Slashdot Mirror
Bank That Suppressed WikiLeaks Gives It Up
Is It Obvious writes "Bank Julius Baer has moved to withdraw suit against Wikileaks. We've discussed this story a few times, most recently when the judge lifted his injunction against WikiLeaks' registrar. The Baer story reflects an issue that will only grow worse over time: the gap between technology and the legal system's understanding of said technologies and their application to established legal principle. Given the rapid rate of technological change, is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"
Why don't you see this happening in real life? I used to work at a firm that did legal consulting and expert witnessing. It wasn't just corporations that hired us, it was the government too. We were called in for economic consulting, but many other kinds exist.
A corporation is a person.
From wikipedia: "A corporationis legally a citizen of the state (or other jurisdiction) in which it is incorporated (except when circumstances direct the corporation be classified as a citizen of the state in which it has its head office, or the state in which it does the majority of its business)."
Corporations are protected under the Bill of Rights in the U.S., the same bill of rights that protects U.S. citizens.
The legal system worked. As soon as Wikileaks got involved in the case, the judge reversed himself almost immediately.
The real problem here is with Dynadot, the domain registrar. Like most domain registrars, Dynadot tries to wriggle out of the concept that domains are the property of the registrant, substituting one-sided terms of service which give them discretionary power over the domain. That's the problem.
They made a deal with Bank Julius Baer to shut down the site, and got the court to sign off on the deal, without even notifying the registrant. That was Dynadot's doing. That's where the problem started.
Interestingly, Dynadot has one of those indemnification clauses in their agreement that everyone ignores. This time, it matters. It reads: You agree to release, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Dynadot ... against any losses, liabilities, claims, damages or costs, ... relating to or arising out of Your registration, application, transaction request, resale, or use of services provided by Dynadot and Your account with Dynadot ....
Should Dynadot be threatened with a lawsuit or receive notice of a filed or pending lawsuit by a third party, Dynadot may seek written assurances from You concerning Your promise to indemnify Dynadot. Your failure to provide such written assurances may be considered a material breach of this Agreement.
One could argue that Dynadot's insertion of such a clause created an obligation on Dynadot to promptly notify the registrant of any threatened litigation. Dynadot has claimed in their contract that the registrant has responsibility for claims against Dynadot by third parties. Yet Dynadot did not properly notify the registrant of such a claim. Instead, they apparently went to court before notifying the registrant. That's usually considered negligence or worse.
"Define how you can tell the difference between a real expert and a snowjob artist."
Their fee.
"But this one goes to 11!"
unfortunately I cannot quote the source; it was a humor book on legal foolishness I read some 20 years back. but. I do think if you google "hay" and "taxi" you will find that Australian taxi cabs are by law still required to carry a bail of hay in their "boot" to feed the no longer existing horse.. a left over from English law governing 19th cent Hansom cabs in London. Britian HAS repealed it but I think it is still ont he books in other commonwealth countries.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
I think I just did. As a personal example, when I ran an apartment rental business, I incorporated. That way my own personal assets were protected, and I could only be sued for what the business had in assets. If that isn't a huge protection for "The People" I don't know what is. You see, corporations are made up of "The People", and most corporations in the US are small businesses and not huge conglomerates.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I think the laws that the statement refers to are California's anti-SLAPP (SLAPP = strategic lawsuit against public participation) statutes. However, it seems like the defendents must file anti-SLAPP motions, and we haven't heard of any that have been filed (though I may be wrong).
It's not -really- a person, though. It is an -entity-, yes, but not an actual -person-.
That's right, it's not really a person. It's all based on a pun, the fact that they used to be called "corporate persons", and since that's the same word used in the 14th Amendment (though not the same sense of the word), it was argued that corporations should have equal protection under the laws as actual persons. A really bad pun is what caused all this mess.
Fun Fact: The 14th Amendment language regarding "persons" was applied to corporations (not people) before it was applied to women (people) and homosexuals (people).
Wonderful world, eh?
The enemies of Democracy are