Bank Julius Baer Issues Statement On WikiLeaks

dtwood writes "The bank that got WikiLeaks.org erased from DNS finally hired a PR agency and issued a press release filled with half truths and non-statements. Tynan on Tech has it, along with some brief commentary. Worth a look."

Comments

Um... ok

[downix]

Can someone please tell Mr Baer that anything he says will be used against him in the court of public opinion?

Sounds like his lawyers are getting nervous.

Re:Um... ok

[geekoid]

Hell no. I haven't ad this much fun since Iraq's information officers was claiming the were winning, as American tank where rolling right on in.

heh.

Re:Um... ok

[milsoRgen]

Sounds like his lawyers are getting nervous. Or the PR people. I'm sure even in their insulated world of high finance and 'creative' accounting they got some backlash for their behavior over the matter.

Re:Um... ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Or like that time when the American's in Iraq were claiming they were winning.

heh.

Re:Um... ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Or like that time when the American's in Iraq were claiming they were winning.

When did Harry Reid start posting on /.?

Re:Um... ok

[timthephoto]

i went on the bank's site and emailed them asking how much Nazi gold is in their vaults

Other banks associated?

[KublaiKhan]

Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?

Re:Other banks associated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?

Dude, this is a major Swiss private bank, with subsidiaries in other countries with bank secrecy laws and no taxes (like the Cayman Islands).

The bank specializes in wealthy clients, helping them avoid/evade taxation in their home countries.

They do not deal with little people like you (or me).

Re:Other banks associated?

[zippthorne]

Does this bank pay interest?

If so, then they must be investing in something. That's who you boycott.

If you don't deposit money, they just make less money. If their investments fail to profit, they lose money.

Re:Other banks associated?

[dnwq]

Make sure you tell all the other investors of your boycott target too.

Re:Other banks associated?

[bberens]

If they're like every other investment group it'll be corporate/municipal bonds and mutual funds. You're probably out of luck.

Re:Other banks associated?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the bonds have to be with somebody, and the mutual funds have to have holdings. A one man boycott isn't going to have much effect on the bottom line of an array of companies, but you might at least have some satisfaction of knowing your money isn't lining their pockets.

I don't know how you'd sabotage municipal bonds, though. Convince everyone to move out, maybe? or get elected to the prime legislative body and mishandle things until the county has to default?

Re:Other banks associated?

[iminplaya]

The Federal Reserve and the IRS, maybe. Good luck boycotting that.

they make a good point:

[greenslashpurple]

"The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals." Especially individuals engaged in tax fraud.

Re:they make a good point:

[howdoesth]

Isn't being engaged in tax fraud a prerequisite for having a bank account in the Cayman Islands?

Re:they make a good point:

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't being engaged in tax fraud a prerequisite for having a bank account in the Cayman Islands?

No, there are plenty of legitimate reasons. Say you live in Venezuela and run a business, like a grocery store, that you have worked a lifetime to build. El Presidente Hugo Chavez has threatened to seize your property because you refuse to sell groceries for less than what you pay your suppliers.

Should you keep your money in a Venezuelan bank so that the dictator of Venezuela can seize it on a whim? Or should you take a short flight to the Cayman Islands and open an account there?

Re:they make a good point:

[Trails]

Not that I'm a fan of his or anything, but Chavez was democratically elected. If all it took to be called a dictator was being a blowhard with some odd policies that haven't panned out so well, and foreigners wondering what the hell your country was smoking to have elected such a douche, then I know a certain schmuck in the white house who's a dictator.

Re:they make a good point:

[jtheisen]

Which is exactly what happened a couple of weeks ago here in Europe: German tax offices bought (with the help of the BND, Germany's service for foreign intelligence) records from a leaker of a bank in Lichtenstein with information about who had foundations there - foundations that are almost always used in order to commit tax fraud. They bought it for 3 million Euro, but claimed to get much more than that back. The CEO of the German Post fell over that scandal. According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, many other countries, including the US, also bought that information. Naturally, Liechtenstein got quite a fit about this and accused the German goverment of "Hehlerei im großen Stil" (legal expression, to receive stolen goods as a criminal act).

Re:they make a good point:

[Anonymous Coward]

"The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals." Especially individuals engaged in tax fraud.

It's tax evasion rather than tax fraud. This distinction is important.

In Switzerland, the authorities & banks will happily cooperate with investigations of serious crime (like murder, drug smuggling & tax fraud) committed outside Switzerland.

However, tax evasion is not a serious crime in Switzerland, so the authorities & banks will not assist in investigations of tax evasion committed outside Switzerland. This is one of the reasons Swiss banks are so popular, especially in high-tax Europe.

Re:they make a good point:

[stubob]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=dictator
dictator -noun
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. (in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3. a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
4. a person who dictates, as to a secretary.

1 and 2 sound like Mr. Decider-er to me. What was the signing statement he issued about declaring martial law and suspending Congress?

Re:they make a good point:

[CTilluma]

Then we should launch an invasion on most companies out there. We must bring down the dictators. The only safe companies would be the ones who don't use secretaries or Dragon Naturally Speaking.

Re:they make a good point:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well, actually he lost the referendum on extending his term and so as such, at least for now, has failed these tests of yours (neither full control of the government nor emergency power - btw no ongoing "emergency" has been declared in Venezuela). As it stands Chavez is no more a dictator then G.W.Bush. They are both arrogant "whaddayagonadoaboutit"-style politicians, constantly pushing their luck (probably the main reason they hate each other - too alike). One stuffs his supreme court with toadies and so does the other. One issues "signing statements" ment to ignore laws, the other pulls broadcast licenses of TV stations which annoy him (but still leaving a venerable cornucopia of other opposition stations, channels, papers etc). But both, at least so far, are quite restricted in the extent of havoc they can wreak. One major difference though: Chavez is immensely popular amongst the Venezuelan public (specially the poor indigenous majority) and bitterly opposed by the super-rich, while Bush's situation was never that rosy, having at most ~50% of the voting public voting for him in the elections.

What will happen with Hugo in the long run? Will he turn into a bona-fide dictator? Who knows. But for now he is just a populist president, not a dictator, no matter how desperate the Ferrari-riding classes get to paint him as such.

Non-truths?

[gambit3]

Non-truths and half-statements?

What the hell is that??

If you're going to chide a company for putting out a shitty document, at least have the balls to use some real language when you do it.

Is it a lie? then call it a lie! "half truths" my ass.

And what's a "half-statement"??? An incomplete sentence? A run-on sentence?

Re:Non-truths?

[Itninja]

I think any reasonable person knows what a half-statement. It's a completely legitimate. Most English professors.

Re:Non-truths?

[gambit3]

Sorry, that should've been half-truths and non-statements. I should've taken Slashdot's advice and used the "Preview" button.

I apologize.

Re:Non-truths?

[I confirm I'm not a]

> If you're going to chide a company for putting out a shitty document, at least have the balls to use some real language when you do it.

> Is it a lie? then call it a lie! "half truths" my ass.

You mean like this?

And the statement "Julius Baer's sole objective has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website" means either that a) they're lying, b) they really did think that wiping WikiLeaks.org from the DNS records of the Net would only remove those 'inauthentic' documents they're so concerned about, or c) they're lying.

