? by RedDirt · 2008-02-27 02:28 · Score: 1

Um, I don't think it's the University of California, Los Angeles backing WikiLeaks.

--
James
1. Re:Wait, what? by joe_bruin · 2008-02-27 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Um, I don't think it's the University of California, Los Angeles backing WikiLeaks. Hi, I'm Joe Bruin,
  
  On behalf of the University of California, Los Angeles, the Board of Regents of the University of California, and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would like to officially support WikiLeaks.
  
  Go Number One Bruins
Now we know. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 02:28 · Score: 1, Funny

1)Create an anonymous leak web site.
2)Get shut down by a court.
3)Ask for donations to support your cause.
4)Profit!!!
1. Re:Now we know. by Thanshin · 2008-02-27 03:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  1)Create an anonymous leak web site. 2) Be jailed for child pornography, drug trafficking and... terrorism!
  
  Next time, the government will react faster.
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by kurt555gs · 2008-02-27 02:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course UCLA = ACLU.

This message is brought to you by the DNA ( National Dyslexic Association )

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by morgan_greywolf · 2008-02-27 02:31 · Score: 2, Funny

UCLA, ACLU, potato, potahto...

Although, I'm not altogether certain what why the United Crazy Lunatics' Association is involved in this case ...

--
My blog
Am I the only one .... by garett_spencley · 2008-02-27 02:31 · Score: 2, Funny

who, upon reading the headline, imagined members of the EFF and UCLA (I'll let others decide if that was a typo) holding hands in a human barricade across a nuclear bunker in an effort to protect it from a physical attack ?
1. Re:Am I the only one .... by snl2587 · 2008-02-27 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
Let's hope not by Trails · 2008-02-27 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lets hope that is enough muscle strength to stop a judge running wild in favor of a bunch of offshore bankers
No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.
1. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 03:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.
  
  You must be new here.
  
  Not to slashdot, but to THIS PLANET. Here, we follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules. The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom while your collar remains firmly around your neck and chained to the grindstone so you can generate more wealth for the people that actually matter. The Gatses and Ellisons and Hiltons and Trumps own and rule the world, and if you believe otherwise you've bought into the illusion they want you to keep.
  
  Make no mistake about it, the laws you must abide by can be safely ignored by them. They can change those laws if they want to; you never will. They own the media and the governments and they will convince you that the boot on your head is a good thing and you will clamor for another stomping from them.
  
  Who should you vote for next election? It doesn't matter, all the candidates are owned by the same people. None of "your" representatives actually represent you.
  
  The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
2. Re:Let's hope not by ShedPlant · 2008-02-27 03:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Who should you vote for next election? It doesn't matter, all the candidates are owned by the same people. Except Ron Paul!
3. Re:Let's hope not by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2008-02-27 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.
  
  I can think of two possibilities with respect to your worldview. Either they don't have the kind of control you think they do, or it's really a grand distraction to make you think you have a voice when you really don't have one at all.
4. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he's not going to get elected, is he? Have you seen any of his views aired in the mainstream media? Me either, CNN and Fox treat him like a joke, and most American cows follow right along.
  
  I voted for him in the primaries, but I'm afraid I'll either be voting Libertarian or Green in the general election.
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
5. Re:Let's hope not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  Who should you vote for next election? It doesn't matter, all the candidates are owned by the same people. None of "your" representatives actually represent you.
  What gives you reason to believe Obama is owned? I don't see that. Since he is one of the likely choices, if this is true, I really want to know in what way. This is important stuff.
6. Re:Let's hope not by suprcvic · 2008-02-27 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom So you were present during the creation of these documents then? Please share with us your method of time travel. Seriously, nobody can say what those documents were written for beyond the face value which is freedom. I'm sorry you're just too jaded to appreciate that those were the intentions and those intentions have been perverted.
7. Re:Let's hope not by spun · 2008-02-27 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  And Dennis Kucinich, who actually gives a rat's ass about the average person, unlike your hero Ron Paul. Admit it, you love him because you think he'll restore power and dignity to upper middle class white guys like yourself. In general, Ron Paul supporters I've met are some of the most selfish, least civic minded people I've ever met. Ron Paul doesn't want to change the system, you'd hate him if he did. You just want a bigger piece of the pie, and that's what he promises. More pie for middle class white guys.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
8. Re:Let's hope not by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.
  
