Slashdot Mirror
Censorship Struggle Underway In Iceland
jon jonson writes "Information from the collapsed Icelandic bank Kaupthing has been leaked to WikiLeaks, revealing billions in insider loans, and the bank has been working day and night to censor the information contained in the document. Last night at 6:55pm GMT, they served an injunction against the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, five minutes before the 7pm news was due to be aired. The TV station just displayed the WikiLeaks URL instead. They've also injuncted Iceland's national radio, banning all discussion about the contents of the document, and they are actively trying to censor the rest of the Icelandic media along with WikiLeaks."
Exista == Kaupthing
Landic == Gaumur == Baugur == Glitnir Bank
Stodir = FL Group = Baugur = Glitnir Bank
etc. etc. etc.
* Main Entry: 2censor
* Function: transitive verb
* Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\
* Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
There's no such word as injuncted. "to issue an injunction" is to "enjoin", so the form needed here is enjoined.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
What part of those definitions require that governments be involved again?
And no, just because it doesn't fit your needlessly restricted definition of censorship doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Per the cease and desist order, it appears that the lawyers on behalf of Kraupthing are doing their job.
The laws themselves appear to be there to protect the client's confidential information. Paraphrasing (IANAL, IANAL, IANAL!) they are:
58. Banks are not suppose to disclose their customer's financial information.
59. Exception #1 - if there is a risk to a parent company
60. Exception #2 - if the customer(s) say it is okay to disclose the information.
So basically the bank and the bank lawyers are doing the job they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their customers.
http://www.dattaway.net/images/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
In this case, one of the threatening letters explicitly said:
These are highly sensitive confidential information from Kaupthings bank hf. loan book regarding the banks clients subject to bank secrecy in Iceland.
I take this to mean that the documents are legit.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
It was 500 billion in Icelandic currency (krona), not 500 billion euro or USD.
According to xe.com:
500,000,000,000.00 ISK = 3,904,722,881.3900 USD
However, the wikileaks summary says "45 million to 1250 million euros". I haven't read the post that the GP links, except to check the currency type, to find out where it gets the 500 billion number.
The blog posting contains numbers on the order of 300 billion, not 500 billion -- and those are Icelandic crowns (ISK), not euros or dollars. That puts the total at about 2.3 billion U.S. dollars.
Given that Iceland's population is only about 320 thousand people that's still a pretty massive hit to their economy (call it 7000 USD per capita), but not totally implausible (particularly for a heavily leveraged state-controlled bank).
~Idarubicin
The banks unable to pay back (...the TARP funds...) end up being owned by the feds anyway, and then the books are wide open.
Perhaps you're thinking about some other country? The US government is anything but transparent, notwithstanding any "Hope & Change" rhetoric to the contrary. It took an FOIA request and months to even be allowed to see the Air Force One Manhattan fly-over photos that everyone knew existed.
The chances of the books being opened would be particularly slim if the bank(s) end up being owned by the Federal Reserve. I know that politicians are currently making noise about publicly auditing the Fed, but that's all it will end up being...noise to placate the proles. Unless politicians suddenly start finding themselves losing elections en masse and/or finding themselves at the working end of pitchforks & shotguns.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Ya, wikileaks rocks. I think this underscores the importance of enshrining freedom of the press too.
Reply to This
More to the point, this completely demonstrates the importance of applying "freedom of the press" to new media.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Here are the MD5 checksums I calculated for various downloads:
The difference impacts the rendering of the document beginning on page 16. It appears to have HTTP headers inserted into the file. The same difference is seen across these download programs: firefox, lynx, wget. There may be a bad replication to that site. Maybe they used a bad HTTP client.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
WaMu (failed completely), Citigroup and Bank of America (effectively insolvent absent direct government investment). And still, nobodys talking.
We've injected capital into at least a dozen major banks through the TARP program. And, although these institutions have claimed that their capital margins were damaged by 'bad paper' and they were unable to make loans, they have refused to open their books to regulators (the Fed doesn't count as a regulator. It is owned by its member banks) to show them the magnitude and type of this bad paper.
The banks' portfolio of mortgage CDOs were (supposedly) insured by AIG's CDS's. When AIG appeared to be illiquid, one proposal was to have the gov't issue banks its own guarantees to replace the (useless) AIG policies. Possibly by swapping bundles of CDOs along with their covering CDSs for Treasury notes. But the banks refused to divulge what sort of CDS paper they had on their books. So, the government was forced to prop up AIG. Problem: About 80% of AIGs CDS policies were sold to speculators. That is; people who had no insurable interest in any mortgage paper, but were just buying said paper as a gamble*. So we were forced to bail out 4 speculators for every one bank we rescued.
*It wasn't that many years ago that such speculation (buying insurance policies against people or property for which one has no insurable interest) was racketeering and would earn said 'investors' a quick trip to a federal penitentiary. This was one racket that the mob engaged in. Until Congress made it legal.
Have gnu, will travel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report#Monica_Lewinsky_scandal