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?"

Comments

Short answer

[sm62704]

is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"

No.

Longer answer: We don't need more knowlegable judges, we need more intelligent ones.

Re:Short answer

[pilgrim23]

In the early days of automobiles, there were laws written concerning the hay the new transport would consume. Legal systems are by their nature designed to look backward for precedent not forward. Those attracted to this profession share this basic nature.

Re:Short answer

[MightyMartian]

The point of precedence in the legal system is to allow it to adapt to changing circumstances. Those sitting on the cusp will, of course, have to put up with the pain of new interpretations of statutes, but what's the alternative? The system works, for the most part, and I agree with a poster that says we need smarter judges. It's not as if this case were something fundamentally new. It was a frivolous attempt to use the courts to shut someone up who was saying negative things. That's hardly a brand new legal tactic.

Re:Short answer

[rtb61]

In this case it how ever has very little to do with the law. Whilst the principles of the law are clearly being abused, that is not the real focus of what is going on and how it is being challenged. This is all about late twentieth century mass marketing, and public relations and using the law as a delaying and silencing tactic.

So in this case the bank wanted to temporarily silence it critic whilst it own public relations and marketing teams created a lie to cover it over and via mass media define their lie as the truth and the accusations against them and their corrupt clients as lies.

So the court case would be extended with out resolution to bleed the witness and their supporters dry, while a counter message smearing the witness and its supporters was spread and a cloak was created over the corrupt practices.

Now of course the witness to the corruption and those that assist and support the witness in the disclosure of the truth, now via the internet have direct access to the greater community. A community that can now directly access a review the 'all' the information and not just the lies available via mass media. A community that will also do the most damaging thing imanginable, demand a full an open investigation, demand prosection and penalties be applied for any criminal activities, a community that will basically demand that the law as it is applied to the poor will also be applied to the rich.

Re:Short answer

[sjames]

If only we could require judges to undergo rigorous mental training and prove their humanity (on pain of death) before they get to sit in judgement of others. Legislators even more so.

Re:Short answer

[Beale]

Define 'steal'.

Wrong approach

[moogied]

Its not an issue of making laws for every single new techonology. Its about making laws that cover our basic rights and are upheld purely on those basis. So this means company's cannot take our information and share it whoever they want, because we have a law against it. Its fundamental issues that are in need of clarification, not little laws for every application.

Sure we can.

[ardyng]

There are these mystical people called "Consultants." I know that that's a dirty word in most people's minds, but seriously.

We should have an independent group of people who ACTUALLY know what they're talking about that can be called upon by judges who don't understand what's going on. Judges can't be expected to have a grasp of every field of knowledge that may come up in their cases.

I don't see it actually happening, but that's life.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Powerful Lesson?

[Pearson]

Mr. Levy said that the judge's decision to withdraw his order would offer a powerful message in future cases in which plaintiffs might try to shut down Web sites because of the content they display. "A judge who's confronted with a request like the bank's in the future is going to be much more reluctant to give this order," Mr. Levy said. "The lesson of the case is going to be taken very seriously."

While I hope this will be the case, the various courts handling RIAA cases haven't seemed to know anything about each other, or learn from previous findings, so I remain skeptical.

The internet is quite a disruptive technology, and it necessitates a complete realignment of parts of the law to address the way things are. Unfortunately the ones who should spearhead that effort are the paid lackeys who gave us the DMCA...

Just a thought

[apdyck]

I don't know if anyone else has thought about this, or if it's even practical, but why not establish a court system for High-Tech cases? They could hear things like the **AA cases and examples such as this one, and would have judges that are actually paid to keep up with the changes in technology. In fact, I'm sure you would have no problem finding volunteers among the existing pool of judges that are actually aware of legal issues. So you take a pool of existing judges with knowledge of tech issues, ask them to keep their knowledge current (I'm sure they have aides to help them with this), and have any cases dealing with computer crime and/or civil cases involving the Internet go through this 'special' court system. It would not be any more lenient than the existing courts, however the parties involved would have a basic understanding of the issues that face high tech companies and individuals. Of course, the hard part would be to determine which cases go before this court. For this, I propose that all cases have to be heard before the regular system, and if one or more of the parties involved wants to have it moved to the high tech court, both parties should have to make an argument as to why / why not. Thoughts, anyone?

Huh?

[CrazyDrumGuy]

retaining civil rights over corporate rights

Retaining? Um, have you been paying attention? Corporate rights already take place over civil rights under the Bush administration.

Re:Corporations don't have rights.

[KublaiKhan]

It's not -really- a person, though. It is an -entity-, yes, but not an actual -person-.

Unless corporations have gained the right to vote and to hold public office while I wasn't looking?

Four words.

[ardyng]

Define how you can tell the difference between a real expert and a snowjob artist.

I can do that in four words.

Peer review and publication.

Re:I wonder if...

[budgenator]

I would think that by moving to have their domain removed from resolution resulted in wikileaks being harmed and they should be eligible for damages. When Baer filed suit for copyright, it could be argued that the filing was a defacto admission of the documents authenticity and if the document is authentic then it's also newsworthy and becuase it's new the freedoms of the press apply and wikileak's trade was restrained for no good reason.

Re:Yea, great.. until one day..

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Those are just their legal departments trying to build precedent for future legal actions. They're worried about real, actual damage when private, secret, or sensitive data is released through the same channels and nobody cooperates in removing it or halting its spread.

I'd rather have real data spread around than silence someone because of what they might say.

You idealistic types can gnash your teeth about the curtailing of your online freedoms, but what you're failing to grasp is the simple fact that Your Opinion Is Not Perfect.

So what? I have the right to say what I feel.

when pictures stolen from your webcam of you and your wife engaging in something that you think should be legal but isn't, are circulated to every major visitor-supported voyeur pornsite, you'll be sitting there thinking that maybe, just maybe, being forced to trust anonymous individuals on the Internet who are well beyond the reach of any punishment you can effect, isn't the utopia you thought it would be.

heh, this is exactly like shutting someone down because you don't like what they say.

Not a Big Shock

[Stephen Samuel]

It's not at all uncommon to launch a lawsuit solely for the purpose of using it to get a 'temporary' injunction for something. Once the injunction is obtained, the purpose of the lawsuit is achieved and there is little, if any reason, to continue with the lawsuit to it's final result.

In this case, however, the injunction vanished, and the lawsuit was threatening to become a liability to the company. Making the lawsuit disappear minimizes the liability (but may not eliminate it).

(( IANAL. Wanna pay for my law school? ))

Re:Yea, great.. until one day..

[sudog]

Straw men..