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."
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.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
"The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals." Especially individuals engaged in tax fraud.
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?
So, it is more like for private people than institutions.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I think any reasonable person knows what a half-statement. It's a completely legitimate. Most English professors.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
> 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?
Looks to me like the article accuses Bank Julius Baer of... lying.
This is where the serious fun begins.
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,
Fleur de Sel
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.
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
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.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
a bag of walnuts!
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?
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.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Wikipedia has it. 88.80.13.160
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
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
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.
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.
An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
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.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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.
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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.
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?
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
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.
Deleted
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.
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
Is that when the plaintiff gets to be on top, or is it the other way around?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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:
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
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.
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.
I'm far more annoyed by stupidity than all caps.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
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.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
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.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Personally, anyone with user ID over 13k is a nooblet.