I'm betting on a and c. How about you?

Looks to me like the article accuses Bank Julius Baer of... lying.

Re:Non-truths?

[morgan_greywolf]

Erm, well, one of the things they say relates to the documents being "stolen and forged". Then, in the very same paragraph, they refer to the documents as "private" and "confidential".

Sorry, but, um, forged documents aren't private or confidential unless they contain some degree of accurate information, I suppose...but then they're not subject to banking laws because they're fake documents, right?

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

If JB lawyers really had the aim to stop the publication of the documents, they could have just sent WikiLeaks a C&D, who maybe would have even taken it down. But instead, they call up WikiLeaks asking them who their lawyer is and refuse to identify themselves. Who do these people think they are? The fscking Mafia? Wait, don't answer that ... :-D

Re:Non-truths?

[whoever57]

Non-truths and half-statements?>br>
What the hell is that??

I think that any Brit will know that the correct term is being "economical with the truth"

Re:Non-truths?

[HTH NE1]

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement.

Re:Non-truths?

[Captain Sarcastic]

"I dislike the term 'lie, I prefer calling it 'counter-factual'."

Re:Non-truths?

[rs79]

I prefer "synthetic factoid" or "man made fact".

My kids just accuse me of "making up facts again".

Re:Non-truths?

[Warll]

The fscking Mafia? Wait, don't answer that ... :-D

I think its fairly obvious who they are, MafiAA want to be's.

Re:Non-truths?

[harryHenderson]

Not to defend the bank, but a set of documents CAN be both legitimate and forged at the same time. Some can be real and some can be false. The problem that the bank could be in (if they aren't totally lying) is that only demanding the take down of the real documents in the C&D will expose which records are real, and as such need to be kept confidential. The ONLY thing the bank could do in that case is to BOTH deny any of the documents are true and demand that they all be taken down.

Re:Non-truths?

[lawn.ninja]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a run-on sentence is a "sentence and a half."

Re:Non-truths?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Erm, well, one of the things they say relates to the documents being "stolen and forged". Then, in the very same paragraph, they refer to the documents as "private" and "confidential".

Yep, they're taking a page out of the same PR book used by the Cult of Scientology on OT III story. "The Xenu story is fake. But we're going to sue anyone who posts it for infringing our copyright!"

The upside is that it'll probably work as well for the bank as it did for the cult.

Re:Non-truths?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Much like Dr. Laura claimed those nudie shots of that redhead 1. Were not her and 2. She owned the copyright on them.

Why she owned the copyright on some other female was never stated.

Personally, any time lawyers make contradictory claims, they and their clients should be shot.

Re:Non-truths?

[gambit3]

I have no problem with the article. It's the summary that uses the non-sensical words.

Re:Non-truths?

[The Angry Mick]

Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement.

Is that when the plaintiff gets to be on top, or is it the other way around?

Re:Non-truths?

[dubbreak]

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement. In law you can have "conflicting" statements via alternative arguments. For instance:

• I was not at the scene of the crime.
• alternatively, I was at the scene of the crime but was not involved and did not see the crime take place from my vantage point.
• in the further alternative, I was there, saw it happen but was unable to intervene or identify the culprits

It may seem to logically conflict, but each argument stands by itself. You could think of each alternative argument as a root to an individual tree (i.e. you can have multiple starting points for your arguments, they don't all have to start from one premise).

Of course it should be said IANAL, and the only time i've seen alternative arguments the alternative were plausible, it's just the facts at hand might end up working better for a certain path of argument, for example:

• y acted as an agent for X in the contract between X and Z
• in the alternativge, y acted as an agent for Z
• in the further alternative, there was a direct contract formed between X and Z

Re:Non-truths?

[immcintosh]

Don't unfairly malign the poor term counterfactual! The poor thing's just trying to do its job.

Re:Non-truths?

[geekoid]

a half-truth is a truth that implies one thing, but can certianly be taken a different way.

"Did you sleep with her?"
"NO!, I didn't sleep with her!"

Clearly the person posing the first question means "have sex"
The person answering knows this, but uses the word sleep, since he didn't actually sleep.

Re:Non-truths?

[ifdef]

In law you can have "conflicting" statements via alternative arguments. For instance:

        * I was not at the scene of the crime.
        * alternatively, I was at the scene of the crime but was not involved and did not see the crime take place from my vantage point.
        * in the further alternative, I was there, saw it happen but was unable to intervene or identify the culprits

It may seem to logically conflict, but each argument stands by itself. You could think of each alternative argument as a root to an individual tree (i.e. you can have multiple starting points for your arguments, they don't all have to start from one premise). Yeah, but I think that, if I was on a jury and heard a lawyer make a set of arguments like that, I would have to assume he or she was lying. Any of the three could be true, but it is impossible for all three to be true simultaneously.

If the facts seem to show that I am guilty, I think the way a truly innocent person would counter that would be to say "No, here is the real story, and here's the explanation for the suspicious facts." To come up with alternate, inconsistent explanations is practically ADMITTING that there IS no "real story" in which I am innocent, just that there COULD have been.

Re:Non-truths?

[TwilightSentry]

Like this?

Re:Non-truths?

[dubbreak]

Any of the three could be true, but it is impossible for all three to be true simultaneously.
Very true, but you are thinking like a programmer. Each argument is exclusive to itself and is not to have any bearing on other arguments.

In the contract example (trying to show contract between X and Z possibly using y as a contracting agent) it should make sense why this is allowed. The point to prove (or disprove) the existence of a contract. Depending on the facts it may be easier to prove the contract existed via one method (which should be your first argument), though if it is possible to prove it by another method then they should be reserved as a backup. You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket

This allows for seemingly ridiculous examples such as my first one. However, if you consider that example, the first argument may be the easiest. If you present that the person was not present and there is no proof to the contrary, then you have taken the easiest route (regardless of whether they were there). Of course if the person was there and they are put on the stand, then they will disprove that argument or commit perjury. For that argument to work (with the person having been there) the other legal party would have to be incompetent.. but it was formed as a ridiculous example of what is possible.

Re:Non-truths?

[Captain Sarcastic]

I do apologize for that, but that was how I heard it used in an interview with someone who had been asked about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When someone suggested that the intelligence reports were wrong, the interviewee said that the information was "counter-factual."

It wasn't until later that I found out the person was, to use Abe Lincoln's phrase, "calling a tail a leg."

Re:Non-truths?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that when the plaintiff gets to be on top, or is it the other way around? Yes, it is.

Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[Dice]

Sigh.

I was hoping this story wouldn't get big. I was really hoping that I'd found a bank through which I could launder and stash various... shall we say... "unreported monies". Like a stack of $100 bills the size of a small room. Homeland Security can be really unforgiving about that sort of thing, you know?

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

If you think DHS is bad about things like this, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the folks over at the Internal Revenue Service...

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[KublaiKhan]

HELLO good sir i am an honest man from the UNITED STATES who has a BUSINESS proposition for you in good health and honesty for good christian man of good character such as yourself.

I am prepared to offer a BUSINESS deal to great advantage for you in monetary security terms for the storage of your FINANCIAL difficulties for very reasonable rate. Please to send to me your

name
date of birth
bank routing number
social security number
mother's name

and i will PROVIDE for YOU a small room for the storage of your MONETARY. For this service you may keep 10% of the AMOUNT GIVEN in good health as thanks for your ASSISTANCE.