  That's what they want you to think!
  
  (No, actually I think we might stand a chance now.)
9. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A little googling found this and more reliably this. The last link is from opensecrets.org, which reports that over half of all contributions to him came from businesses. I found this bit of ABC News mudslinging by Clinton to be interesting:
  "Sen. Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company; apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry," she said.
  <snip>
  Obama's spokesperson, Bill Burton, however did return fire.
  
  "Leave it to Senator Clinton to attack Barack Obama for a bill that she actually co-sponsored and supported. Instead of playing the same Washington games that people are sick of, she should prove how fully vetted she is by finally releasing her tax returns so that voters can see where the millions of dollars she's dropped into her campaign are coming from," Burton said.
  McCain, the Republican nominee, is a Republican. At least the Republican wing of the Corporate Republicrat Party is honest about who holds their leashes.
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
10. Re:Let's hope not by mapsjanhere · 2008-02-27 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  People who have a voice in their parents basement are not nearly as scary as people having a voice in the street. Let them have their internet, makes it easier to document their deeds and to nap those few they rather not have heard (like those that would take up the rocks).
  
  --
  I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
11. Re:Let's hope not by The+One+and+Only · 2008-02-27 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  You know, the main reason it's so difficult to debunk these rants isn't because they're wrong so much as because they're meaningless.
  
  --
  In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
12. Re:Let's hope not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams
13. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry you're just too jaded to appreciate that those were the intentions and those intentions have been perverted.
  
  Actually I can't argue with that at all. In fact I wrote a K5 article a few years ago that expoused exactly that sentiment.
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
14. Re:Let's hope not by Arccot · 2008-02-27 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.
  
  You must be new here.
  
  Not to slashdot, but to THIS PLANET. Here, we follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules. The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom while your collar remains firmly around your neck and chained to the grindstone so you can generate more wealth for the people that actually matter. The Gatses and Ellisons and Hiltons and Trumps own and rule the world, and if you believe otherwise you've bought into the illusion they want you to keep.
  
  What freedom is it you are lacking?
  
  Look at what happens around the world, compared to the US. Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared. We can speak out, clearly and loudly against the government. We can purchase and train with weapons. We aren't forced to pray to God, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can apply for any job you want, and not be worried the government will blackball you and prevent it. The government doesn't tell me who to marry, where to live, or how much I should be making. I can start my own business. If I do a good job with it, I can make alot of money. I can even move to another country, if the other country is OK with it.
  
  Are there abuses? Absolutely. Gitmo, the No Fly List, and many other things are not as they should be. But we can see how to improve it. In many places around the world, the government is so messed up, there's no place to start. We can improve our government without revolution.
  
  Personal freedom in the US is almost at the maximum reasonable limit. Sure, I have to pay taxes, but I understand why. I can't incite violence, but I agree with that, too. I cannot thing of a single, fundamental freedom we don't have in practice.
15. Re:Let's hope not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared. Says you. Fact is, the USA could just be better at it. That way lies paranoia, of course.
16. Re:Let's hope not by immcintosh · 2008-02-27 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Think about it though, really. Being able to talk and having a Voice are altogether different. The internet lets everybody talk. A lot. That doesn't mean it gives anybody a Voice.
  
