Slashdot Mirror
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."
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".
... :-D
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
My blog
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
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
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).
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.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
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.