In good health and honesty,
Fow Ern Ineteen, Esq.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[milsoRgen]

Oh yeah, funniest thing I've read all day!

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[I confirm I'm not a]

In the UK there used to an agency called "Customs and Excise". They - unlike the police - carried guns on operations, they didn't trust or liaise with the police, and they normally didn't need a search warrant to carry out raids. The government decided that they weren't powerful enough, and merged them with...
drumroll...
the Inland Revenue!

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[compro01]

Homeland Security can be really unforgiving about that sort of thing, you know? the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS. they've got what it takes to take what you've got, along with everything you'll ever have. the government takes receiving "their" money very very seriously.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[Mister Whirly]

"the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS."

No doubt. The IRS brought down Al Capone for christ sakes. No other law enforcement agency could come close to bringing him down.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[Intron]

I need the pallets back if you're done with them.

-- Paul Bremer

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[Dice]

This used to be true, but then the DHS gained the ability to lock arbitrary persons away indefinitely without warrant, trial, or access to legal recourse.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[mapsjanhere]

The IRS does not waterboard (yet)

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled

[CTilluma]

It's just difficult to transfer a that volume of bills out of the country..

it is used for tax evading and money laundering

[someone1234]

So, it is more like for private people than institutions.

Re:it is used for tax evading and money laundering

[KublaiKhan]

As clients, yes.

However, they may have business partners in this country of some sort. If there are any folks whom I could boycott (as, obviously, not having money to hide I'm already de-facto boycotting the bank in question, and they don't really care) it'd be nice to know who they'd be.

Re:it is used for tax evading and money laundering

[milsoRgen]

Apparently they have a U.S. mutual fund unit. Other than that, all I can find in regards to U.S. activity is an New York Address.

Identify which are forged and which are not

[Anonymous Coward]

They should identify which of the documents are forged documents and which ones are not and ask wikileaks to label them as forged documents, and remove only the non-forged documents.

Re:Identify which are forged and which are not

[milsoRgen]

Yes but I'm sure theres more than a couple people out there who have been watching this very closely and have most likely mirrored the content (if not the whole site) and would easily be able to identify and provide the 'non-forged' documents.

Do we have free speech in the USA?

[zymano]

Seem like lawyers all own us and the system is unbalanced against the average person.

The lawyers OWN congress.

Re:Do we have free speech in the USA?

[el borak]

The lawyers OWN congress.

The lawyers ARE congress.

Re:Do we have free speech in the USA?

[Bardez]

Look at the former profession of many in congress... congress IS lawyers.

Opinions, Opinions

[matt4077]

Quote: "And the statement "Julius Baer's sole objective has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website" means either that a) they're lying, b) they really did think that wiping WikiLeaks.org from the DNS records of the Net would only remove those 'inauthentic' documents they're so concerned about, or c) they're lying."

I'd interpret it as meaning they tried everything else and then had to resort to these means to get these documents offline. In a way, I can understand the Bank. If the documents are true, it's confidential information that shouldn't be published. If they're forged, it's obviously defamatory and shouldn't be published, either. I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards. WIkileaks is obviously doing good work, as with last years documents about african dictators. Not sure if this is among that good work,

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[Danse]

I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards. Isn't committing or abetting tax fraud already disregarding legal standards?

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[Otto]

If the documents are true, it's confidential information that shouldn't be published. Says who, exactly?

Of course they don't want them published, they're evidence of wrongdoing, yesno? They very likely have no legal basis on which to get them removed. Trying to exercise prior restraint on publishing documents like these usually doesn't survive an appeal to the first amendment.

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[JustinOpinion]

I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards. Well this is the fundamental question of whistle-blowing. Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc.

I don't know to what extent this has been legally codified, but the consensus has grown to be that whistle-blowing should be somehow allowed, or even encouraged and protected. This is why we consider it reasonable for a reporter to "not disclose a source" and why Wikileaks should be protected.

If the information can be shown to be false, then yes it should be removed. But unauthorized publication of data which unequivocally proves that some bigger crime has occurred has to be allowed and protected if we are going to fight big crimes. This protection has to extend to the original whistle-blower, and the reporting agents (journalists, wikileaks, etc.), even though they may be technically breaking certain laws (e.g. disclosure of private data).

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Alternatively, you're just protecting your money from theft by a power hungry set of self-styled leaders and the masses that empower them, said people defining their theft as not-theft because they hold the guns and are the biggest local group of people around.

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

There seem to be several possible senarios here.

    1. All the documents are authentic and expose illegal activity.

                  In which case, claiming forged documents would solve to PR problem.

    2. All the documents are forged.

                  In which case, claiming forged documents would solve the Pr problem.

    3. Some of the documents or document information is real some if forged.

                  In which case, claiming forged documents would solve the PR problem.

      What of the other problems. Like the rich, connected, possibly made clients
      exposed through the documents real or forged. Or the prospect of any future
      clients.

          Senarios 1,2,3.

                Flee to Switzerland, oh, already there.
                Get the documents taken down, impeach the information (claim forged).

      If the documents were real or forged, the only way to get any legal action
      against Wikileaks other than civil defamation would be to claim that some
      of the documents were real and stolen, then it becomes a criminal act (I
      assume).

      So what we may be seeing is just legal lying to try and make the law serve
      the Bank, not actual facts about the documents.

      The courts action seems like it violates rights in that not all the
      information posted had to do with the bank. That would be like sealing
      up a store full of people because someone went in and was claimed to
      have made a speeding violation and the store did not cooperate with the
      security guard in handing over the suspect. Remember we do not have any
      convictions or violations here, at least not that I saw.

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[saltydog56]

You know, just to piss on the embers a little. How many here would object to someone at the Pirate Bay disclosing who was downloading torrent files in preparation for a little midnight P2P action?

We all know that at least a fraction of that activity is done with a disregard for legal standards.

At what point do we expect privacy, and at what point should shady acts be exposed to the light of day.

It seems that many get their panties an a wad when the privacy issue hits close to home but love it when someone else's laundry is hung out to dry.

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc.

Which makes me question the legality of such confidentiality agreements.

If I remain silent because of a confidentiality agreement, then am I an accomplice in the crime I have discovered? Under these circumstances, can I be legally be bound to remain silent? If I am forced to testify in court, does this still violate the agreement and make me liable? If police question me, outside of a court, must I remain silent? Is this legal?

I suspect confidentiality agreements are of dubious legal standing. I also suspect that if ever they are challenged, the courts will side with big companies.

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

If the information can be shown to be false, then yes it should be removed. But unauthorized publication of data which unequivocally proves that some bigger crime has occurred has to be allowed and protected if we are going to fight big crimes. This protection has to extend to the original whistle-blower, and the reporting agents (journalists, wikileaks, etc.), even though they may be technically breaking certain laws (e.g. disclosure of private data).

Well, that's the thing. In Switzerland, it is illegal to disclose bank records except for a few reasons specifically authorized by law. Tax evasion outside of Switzerland is not one of those authorized reasons. This disclosure is illegal in Switzerland. On the other hand, in the USA, this disclosure would probably be legal.