  Not to say I agree with his world view--my own take is that we are where we are by virtue of an ingenious combination of arrogant shortsightedness and stupendous incompetence.
17. Re:Let's hope not by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-27 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hey look on the bright side - pessimistic cynical people are hardly ever let down by anything. We already assumed the worst would happen. When it does, we aren't shocked. When it doesn't, we get to be pleasantly surprised (but then instantly suspicious).
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
18. Re:Let's hope not by moeinvt · 2008-02-27 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Despite what George Bush would have you think, the President isn't supposed to be Supreme Dictator of the nation. Ron Paul is running for President of these United States. If you would spend 15 minutes and exercise a bit of open-minded patience and intelligence in studying his viewpoints, you would realize that he is dedicated to policies that are firmly rooted in The Constitution. Civil liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy, and limited government. The only thing he wants to do to the proverbial "pie" you speak of is to make sure that the FEDERAL government gets a smaller piece. If the states want to raise taxes on those mean, selfish, middle-class White guys (I hope that no states would pursue such racist policies) President Paul wouldn't stop them. What he would stop is illegal and un-Constitutional war, warrantless wiretapping, Real ID, illegal immigration, the Patriot Act, inflationary monetary policy and obscene levels of Federal spending. Supporting massively bureaucratic government health, welfare and education programs may give you a warm fuzzy, but it isn't being "civic minded". Working to restore your freedom IS.
19. Re:Let's hope not by spun · 2008-02-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I've studied Ron's views. I can't stand them. He wants to restore people's freedom to die cold and hungry under a bridge. He wants to make sure you aren't 'forced' to care that people are dying cold and hungry under bridges. That's the 'freedom' he offers.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
20. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  What freedom is it you are lacking?
  
  Freedom of choice for one. I can't legally grow a certain species of plant, or posess it, or smoke its dried buds. I don't have the right to bear arms; I must get permission to even own a firearm. If I walk down the street of any city carrying a shotgun, I will be jailed. The police can search my property without a warrant, and in fact did twice last year.
  
  "Hate crime" laws mean you don't have freedom of speech.
  
  I think I already linked this old K5 article Liberty? What liberty?
  
  Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared
  
  Three words: Martin Luther King.
  
  We can speak out, clearly and loudly against the government
  
  If you speak out loudly and clearly against one of the corporations that own the government you'll be hit with a SLAPP suit.
  
  You can apply for any job you want, and not be worried the government will blackball you and prevent it.
  
  You might want to read some history. The history I refer to happened within my lifetime.
  
  Are there abuses? Absolutely. Gitmo, the No Fly List, and many other things are not as they should be
  
  Well, you'll get no argument from me there.
  
  Sure, I have to pay taxes
  
  "Freedom" is freedom OF, not freedom FROM. And just because you don't want to engage in a particular activity you have no freedom to do doesn't mean you're free. That K5 article is about three years old, things have gotten worse in the meantime.
  
  Nothing you do that doesn't harm me should be illegal.
  
  -mcgrew
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
21. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I always say the optimist is almost always disappointed, while the pessimist is often happily surprised. My Grandma said "hope for the best but plan for the worst".
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
22. Re:Let's hope not by slothman32 · 2008-02-27 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  "compared to the US"
  That is true of many western countries.
  Though many nations do do that sort of things as well.
  
  "We can purchase and train with weapons."
  Ignoring that some people don't think that is good, though I like that.
  Many felons can't.
  If they only have "victimless" crimes or even things like graphita(sp)
  they may not be able to purchase guns.
  Plus this only applies to hand guns or rifles.
  No machine guns for you, well if it was made before 1980 I believe it is legal.
  
  "We aren't forced to pray to God, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster."
  We aren't forced to per se but money does have "god" in it.
  Just like "God Save the Queen" or something like that.
  
  "The government doesn't tell me who to marry, where to live, or how much I should be making."
  You can't marry people of the same sex.
  
  "I can start my own business. If I do a good job with it, I can make alot of money."
  Theoretically but not in practice.
  You can start a small business but because of gov't regulations it might be overcome by big companies.
  
