Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks Case Reopened

Posted by Soulskill on from the it-is-so-ordered dept.

JediLow brings news that the judge who signed the order to take down WikiLeaks.org is now reconsidering his actions. Judge Jeffrey White ordered a new hearing to be held on Friday morning to answer further questions about the case[PDF]. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has responded harshly to the recent statement issued by the bank Julius Baer.

21 of 25 comments (clear)

  1. A simple patch by djcapelis · · Score: 4, Funny

    One simple command should take care of all this:
    echo "88.80.13.160 wikileaks.org" >> /etc/hosts

    Done! My system is now judge-proof. :)

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
    1. Re:A simple patch by n3tcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A popular site like this was able to get their ip address widely public. What I feel concerned about is those sites which are less known and possibly suffering similar situations. What do they do to get users to their site? TOR? Distributed DNS? How do we go about preventing this kind of censorship in the future?

    2. Re:A simple patch by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Mirror the content to more popular sites and blow the whistle there.

      And repost, repost, repost the content over and again till they find a destruction-proof host.
      I had mine destroyed thrice before I found a safe haven with admin who has enough balls not to bend to blackmail.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:A simple patch by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mirror it. In as many different countries as you can. In China, if you can. While they really love to keep their own dirt under the rugs, they're just outright helpful and very "free speech" when you try to publish the dirt of people and organisations they don't like.

      I'm quite aware that someone will cry now "But most people won't find it there". Right. But, and that's the catch, those "most people" don't care either. Go out on the street and ask anyone what he thinks about WikiLeaks. If you're lucky the response you get is "Huh? You mean Wikipedia?". If you're less lucky, the respsonse is just "Huh?".

      People that do care will find it, and they will crosspost it to topical boards that deal with certain specific issues, when the issues discussed there touch what WikiLeaks is about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:A simple patch by greedyturtle · · Score: 1

      This isn't a technical issue though, but a social one. The technology workaround is easy, defending the rights of WikiLeaks (and by extension, the rest of us) is the hard part.

    5. Re:A simple patch by Bovius · · Score: 1

      Anyone interested in reaching WikiLeaks would also be able to find one of the mirrors through a simple web search. Wikipedia, for example, has links to the IP address and several out-of-US domain names.

  2. Just remember by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't matter so much if you're right or wrong, but which side the judge (and/or jury) believes.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  3. Responded harshly by gazbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has responded harshly to the recent statement issued by the bank Julius Baer.
    Am I the only one who read that "harsh response" and heard little more than "we were treated unfairly in court!"? Especially poor was the section that could be paraphrased as "They said we posted confidential bank records, but they weren't - they were Word files! And quite old! And maybe just a bit confidential! Did we mention Word?"
    1. Re:Responded harshly by tgd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't the bankers realize they have nothing to worry about? According to the OOXML people, these documents will be unreadable in a matter of days or something because they're not saved in an XML format!

    2. Re:Responded harshly by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm really not sure what their point is there. If I send a word document to the bank then I expect them to keep it in their records, and keep it confidential. And this release from wikileaks seems to alternate between arrogant and whiny thus damaging its case in the court of public opinion.

    3. Re:Responded harshly by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Only if you choose to ignore the relevant part of the section, which is "files setting up trust arrangements used as anonymizing shell structures. In its court filings, Baer claims to have been aware of the documents release since 2003 and the Swiss media had the documents in 2005. The only relevence these documents have now is that they expose the bank's ultra-rich clients suspiciously funneling money through Cayman Islands trusts nearly a decade ago."

      Only on Slashdot will you find people so preoccupied with Microsoft that they don't get past their name and on to the actual statement.

    4. Re:Responded harshly by gazbo · · Score: 1
      What? The Word thing was kind of a joke. I have no interest in Microsoft, and am in fact perfectly happy with their software. However:

      The only relevence[sic] these documents have now is that they expose the bank's ultra-rich clients suspiciously funneling money through Cayman Islands trusts nearly a decade ago.
      What part of that makes publishing them OK? The fact that it happened "nearly a decade ago"?
    5. Re:Responded harshly by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      None of that part, of course. Read the sentence before it. Those papers were already leaked.

    6. Re:Responded harshly by downix · · Score: 1

      What in the world did you read, because what I read was "the documents in our possession are in Word format, and contain information which first came to light in 2003, and has been in the public record since 2005". Double checking, they are quite correct here, which makes baer's claim even more ludicrus. Having read the letter exchange, that the lawyers even refused to name their client garners even less sympathy. And to refuse to tell where suit would be filed should be criminal.

      The judges actions in this case border on incompetence, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the underlying technologies involved in this whole case. In such a situation, the judge should have excused him/herself and referred to a judge who does understand the technologies which they will be passing judgement on.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  4. Oblig by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    www.wikileaks.de
    www.wikileaks.be
    http://88.80.13.160
    File archive torrent

    1. Re:Oblig by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 1

      You forgot http://wikileaks.cx/

    2. Re:Oblig by shentino · · Score: 1

      Yaay! A .cx that *isn't* goatse. :)

  5. What time by esocid · · Score: 1

    When does the case take place? B/c right now it's only 7:05am on the west coast.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:What time by Bovius · · Score: 1

      9:00 AM Pacific time. Which means, at the time of this posting, it started an hour ago. Based on the judge's statement, it's probably still in progress.

  6. Re:Hijacking this for another subject by djcapelis · · Score: 1

    I hate NATs too, but it should be noted that putting this into your /etc/hosts would continue to allow vhosting to work just fine.

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
  7. Ha! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Getting a little hot for you judge? Shouldn't have listened to your lawyer golf-buddies? Don't want to be seen on the same side as alleged money-launderers? Imagine that.

    Your name. On the web. In lights. Forever.

    rm -r \corrupt\officials

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.