Re:Opinions, Opinions

[rastoboy29]

The problem, at least here in the U.S., is that the law is an ass.  This is how our politicians are legally accepting bribes of all sorts, for example--erm I mean campaign contributions and lucrative post-government jobs.

When the law is an ass, thing like Wikileaks are our only alternative.

Go BJ Baer!

[fuzzy12345]

I RTFA. It was lame. I don't see the half-truths or the lies, and of course BJB isn't going to affirm/deny the validity of the documents in question, as that would just disclose more info on their client's business.

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice, and Wikileaks was rude and evasive. So the nuclear option, pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them. This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication. What's the big deal? Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[downix]

So, if the New York Times publishes a report on tax evasion, one should bulldoze the city of New York?

Pulling the DNS is an option to be done *when all others have been exhausted*, and fact is, this was the first option the courts pulled, which is akin to my above statement. An initial order had to be for Wikilinks to pull the documents off of the site by a set date, and if they didn't, hold the executives in contempt. That is how the rule of law works.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[z80kid]

I think the big deal (as pointed out in the article) is:

1. According to the correspondence shown by wikileaks, Bear's lawyers did not attempt to discuss what they wanted. They only tried to contact them to serve legal papers. You'd be evasive too.

2. Bear is asserting that the documents are 1) fake, and 2) violations of banking privacy law. One of those two is the truth and the other is a lie. If they are fake, then there is no violation of banking privacy, so #2 is a lie. If they are real, #1 is a lie.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[fuzzy12345]

An initial order had to be for Wikilinks to pull the documents off of the site by a set date, and if they didn't, hold the executives in contempt.

Yeah? And who would you serve that order on, since Wikileaks won't tell you who their lawyer is or how/where to serve them?

This was pretty predictable. If the defendant won't divulge who or where they are, you go to the defendant's ISP or domain provider.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[squiggleslash]

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it

Wait, the judiciary has been privatized now? It no longer is a part of the government?

That's new to me. Even using the silly "censorship isn't done by private entities" definition, this is censorship: the government was asked to shut down Wikileaks, and it did just that: it ordered Wikileaks shut down.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[Anonymous Coward]

3. The Cake is a lie.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[bishiraver]

The funny thing is, though, pulling the DNS record for wikileaks.org is more akin to covering up a crate of teapots with a tarp to hide the address on the crate.

Sure, for some people it hides it. But anyone who walks up to the tarp and lifts it up can see the address (the analogy of course, referring to the fact that wikileaks is registered on several different international registrars).

I'm not discounting that it's a severe example of governmental prior restraint: simply pointing out the fact that JB believes it was a "nuclear" option when in fact, well..

IT'S A TARP.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[dubl-u]

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice [...] pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them.

That's bullshit. Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of a variety of notices, requests, and demands from lawyers, cops, and federal agents. Wikileaks was mildly jerky, but the lawyers were even more so. If they had a problem with particular documents and intended to sue in the US, they could have just said which documents and where they were planning to sue.

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication.

You did notice that it was shut down by a court, right? I know some think that courts are naturally occurring mineral formations, but I swear, this one is part of the federal government.

What's the big deal? Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or just clueless, but I'll run with the latter. If the documents were actually false, then BJB should just say, "yet more Internet" and ignore them. Obviously, the problem is that the documents are actually valid but put them in a bad light.

We grant limited legal protection to information for reasons like "advancing the sciences and the useful arts" or running a legal business. Although it's a little amazing given our congressmen, those valid reasons to not include malfeasance, corruption, and skulduggery. In fact, just the opposite: whistleblowing is frequently protected by law because it helps us nab people up to things not in the public interest. Like, it appears, Bank Julius Baer and some of their clients.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[pla]

I don't see the half-truths or the lies, and of course BJB isn't going to affirm/deny the validity of the documents in question, as that would just disclose more info on their client's business.

FTA: "Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material"...
and "The documents in question are protected and prohibited from unauthorized publication".

These exist as mutually exclusive concepts. If someone posted fake documents, those documents have no legal protection; if someone posted real documents, then they count as authentic. BJB has no authority, however, to "protect" privacy rights concerning records that don't exist except as works of 3rd party fiction.

Of course, the very fact that BJB had standing to file suit in the first place more-or-less makes the authenticity of the documents a slam-dunk. But either way, they've basically said "you stole our data, and made it all up to boot!", of which exactly half (at most) can count as the truth.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[conlaw]

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication.

When you have a federal court ordering the takedown, it's the government doing it. It isn't a prior restraint on this particular document, but the takedown of the whole site is a prior restraint on additional documents that Wikileaks might have planned to publish.

Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

If false or scurrilous documents are published on the 'net, then the remedy is a suit for the damages caused to the subject of the publication, not muzzling the site before it makes the publication.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[stony3k]

Wikileaks lawyers were at the court, IIRC, but were asked to leave. So the court could easily have server the notice to them. Unfortunately, the bank's lawyers took advantage of the fact that few judges have much technical know-how to cause as much damage as they could. Probably just to send a message. Thankfully their strategy didn't work and has in fact backfired.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[oliphaunt]

Anyone who needs a refresher on the free-speech implications can find it here (although digg found it first, so the whole article is temporarily posted static on the main page):

Vying for Control of the Internet: is Wikileaks Unstoppable?

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[fuzzy12345]

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice [...] pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them.

That's bullshit. Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of a variety of notices, requests, and demands from lawyers, cops, and federal agents. Wikileaks was mildly jerky, but the lawyers were even more so. If they had a problem with particular documents and intended to sue in the US, they could have just said which documents and where they were planning to sue.

The lawyers started off by asking nicely (please, thank you, sincerely) for a service address. When they didn't get one, they reminded wikileaks of its obligation under the DMCA, and got more runaround. With that trail of emails, any judge is going to be sympathetic to BJB ("We tried to serve him, but he just climbed out the bathroom window and ran away, your honour!")

Wikileaks sums up by saying "Wikileaks received no further demands from BJB until the surprise ex-parte hearing." Well, when you refuse to provide a service address, any hearing involving you is going to be ex-parte, isn't it? If WL wanted to get SERVED with NOTICE, it knew what it needed to do. Apparently its legal strategy was to hope the plaintiff would go away.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[portnoy]

Yeah? And who would you serve that order on, since Wikileaks won't tell you who their lawyer is or how/where to serve them?

Wikileaks' response made perfect sense to me -- effectively, they said that they're a multi-national organization (note the presence of the domain name in .be, .uk, .au, .cn, and .in, to name a few), so they need to know which URL was a problem in order to give you the contact info for the appropriate legal organization. BJB never responded. I'd call that acting without good faith.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[bberens]

When this bank can talk to a court which has some jurisdiction over the offending site then they might have more luck. Apparently, the site is hosted in Kenya (according to the whois lookup). In the event that wikileaks wasn't breaking any laws in Kenya, I can imagine they have a very nice civil suit against the ISP who dropped the DNS entry.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[hengist]

WikiLeaks emails made it very clear that they have several legal representatives, and they needed to know

1) what documents were at issue, and
2) who the other party actually was,

so that the appropriate counsel could be selected. Despite repeated requests from WikiLeaks, that information was not provided by BJB's lawyer. It is quite clear that BJB's lawyers were not acting in good faith. I hope there are sanctions against them at the end of this, as they clearly abused process.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[CTilluma]

Did you miss the memo? The US Govt has been privatized. The primary shareholders are Haliburton, Exxon-Mobile, and Saudi Arabia.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[fuzzy12345]

If this were a story about someone calling up AOL to cancel, and AOL making it very clear that there's a lot of hassle and runaround involved, you'd probably be arguing the other way.