  As for fundamental freedoms:
  (listed by amendment number)
  1st: "Think of the Children" is a good way to get rid of speech.
  Many swear words and stuff like nudity and violence are censored somewhat. The FCC would fine you or not let you keep your freqency if you go against them.
  
  4: I wonder what warrentless wiretaps are.
  8: I think a sandwhich sign saying "I did this crime" in public counts as cruel and unusual
  9: It is supposed to mean that you have all rights, such as privacy, and that is doesn't need to be mentioned.
  In practice, though, many people say "You don't have this right" when the 9th says you do.
  10: Almost everything, via the interstate commerce clause, has been decleared reasonable, from SCOTUS.
  An example is that a farmer who grew his own food and tried to sell it was forced to pay a tax. The argument was that his selling might prevent interstate companies from doing so so he has an affect on other states. The Supreme Court still allowed him to be taxed.
  
  --
  Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
23. Re:Let's hope not by rmdir+-r+* · 2008-02-27 07:57 · Score: 1
  more reliably this. The last link is from opensecrets.org, which reports that over half of all contributions to him came from businesses.
  
  You didn't actually read that page did you. 98.3% of the money he has raised comes from individuals, and of the PAC money he has received, 50% was from businesses. Granted it is hard to read, and not all the graphs add up, but still, read your source:
  102 MILLION from individuals
  600 thousand from businesses
  
  Not exactly your smoking gun.
24. Re:Let's hope not by moeinvt · 2008-02-27 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  "I've studied Ron's views. I can't stand them. He wants to restore people's freedom to die cold and hungry under a bridge. He wants to make sure you aren't 'forced' to care that people are dying cold and hungry under bridges. That's the 'freedom' he offers."
  
  You may have done some studies of Dr. Paul's views, but you've made a knee-jerk emotional reaction in interpreting them. As I pointed out, Ron Paul is running for Federal government office, so the policies he is advocating will be limited to implementation at that level. Your conclusion is that opposing some Federal government program is equivalent to opposing the NEED that it was meant to address. Since many(most?) Federal programs fail miserably in achieving their stated goals, you can't equate the program with the need.
  
  For example, the fact that I want to see the U.S. Department of Education eradicated does NOT mean that I am opposed to education. Quite the contrary. What I AM opposed to is a massive and expensive Federal bureaucracy eating up education dollars in administrative expenses and forcing unfunded BS mandates like NCLB down the throats of our local schools. Who do you think CARES more about the quality of education in my local school, and who is in the best position to set policies and allocate resources to address our education needs? The parents, teachers and concerned citizens in the local community, OR a bunch of Federal employees sitting in air conditioned offices in Washington D.C.?
  
  If you're worried about people dying cold and hungry under a bridge, you should be outraged by the idea that your Federal government is spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars on illegal wars, and is maintaining a network of several hundred permanent U.S. military bases all over the world. We also have the Federal government to thank for our current system of trade policies and monetary policies that have eroded the real wealth and real income of the working class. If they're supposed to be taking care of the hungry and the homeless, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. The smart thing to do is to take the wealth and power out of the hands of a Federal government that has systematically wasted and abused it, and return it to the people and the states. I think that's what Ron Paul is advocating, and that's why I support him.
25. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  There's a graph, not much to read on that page. I just went back to recheck and OOPS, I think I slashdotted the poor feckers... OK here it is.
  
  2003-2008 PAC Contribution Breakdown
  Business $665,903 (54.3%)
  Labor $286,400 (23.3%)
  Ideological/Single Issue $274,394 (22.4%)
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
26. Re:Let's hope not by kelnos · 2008-02-27 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, sounds like someone put on his tin-foil hat too tightly this morning.
  
  --
  Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
27. Re:Let's hope not by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing I can't figure out is why they let the internet happen. Seems like a really bad move on their part; now I have a voice.
  