As you can see, when one party tries to get cute by delaying or flat out refusing to provide a service address, the result may well be an ex-parte order. A normal response would be "Send it to world headquarters, and we'll see that it gets to the right place, and let you know who'll be handling our litigation once we get it."

If you're not cooperative with the other side in a litigation, don't be surprised when you're painted as an obstructionist scofflaw in court.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[fuzzy12345]

Did you miss the bit where BJB provided three jurisdictions ("California, the UK and Switzerland") and, rather than provide service info, Wikileaks continued to stall? This would've been brilliant legal strategy if Wikileaks was litigation-averse and trying to avoid service, or if it was judgment proof. However, given that their domain name was provided through a US based, (presumably) litigation-averse registrar, it was a dumb strategy indeed. Plaintiff now moves against the registrar, with documentation that attempts to serve the domain owner were met with several days of runaround and stalling.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[russotto]

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice, and Wikileaks was rude and evasive.

No, Baer's lawyers were rude and evasive. They started out with a demand to "immediately" send information on notices with respect to Wikileaks's wrongdoing, which is rude. When asked for jurisdiction and the identity of their client, they responded "California, the UK, and Switzerland" -- that's evasive, as California comprises many jurisdictions (both State and Federal), and I'm sure the UK and Switzerland have different jurisdictions as well. And they refused to disclose the identity of their client.

They went on to claim that Wikileaks was legally obliged to provide DMCA contact information, which is simply a lie; if you don't claim shelter under the DMCA, you need not provide such information.

Baer's lawyers then threatened to sue Wikileaks in California, a threat they made good on. They still didn't name the jurisdiction, though at least they said it was Federal. Only after that threat did Wikileaks get snippy with them.

This is all on the Wikileaks site.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[emurphy42]

Not which URL, but which jurisdiction(s) the C&D would pertain to.

Per this link from TFA, BJB gave a partial answer ("The jurisdictions at issue include California, the UK and Switzerland") followed by some allusions to US federal copyright law (including the DMCA).

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear is asserting that the documents are 1) fake, and 2) violations of banking privacy law. One of those two is the truth and the other is a lie.

You know, there are hundreds of documents here. Some could be fake while others are private. They didn't itemize every single document.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[dubl-u]

If this were a story about someone calling up AOL to cancel, and AOL making it very clear that there's a lot of hassle and runaround involved, you'd probably be arguing the other way.

Yes. Here, the power differential runs the other way. People tend to support the underdog, partly based on the intuition that the just outcome shouldn't depend on how much money you have.

Bank Julius Baer has approximately infinite money, and a strong financial incentive to harass anybody who makes them look dodgy, even (and perhaps especially) when they are being dodgy. Wikileaks, on the other hand, has no money, is making no profit, and is providing a public service. It's not surprising that the public would side with people working for the public good.

A normal response would be "Send it to world headquarters[...]"

I look forward to the day they have a world headquarters. Would you care to fund it?

Until then, what they have is a bunch of volunteers scattered around the world. Saying that you need to know which lawyer will handle the case seems like a pretty reasonable request. I understand that the court system is mainly adapted to corporations and pre-internet notions of how things happen. Given the vast variety of people that have gotten involved in the case, this looks like a fine opportunity for a little institutional learning.

Re:Go BJ Baer!

[hengist]

I suspect that a more accurate comparison would be someone calling up AOL to cancel, refusing to give AOL their account details, then suing AOL for not cancelling the account.

inaccurate

[abigsmurf]

I'd hardly describe that press release as being filled with half truths. Only point that's really debatable is the dialogue part but there's nothing especially wrong with asking for dialogue between lawyers, especially given the potentially legally complex nature of the post.

Re:inaccurate

[djupedal]

"...hardly describe that press release as being filled with half truths."

As long as kdawson jr. gets a kickback, it doesn't really matter, now, does it?

Re:inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

the primary claim is that all the documents are

a) forged

and at the same time

b) copyright of the bank

these cannot both be true at the same time. That means it is exactly half true. They could claim some of them were forged and some of them were copyright but then they would have to specify which was which. Calling the document "half true" has a kind of precision which is almost totally inappropriate in a Slashdot article summary.

Example

[Sloppy]

This half-statement is both a non-truth and

Re:Example

[everphilski]

a bag of walnuts!

"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same time"

[circletimessquare]

actually, yes you can. the bank's efforts at defending itself are certainly vile, but this doesn't mean the leaker has virtuous motivations either. if you think it is impossible to leak and lie at the same time, you've never encountered a disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client before

it's sort of like some of the problems surrounding allegations of rape. most charges of rape are indeed cases about a real rape, that needs to be punished harshly. but a handful of charges of rape are made by women who's motivations are completely false. the horrible tragedy is that the real damage such women do is not to the man they want to hurt, but to the 100 other cases of genuine rape their false rape charges now put into doubt

so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client. not that the bank's actions are defensible in any way, regardless of the leaker's motivations, but if the motivations of the leaker aren't squeeky clean, on such a high profile affair, then this entire wikileaks first amendment situation gets poisoned in a way it would be viewed on the street in a way no one who cares about the first amendment wants to see happen

Who needs DNS?

[bizitch]

DNS is for the week ;)

Any one have the IP address from cache?

Re:Who needs DNS?

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS is for the week ;)

Although I use it daily.

Re:Who needs DNS?

[BridgeBum]

Wikipedia has it. 88.80.13.160

Re:Who needs DNS?

[Niten]

I have a simple BIND server that performs recursive DNS for my home network...  if you really want the (meaningless, but nonetheless heartwarming) satisfaction of metaphorically flipping BJB the bird, add

    zone "wikileaks.org" {
        type master;
        file "master/db.org.wikileaks";
    }

to your named.conf, then enter the following master/db.org.wikileaks:

    $ORIGIN wikileaks.org.
    $TTL 3h

    @ IN SOA yourserver.domain.example. root (
              105     ; Serial
              3h      ; Refresh
              1h      ; Retry
              1w      ; Expire
              1h      ; Negative caching TTL
              )

                                NS      yourserver.domain.example.

                                A       88.80.13.160
                                MX      0 mail.wikileaks.org.
    mail                        A       88.80.13.160

Reload named and you should be able to resolve wikileaks.org across your network.

(Sorry for the monotype; is there a way to use the <ecode> tag such that it doesn't eat up leading whitespace?)

Okay now . . .

[arizwebfoot]

Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.
So if the material was not authentic, then why all the fuss? Apparently, all is not as they claim.

Re:Okay now . . .

[91degrees]

They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true.

Re:Okay now . . .