  So an entire generation can grow up voluntarily dumping their personal information and a map of their relationships into Myspace (owner Rupert Murdoch).
  
  So an entire generation can grow up and become addicted to the convenience of using their credit/debit cards to buy everything online, where it can all be tracked and associated with them.
  
  If Television was the greatest propaganda-delivery system ever created; the Internet is the greatest intelligence-gathering system. But only if everyone uses it. Which of course my generation mostly does, and the next generation wholly will.
  
  This is /., so do we really need to delve into whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
28. Re:Let's hope not by sm62704 · 2008-02-28 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  You should have been modded up.
  
  Why does slashdot let me submit a comment without previewing, then when I do it says the seventeen seconds to type "You should have been modded up" isn't long enough?
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
29. Re:Let's hope not by ThatFunkyMunki · 2008-02-28 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone knows that voices are +v, and not everyone can have that.
  
  --
  If patriotism is racist, is racism patriotic?
Prior Restraint by esocid · 2008-02-27 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

On a broader level, attorney Thomas Burke and colleagues Handman and Kelli Sager, representing 12 media groups that filed a friend-of-the-court brief, cited the 1971 Supreme Court decision in the Pentagon Papers dispute as authority for their position.
If that is indeed the case, this judge is going to get hammered to such a blatant disregard of the Bill of .... what's that called again? Oh yeah, Bill of Rights. It's been so long. They have quite a substantial backing of groups in that amicus curiae, especially the AP and the EFF, I'm hoping that this friday will turn the tables on censorship issues a-brewing.
What did bother me was how Dynadot just rolled over and took this without batting an eye. They simply complied and let it happen without bother to contest it. Is it possible for wikileaks to get wikileaks.org changed to another domain registrar or should they just jump ship from this spineless drone?

--
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
1. Re:Prior Restraint by elrous0 · 2008-02-27 03:16 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Constitutions are for commies, queers, and terrorists. Every American knows that the only "constitution" in *this* country is God (spoken for by his loyal servant James Dobson) and George W. Bush.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:Prior Restraint by Chrisq · 2008-02-27 03:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Is it possible for wikileaks to get wikileaks.org changed to another domain registrar or should they just jump ship from this spineless drone?
  
  1 Dynadot shall immediately lock the wikileaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar,.
  
  Part of the settlement with Dynadot is for them to lock the domain so it cannot be transferred. Of course should the ruling be overturned they can then change ISPs if they want.
3. Re:Prior Restraint by esocid · 2008-02-27 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  then color me red.
  /hopes you are being sarcastic
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
4. Re:Prior Restraint by SlowMovingTarget · 2008-02-27 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to pick nits (I'm not new here), but the Bill of Rights is less relevant than the fact that the rights in that document have been amended into the U.S. Constitution. So if the judge's judgment gets nailed (getting hammered sounds like they buy him a few drinks...) for anything, it'll be for violation of those constitutional amendments.
It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" by R2.0 · 2008-02-27 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

WTF is "ground setting? *&$^#% editors...oh, wait, this is /.

Nevermind.

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
1. Re:It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" by Neil+Hodges · 2008-02-27 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Ground setting" must be an alternative term for the grit on sandpaper.
2. Re:It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" by erroneus · 2008-02-27 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  A darned good question. I had over-looked that expression myself partly because I assumed some meaning along the lines of "laying a foundation" or "laying the ground work." But I'm not even sure that makes good sense.
3. Re:It's "Ground-Breaking" or "Trend-Setting" by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 03:32 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  WTF is "ground setting? I find your lack of cromulence disturbing.
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2008-02-27 02:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Q: How do you identify a dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
A: They lie awake at night, wondering whether there's a dog.

(This joke was brought to you by the Society for the Perpetuation of Misunderstandings of Dyslexia.)

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Does it matter? by Jaysyn · 2008-02-27 02:53 · Score: 1

Not only is the cat out of the bag, it's having kittens on the kitchen table.

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
1. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  What a stupid post.
  
  It doesn't even make any sense.
  
  Stop posting.
2. Re:Does it matter? by X0563511 · 2008-02-27 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  You fail. Just a bit more thought and you would have had a haiku out of that!
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Does it matter? by Jaysyn · 2008-02-28 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  YARAC
  
  (Yet Another Retarded AC)
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by zappepcs · 2008-02-27 03:00 · Score: 1

Why don't they ever have dyxlesia? I mean, you'd think that this is a word that would get screwed up, right?

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by sm62704 · 2008-02-27 03:14 · Score: 1

This message is brought to you by the DNA ( National Dyslexic Association )

And the DAM (Mothers Against Dyslyxia) not to be confused with the DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).

Headline on a newspaper in one of the Police Squad movies: "Dyslexia for found cure!"

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by NetDanzr · 2008-02-27 03:14 · Score: 1

Of course UCLA = ACLU.
I must be getting too old, tired and overworked, but my first reaction was that you were assigning UCLA the value of ACLU...
Not stupid - maybe not clear by Chrisq · 2008-02-27 03:21 · Score: 1

What the poster means is the ruling has done much more to draw attention to the bank that does money laundering than there would have been if their "law firm" had done nothing.
Wikileaks DNS still (partially) operational by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-27 03:23 · Score: 0

$ dig @ns2.everydns.net wikileaks.org
Wikileaks is not shut down. by mbone · 2008-02-27 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Still there at

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Their DNS is, of course, another question.
Amazing News! by STrinity · 2008-02-27 04:00 · Score: 1

Wow, the EFF and ACLU are supporting a website that's being censored. That's phenomenal! Completely unexpected. No one could've foreseen it.

Ooo, did you hear there's gambling at Ricks?

--
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
WikiLeaks is not Accountable by Martin+Spamer · 2008-02-27 04:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

No doubt I'll get modded down for defying the slashmind groupthink but the problem I have with WikiLeaks is their cavalier disregard of accountability.

They have ignored court orders. They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal. Wikipedia, despite it's problems allows people to challenge its decisions in a publicly accountable way.

I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.
1. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by esocid · 2008-02-27 04:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They have ignored court orders.
  I don't think that they have ignored, as much as waited for a serious usage of the law. "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!"
  That seems more like bullying than sound legal requests.
  
  They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record.
  The purpose of their site is not to be an encyclopedia like wikipedia, rather a muckraking site that allows whistleblowers to expose illegal behavior without worrying about exposed. I realize that there are laws, which seem pretty ineffective to me, which protect whistleblowers and that they can go to press personnel but wikileaks has no obligation to owners that may want to prevent some material surfacing.
  
  I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy. Dig beneath the surface and all I see is another self appointed authority with a poor regard for balance.
  While that may be true, that's what gives them the notoriety that they have right now. They offer a haven of yellow-journalism that serves to monitor illegal corporate behavior. If there weren't so much going on, wikileaks wouldn't have so much notoriety now would they?
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
2. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by sim60 · 2008-02-27 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They have ignored court orders. They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth, despite they having no credible track record. WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal. Wikipedia, despite it's problems allows people to challenge its decisions in a publicly accountable way.
  
  I think you've missed the whole point of WikiLeaks.
  It's designed to be immune to national court orders, because it's meant to report on abuses by governments and their legal processes.
  It's also designed to be unaccountable because it's meant to be immune to pressure on individuals by governments and corporations.
  The fact that wikileaks has to go to these lengths to ensure that reporting corruption and abuse is possible is a reflection on the societies we live in, not the organisation itself.
3. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by cryfreedomlove · 2008-02-27 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  So, what should be done in response to their poor regard for balance? What would you do today if you were running the world?
4. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by idiot900 · 2008-02-27 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares whether they are manipulative, dishonest, or unaccountable? Let it stay accessible and let the public decide for themselves.
  