[orclevegam]

They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true. You seem to be working at some level of thought beyond me, as I can't follow this logic. Merriam Webster defines Deny as, among other things "1: to declare untrue " and "5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of". If you declare something to be untrue, you by definition are saying that it's false, I.E. not authentic in the case of documents. Now, if you refuse to comment on the authenticity of something, that's a different matter, but that's not the same as denying something is authentic.

Re:Okay now . . .

[91degrees]

Like I said, it's subtle.

Statement 1:
"I am not 91degrees"

Statement 2:
"I said I'm not 91degrees"

Statement 1 is clearly a lie. The second statement is technically true. Saying "our organisation denies xyz" is closer to the second statement. You may disagree, of course, and that's fair enough, but I suspect this is why they phrased it the way they did.

Re:Okay now . . .

[orclevegam]

Statement 2 is only true if you made Statement 1 which it already has been established is a lie, therefore your choices boil down to, either Statement 2 is a lie, or Statement 2 is true, but you lied about Statement 1, and making Statement 2 confirms that you lied. Either way you've made a lie.

Statement 1 -> Lie
Statement 2 -> Statement 1
Therefor Statement 2 -> Lie.

Re:Okay now . . .

[onemorechip]

Or, you could make statement 2 without ever having made statement 1. Then the worst that happens is that you are caught lying about making statement 1; meanwhile, you've planted the suggestion that statement 1 is true.

I'm not a lawyer, so I wonder if that technicality could be used to avoid a perjury charge if you made statement 2 under oath. Perjury requires establishing that the statement in question is material to the case in which it is given. Statement 1 might be material to some case, while statement 2 could conceivably be immaterial to the same case.

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti

[Anonymous Coward]

> so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client.

Why not? While I'm well aware of how selection can slant the truth, evidence is evidence. In fact, most whistleblowers are people that have been personally screwed over.

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti

[orclevegam]

What difference does the motives of the person who revealed the information make? Either the allegations are true and the bank is guilty, or they're false and the bank is innocent. The whole thing can be cleared up rather easily by providing proof that the "leaked" documents are fake. Either way the motives of the person are irrelevant. This isn't like a rape case because in a rape case the actions and motivations of both parties determine the legality of the situation (that is, who consented to what), where as in this case both parties are either guilty or innocent, and motivations don't factor in to it at all.

Re:You fail.

[EasyTarget]

Actually I laughed, since it's too true.

PS: I do not remember being taught to use ALL CAPS in grammar to signify shouting..

Anyone see the irony here?

[Sepiraph]

According to wikipedia,

On February 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction against Dynadot forcing it to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name
Whereas what wikileak did was to release the illegal activities of asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.

So U.S. District Court, where is the justice?

Liar and a leaker...

[Mike1024]

From the article

You can't be a leaker and a liar at the same time. In fact, it's really unclear what Baer claims is legit (but stolen) and what it claims is false or forged. It would be possible to have both stolen true information and fabricated false information in the same document - or to have a mix of authentic documents and forged documents. Hence "stolen and forged bank records" could be true.

Also, it makes sense for a company not to comment on the authenticity of leaked documents - and the bank could argue that wikileaks should remove the documents if they are fake (assuming wikileaks purports to be a factual site); and should remove them if they are illegal; and therefore should remove the documents without the bank specifying if they are authentic or not.

That said, hosting fictional information probably isn't a crime (unless you could work slander or libel into it); and hosting private/secret documents against the rights holders' wishes is kind of wikileaks' raison d'etre.

Just my $0.02

Re:Liar and a leaker...

[cube135]

Leaked material, by definition, need to be authentic documents. If they're not, it's not leaked material-it's falsified trash.

Re:Liar and a leaker...

[Anonymous Psychopath]

The bank never uses the word "leaked". They use the term "stolen and forged bank records", which can certainly mean that they claim some of the documents were stolen and others were forged. Or perhaps they mean that a stolen document was modified to create a forgery. There doesn't appear to be anything contradictory in what they said.

It seems to me that a lot of people are trying to read something into the bank's statement that just isn't there.

I have some (very limitted) sympathy with JB

[91degrees]

It's quite right that private banking information should remain private. It's also quite correct that JB should take great pains to avoid confirming that the data is genuine. As such, whether the data is legitimate or forged, they should behave in exactly the same way.

And that's about it for my sympathy. JB could have asked wikileaks to take down specific pages (wikileaks most likely would not have done but it's a matter of courtesy). They could have specified a jurisdiction for their demands, or given a reason that they could not specify a jurisdiction. By demanding the wiping of the DNS records, they have advertised the existence of the leak and even made the mainstream press in at least one country.

uh, what?

[circletimessquare]

i'm talking about the public perception of the high profile case if the leaker turns out to be ill-intentioned. a fake allegation of rape casts a cloud on 100 other valid charges of rape in the mind of the public. that's unfortunate, but real. likewise, if the leaker turns out to be a saboteur instead, 100 other whistleblower cases have a pall cast over them

what you are talking about is a totally different comparison i didn't even make. try to pay attention before responding next time please

Re:uh, what?

[orclevegam]

You don't get it. There is no way for this to be a "saboteur", because it requires complicity of both parties involved. Even if the source is a pissed off ex-employee, the company committing the tax evasion, and the bank facilitating it are both still guilty. It really doesn't factor in who the source was, and anyone who thinks it matters at all be they the "public" or anyone else is a moron. The only reason it matters in rape cases is because there's the potential for the one doing the accusing to have tricked the one being accused into the actions he or she took (that is, the "victim" wasn't really raped but instead consented to have sex, therefore the accused is innocent), which then raises the question in other cases of if the "victim" is really telling the truth. In this case it's a matter of documents and the only question is whether those documents are true or fakes. Both parties in this case are the accused, and the "victim" is the government. If the one making the accusations used to work for one of the accused it makes no difference to the case, and should make no difference to public perception.

Freenet

[evanbd]

Are the relevant documents on Freenet yet? If so, what's the link?

If not, is there a convenient mirror package somewhere? I'd be happy to post it, but I'd rather not deal with converting the hyperlinks and removing the Wikileaks formatting from the html -- I'd rather have just the documents themselves. Wikileaks doesn't seem to have such available, or if they do I haven't found it.

Re:Freenet

[jroysdon]

3-4 different news stories provided links to other sites that have it, including Cryptome and The Pirate Bay. All the lawyers have done is cause this to explode into the headlines and push the contents all over the internet. One site I saw had over 50 links to other sites in many different country code domains (and assumingly hosted locally) with the content.

No doubt you'd need to be a CPA to figure out if the content has any real value. But I look at this like Watergate - what if the next Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein - fearing for their lives (in any country), wanted to publish via Wikileaks or the like? I don't think you can block that if you care about freedom of speech.

If you care about freedom, you have to let lies and half-truthes be told, cults to spread their mess, and then let others take those on point-by-point to discredit and expose it. If someone's financials have been exposed, that bank is the only one to blame. If it is fradulant, then let the persons involved state as such and perhaps prove it if need be. The truth will come out one way or another.

Letting any one authority have the ability to silence speech will eventually turn bad - we know at the core a person's nature is selfish - just with varying degrees - and when you get someone with the wrong degree of selfishness, they'll abuse the authority.

Personal pet peave regarding Freenet: there is no way to not be a tool in spreading childporn with Freenet. Once you connect, you are spreading whatever is in Freenet. You have no idea what it is you are transmitting (which is good from a freedom standpoint). At least with something like Wikileaks there is some filter for that sort of content (I doubt they will post things of that nature), and if you are a mirror you could choose what content not to mirror.

DNS is for the weak ....

[bizitch]

start -> run -> notepad c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

Make host file look like

127.0.0.1 localhost
88.80.13.60 wikileaks.org

Problem solved ...

Re:DNS is for the weak ....

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

start -> run -> notepad c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

That didn't work on my Ubuntu system or my Mac or my test FreeBSD 7.0 system. Please help.

Re:DNS is for the weak ....

[CTilluma]

vi /etc/hosts

Re:DNS is for the weak ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it just be easier to surf to the IP directly and then optionally bookmark it?

intent

[circletimessquare]

it is an important issue

it always is

we have cases of murder, and we have cases of manslaughter. both result in a dead body. but they are very different subject matter because of intent

intent is a large part of legal and moral opinion. it always matters. and it matters here in this case too, it really does. if you respond to me that it doesn't matter in your mind, then i only have to say that your mind is not functioning how most people's minds process the situation

Re:intent

[orclevegam]

There is no legal defense to bank fraud. You cannot claim "self defense", and motives don't have an impact on the decision or the charge you're guilty of. There are no extenuating circumstances in a case such as this, therefor the motives of the accused or the ones doing the accusing are not a factor.

Actually

[wsanders]

I once worked at a place where a lot of people had security clearances. A coworker enjoyed scuba diving, and bought a condo in Grand Cayman. That security clearance whooshed away faster than a bottle of vodka in Britney Spear's glove compartment.

Eventually the coworker was reinstated, so there are bind fide reasons for transacting business in the Caymans. Scuba diving, nig game fishing, genocide, drug dealing, weapons smuggling, corporate espionage come to mind, in addition to plain old tax fraud.

Re:Actually

[stubob]

Odds are he didn't report it. I work with a guy who has a Swiss bank account. There's no prohibition on anything (OK, ongoing communication with suspicious foreign nationals would probably get you yanked) while having a security clearance, but they require full disclosure up front as well as updates to situation changes. Believe me, it's (figuratively) beaten into your head at yearly "refresher" courses.

Re:You fail.

[jesdynf]

Hmm. This claim is plausible, if improbable coming from a user ID under 50K.

However, because I'm just that kind of guy, I'll step in for you.

In modern times, the use of all capital letters in electronic messaging has come to signify emphasis, or a raised voice. As more and more internet communication is conducted on forums with internal markup, instead of the flat 7-bit ASCII NNTP favored, this convention's technical justification has begun to fade.

There is a strong reaction against using all-capital letters in a message for this reason; uppercase letters are more difficult to read than lower-case letters, and anyone willing to type in all upppercase is frequently unwilling to use punctuation or paragraphing, adding to the headache of potential viewers.

Use uppercase letters sparingly, like a strong seasoning, to give your words flavor and tone.

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti

[vsync64]

Rape, really? A little bit of a tangent, but okay.

FBI says 9 percent of rape accusations are unfounded. That's a not insignificant minority when you consider the "guilty until proven innocent" approach taken in rape cases, the lingering suspicion even after an acquittal, and the willingness of political entities to prosecute obviously false charges out of some kind of vindictiveness (witness the Duke case, and not just the prosecutor; look at all the concerned organizations that piled on).

All charges, rape or otherwise, should be in doubt. In case you forgot, that's the foundation of our court system. And you can be sympathetic to a victim, even interact with her on the assumption she's being truthful, without automatically assuming the suspect is guilty.

News coverage

[Zork the Almighty]

Did anyone see the Associated Press coverage? link.

"An effort at damage control has snowballed into a public relations disaster for a Swiss bank seeking to crack down on a renegade Web site for posting classified information about some of its wealthy clients."

Apparently, company information is "classified information", and WikiLeaks is a "renegade" website. I guess it is compared to the Associated Press. Here's a high school example of propaganda. Perhaps it was written by a high school student.

Want to know how to kill a bank?

[Colin Smith]

Transfer all your money to them, then take it out as cash. Actual physical paper and metal.

Because of the fractional reserve multiplier it has a currently 10 fold (in the USA, 30 fold in the UK and 50 fold in the EU) effect on their ability to generate further loans.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[Anonymous Coward]

Transfer all your money to them, then take it out as cash. Actual physical paper and metal.

Because of the fractional reserve multiplier it has a currently 10 fold (in the USA, 30 fold in the UK and 50 fold in the EU) effect on their ability to generate further loans.

Not a good idea:

- banks usually levy a penalty if you close an account soon after opening
- banks can force you to give notice before large cash transactions so that they have sufficient cash on hand
- you're going to have to travel to the bank (Switzerland, Cayman Islands) to open an account
- when you take all your money out in cash the bank files a suspicious activity report with the tax authorities
- you now have all this cash - when you deposit it into another bank, they will file a suspicious activity report with the tax authorities

The balance sheet of the bank would be exactly the same as it was before your little scheme. You haven't accomplished anything, aside from paying a lot in expenses.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[mOdQuArK!]

Could you theoretically keep doing that between various banks until the whole system went bust? (Just curious...)

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[emmons]

No - banks loan each other money to make up for short-term cash balance deficits.

Incidentally, when the Fed announces it's changing interest rates, they're changing the rate they charge banks for these types of loans. The Fed then buys or sells treasury bills to make sure all the other interest rates follow the change.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[VisceralLogic]

Could you theoretically keep doing that between various banks until the whole system went bust? (Just curious...)

You would have to deposit your cash before you could pull it back out, so no, not really. But if everyone simultaneously decided to pull their money out as cash, well, that's what's known as a run on the bank.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[commodoresloat]

If you have enough money to make any appreciable dent in any bank by pulling this scheme, you can probably find more effective ways to get your voice heard.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[WK2]

Yeah, but this way is free.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[Watson Ladd]

I disagree. Cash is cash, whether electronic or physical. It fits in the same line of the bank balance sheet. The fractional reserve multiplier applies to the issuing of loans. If you transfer the money in, and withdraw it, then you have done nothing as the reserves are the same at the end of the day.

Re:Want to know how to kill a bank?

[hughk]

Unless your name is Bill Gates, that wouldn't work.

What does work is bad press. Any bank wishing to do business with any anyone, especially when opening a correspondent account must investigate the background of their client. If the client is located in an area of increased risk, then the client must be rechecked often. Part of this involves a bad press search Such would seriously hamper the ability of BJB Cayman to do business and may hurt the parent bank.

Plenty of blame for both sides

[taustin]

Looking at the archive of correspondence, it looks to me like both sides were evasive, rude and snotty. Both sides, no doubt, had their reasons. Given the nature of the web site, and the history of this kind of fight, were I the bank's lawyers, I'd be very concerned that they would zip it all up and send it off to a hundred other web sites as soon as they got file names, especially if they could so do legally (and they could, since they wouldn't have gotten the C&D yet). Given the history of such C&D efforts, I can see why the web site wouldn't want to give out any freebies to the other side's lawyers.

However, in the end, the only thing Wikileaks made available to the bank to deal with was their domain name. I can't imagine how else they thought this would go, when the bank had no other path to follow.