  I really dislike Fox News, but even though they are a poor excuse for a news organization, they shouldn't be shut down. We all have the same right to free speech.
5. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by immcintosh · 2008-02-27 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  despite they having no credible track record.
  I could be wrong, but I believe they have actually broken a number of stories that have subsequently run in credible print news sources.
  They have ignored court orders.
  Yes. Now your argument as to how this hurts their credibility as an organization that takes as its mission the opposition of governmentally enforced censorship (court orders) among other things? It's called civil disobedience and is often a Very Good Thing. Whether you agree it's a good thing in this case is a valid argument, but just stating "They have ignored court orders," does nothing to convince me of their malice.
  They publish whatever they like and people seem to automatically assume that everything they say is the absolute truth
  That is no fault of wikileaks. That is the fault of whatever gullible mind is willing to accept as gospel that which they have not independently investigated. If you go to their their site, you'll see they make a point of providing at least some analysis of stories for validity.
  I think WikiLeaks are manipulative and deliberately courting controversy.
  This is just a link right back to exactly what the article we're posting after is about. It was that bank in the article you link that started the proceedings that got their domain "confiscated," which in turn is now according to this article being fought by the groups mentioned above. In fact, I find it somewhat disingenuous of you to claim what you link here as being "deliberately courting controversy," unless you want to argue that the very act of releasing sensitive information is "manipulative and deliberately courting controversy," in which case I will simply have to disagree strongly with you.
6. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by xkhaozx · 2008-02-27 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  WikiLeaks is not a wiki in the true sense, there is no collaboration, the only people allowed to post are their little Cabal [wikipedia.org] There is no collaboration of the postings of the leaks. However, the collaboration takes place in examining and analyzing the leak itself and its authenticity.
7. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by moeinvt · 2008-02-27 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  I won't mod you down, but when you talk about "accountability", "track records" and "balance", you're making an implicit comparison to alternative information sources. I think that you could also make those same arguments with respect to any of the mainstream media outlets.
  
  Think of that media paragon "The New York Times". Their reporters have defied court orders. They seem to publish whatever they want. Their track record is one of misinformation, contradiction and bias, and they are never held accountable for any of it.
  
  Thank $deity for web sites that actually put out real information that hasn't gone through the mainstream media filters. If publishing information is "deliberately courting controversy", more power to them.
8. Re:WikiLeaks is not Accountable by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2008-02-27 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  If there weren't so much going on, wikileaks wouldn't have so much notoriety now would they?
  But that's just it! If the stories that made it notorious are a result of attention seeking more than they are the result of actual events, then you can't be sure that there is that much corporate funny-business going around. Without accountability, you can't safely believe anything you read.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
What's Scary by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2008-02-27 04:10 · Score: 1

What's scary is that any one of how many thousand other judges could have done exactly this same thing.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by cthulu_mt · 2008-02-27 04:15 · Score: 1

Zap Brannigan: I've got a very sex learning disorder. What's it called Kip?

Kip: "Sexlexia", sir.

--
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Can't these places take more assertive action? by Xest · 2008-02-27 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why don't universities and so forth point wikileaks.org to a live Wikileaks IP address rather than the one site the judge shut down effectively bypassing the judges wishes?

Whilst many DNS providers may not follow suit, even if some did it would prove a point that a) he shouldn't have the power to shut down a site of international interest because America doesn't own the internet and b) that even if he does it's futile.
1. Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 04:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  1.) No site was shut down. The IP address that is quoted so often is the same server as the one wikileaks.org pointed to.
  
  2.) If any DNS provider wanted to point wikileaks.org at its actual IP address rather than behaving like a good DNS and pointing it where its registrar says it should point, they could (I'm a bit shaky on the technical aspects, but this is after all how pharming works, so it's possible).
  