Re:Plenty of blame for both sides

[emurphy42]

If Wikileaks is smart, they're already zipping up all their files and sending them off to some other web sites on a regular basis. If BJB's lawyers were smart, they would realize this.

BJB's lawyers claimed the following (emphasis added) - anyone know whether the emphasized part is true?

You have no legal right to demand advance knowledge of the name of our client and the documents at issue -- that is the information that is to be and will be included in a DMCA notice and demand letter.

Re:Plenty of blame for both sides

[cswiger]

Sure, it's true enough. Of course, a nastygram from a lawyer which does not specify the specific materials in question and identify the copyright holder doesn't follow the rules of a "DMCA takedown notice", so the site in question would be free to ignore it. (That's pretty much what happened, too.)

On the other hand, the Wikilinks site isn't obligated to provide a DMCA contact, but refusing to provide one means they'd lose the safe harbor provision granted to ISPs and other network service providers.

Some Wikileaks domains still up

[Anonymous Coward]

See:

Wikileaks.de

Wikileaks.be

Wikileaks.ca

Copy cats

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the same comments are in the press release link and in slashdot?
Maybe the bank is hiring people to post on their behalf?

Are we being watched? Time to put our tin foil hats on?

Re:Copy cats

[CTilluma]

You mean you take your tinfoil hat off? I find it gets great reception!

Irony of the situation

[sugar and acid]

Ahh the irony. The way wikileaks facilitates the distribution of stolen,illegal and/or highly sensitive information in broadly very similar mechanisms that banks like BRB facilitates the hiding and laundering of stolen,illegal and/or highly taxable amounts of money.

Keep the information about where it came from tightly secured. Distribute and flow it through a number of international sites, ideally with favourable political/legal/tax climates. Fight tooth and nail against any attempts to force divulging or removal of information when requested by various national legal jurisdictions.

Re:You fail.

[reddburn]

I'm far more annoyed by stupidity than all caps.

Re:Criminal damage to the internet

[CTilluma]

The Pakistani government didn't mess with anything. They told the ISP to block access to YouTube. The ISP didn't mess with DNS (although it may have been less problematic but people can easy specify an alternate DNS server or run their own) the ISP sent out false BGP routes. That's why Pakistan was dropped from the net by their upstream provider for a while to clear out the false route propagation. Messing with DNS records wouldn't be like demolishing their house. More like removing the name from the mailbox so people could only get there by the address.

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Exactly. Remember kids, if you constantly abuse your freedoms they can and will be taken away from you. Let's cherish the fact that we don't have an oppressive government in power.

Oh really?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

YOU FAIL, American pig. There are no American infidels in Baghdad, not now not ever. We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid. I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly.

That is all.

Switch to consumption/sales tax

[cweber]

If we'd switch away from income tax to a national sales tax, all these tax evasion issues would go away instantly. Money, no matter how it was gotten and where it came from, eventually will be spent. Tax it then and profit!

Of course, there would still be loopholes, but I expect far fewer and harder to exploit.

National sales tax would also force banks such as Julius Baer into much cleaner business practices. A nice little side effect. Spoken as a Swiss citizen who has walked past Julius Baer HQ many times, but never been impressed by what they stand for.

Re:You fail.

[commodoresloat]

the flat 7-bit ASCII NNTP favored Jesus, stop shouting, man! The whole office can hear your stupid acronyms!

Stolen _and_ forged?

[vyrus128]

"regarding the unlawful posting of stolen and forged bank records."

This very much reminds me of the scene in Firefly where River reads the town elder's mind and correctly implies that he killed the previous elder. His response? "The witch reads minds and spins falsehoods!" Gotta get that second part in there for deniability...

you forgot the subtext

[andy_t_roo]

Yeah, but this way is free*. * minimum deposit $10,000. Cash handling fee of 5%. penalty for rapid closure $500. manual transaction fee 2% of transfer. large cash deposit fee $500. account opening fee $5. Teller socializing fee - 12 years school tuition for the child.

Re:you forgot the subtext

[lxw56]

don't use banks at all. Totally free. Maybe a few hundred each for a safe and a shotgun.

Re:you forgot the subtext

[Txiasaeia]

Despite what you may have learned on "It's a Wonderful Life," papa and mama dollar bills do not procreate and create baby dollar bills in safes.

Re:You fail.

[MikeBabcock]

A complete lack of capitalization is the latest craze, but it and block-caps typing are often each a very rapid indicator of the intelligence of the typer in my experience.

My user ID's not under 50k though, so who am I to say? :-)

Re:Criminal damage to the internet

[jonwil]

The question is, why did the DNS provider roll over instead of fighting. IANAL but my understanding is that the Communications Decency Act section 230 means that the DNS provider was not liable for the content provided by WikiLeaks.

Why then did the DNS provider not claim said immunity under section 230 and (per my understanding of the law) direct BJB to go after WikiLeaks instead.

Re:You fail.

[RasputinAXP]

Personally, anyone with user ID over 13k is a nooblet.

Re:You fail.

[Srin Tuar]

7bit ascii can show caps and uppercase just fine, no markup needed

money & power.

[Cr0vv]

I used to roll my eyes when a friend of mine used to complain about the conspiracies of the banks and governments; its me now. From what I've been reading lately, I actually understand the power and influence these people have (the extremely rich). Coupled with a certain knowledge of human nature, it's now obvious to me. Governments are the same; they don't want to lose their power, and will do anything to keep it. Bush stole the 2004 election, for example. He's a Fraud and as Sean Penn said: "he's Beelzebub -- and a dumb one." Cr0vv.

Disseminate Widely

[chris_sawtell]

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

It works

Thanks to The Guardian

Re:You fail.

[jesdynf]

I knew as I was typing it I wasn't being completely clear -- historically, any venue that uses 7-bit ASCII hasn't been very friendly towards markup. (Although some of you may remember using board-specific ANSI escapes in your messages, I remind you that those boards allowed *eight*-bit high ASCII. So nyah.)

Re:You fail.

[arh9623]

Damn... so close

Re:You fail.

[Maxmin]

A complete lack of capitalization is the latest craze, but it and block-caps typing are often each a very rapid indicator of the intelligence of the typer in my experience.

hmm. this claim is plausible, if improbable coming from a user id under 70k.

however, because i'm just that kind of guy, i'll step in for you.

in modern *nix times, the use of all lower-case letters in electronic messaging has come to signify one is a 37337 4ax0r, or at least an individual with pretensions rooted in nerdness, and a resulting interest in preserving bandwidth due to the inherently greater compressibility that results from encoding messages with a smaller character set. as more and more internet communication is conducted on higher-bandwidth connections, from clients equipped with utf-* capability, instead of the flat 7-bit ascii nntp favored, this convention's technical justification has begun to fade.

there is a strong reaction against using all-lower-case letters in a message for this reason; sentences are more difficult to read without capital letters to signify starting points, and anyone willing to type in all lower-case is frequently unwilling to use punctuation or paragraphing, adding to the headache of potential viewers.

use all-lower-case letters sparingly, like a weak miso broth, and allow your writing steep time, thereby flavoring the word soup.

Re:You fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use monospace unless you're posting code. It's fucking annoying.