  3.) I am principally opposed to hijacking domain names like this, and so should everyone who cares about a reliable internet. If we can't trust DNS servers to return the proper zone records, we are in very deep crap, technologically. This is just short of what Pakistan did with Youtube, and of cutting deep-sea cables - Don't Mess With The Internet. I know the centrally regulated names and numbers thing has its drawbacks at times, but it beats all-out anarchy.
2. Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Note regarding 2: Of course, such a hijacking would affect only the people using the DNS server in question for look-up. If some university dorm messed with the domain for its local users, that has relatively little impact. The problem results when a DNS server does this that is further upstream and is relied on by other servers.
3. Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-27 05:52 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "Wikileaks isn't a legitimate source of news, it's a bunch of asshats with an agenda who think that free speech includes libel and slander."
  
  Since when did Wikileaks become talk radio?
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
4. Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? by Xest · 2008-02-27 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  Proper zone records as defined by who though?
  
  The problem is already deeper though that's the issue, being able to trust DNS servers is one thing, but we can't even trust the nation in control of those DNS servers right now. If we can't trust the underlying hosting providers to point a domain where the owner of the domain wishes to be pointed then we already have a bigger problem. Imagine if a judge decided Microsoft had infringed some lone businessman's patent for some reason and Microsoft wasn't given enough notice to defend themselves much like has happened to Wikileaks and then the judge orders Microsoft.com be pointed somewhere useless or even handed over. It should be the legitimate owner of the domain who decides it's destination in any and all circumstances else we already can't trust DNS records to be correct. The only jurisdiction a US judge should have is to shut down any hosted system in the US at least allowing the site to move to another jurisdiction - essentially this US judge has been allowed to hand down a judgement on an international level, that is simply unacceptable.
  
  My point is that we clearly already can't trust records as such if people in one country can demand changes that effect the rest of the world. To one country (the US) this may be a fair judgement, to the rest of the world this is equivalent to DNS hijacking. What I'm essentially suggesting is we use technical measures to fix something that's already been broken on a political level by hijacking the domain back to it's correct location as defined by the international entity that owns it.
5. Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  If we can't trust the underlying hosting providers to point a domain where the owner of the domain wishes to be pointed then we already have a bigger problem
  ... point. Yeah.
6. Re:Can't these places take more assertive action? by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Expansion of the above: I agree and am convinced by that point. Meddling with DNS records is dangerous business, but I forgot that the domain in question is international (org), and should therefore be treated with more respect by national jurisdictions.
  
  Now the problem I see is that Bank Julius Baer has the financial clout to do the same in whichever other country they want to sue in - even though not all legal systems are as screwed up as the one in the US, so they may have more difficulty shutting it down elsewhere.
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by Arancaytar · 2008-02-27 04:38 · Score: 2, Funny

What do Disclosure Non-Agreements have to do with this?
Re:STOP THE ACLU by Mister+Whirly · 2008-02-27 05:47 · Score: 1

The ironic thing is that the ACLU would go to the mat defending your right to say all of this. (Just look at your own #3.)

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:Let me be one of the first dozen people to say. by RobNich · 2008-02-27 19:14 · Score: 1

Poser! Kif didn't say "sir"!

--
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
ACLU Cool folks.... by iknownuttin · 2008-02-28 05:22 · Score: 1

One of the coolest things I've ever seen was about he ACLU - I wish I can find the damn source but this is over 20 years ago.
A man, a Grand Dragon of the KKK was arrested and was being tried under some bogus law in TX, I think. It was an obvious trampling of his First Amendment Rights. The ACLU picked up his case. They went down the list and finally found a lawyer who was able to take the case. This lawyer went to the defendant's cell. Before entering the guard said that your ACLU lawyer is here. The KKK guy saw a black man walk in. The Black Lawyer then proceeded to say (IIRC) "I don't like you and you don't like me. But what they did to you is wrong and against the Constitution of the United States of America. And I will fight for you."
They wont fight for the second, but other than that, they're alright.

--
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.