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."

20 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Good thing WikiLeaks's still around by swinferno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good thing WikiLeaks is still alive and kicking

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  2. Re:Interesting by migla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're being subtly humorous, aren't you?

    (in case you aren't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect )

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
  3. Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible by Exception+Duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bank is owned by the goverment.

  4. Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the government starts censoring things, I find that it is usually because of national security issues more than anything else.

    I've seen quite the opposite. Censoring is much more likely to be about covering your ass than about national security.

  5. Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You do know that national security is a synonym for political embarrassment, don't you?

  6. The proof is in the reaction by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it was a bunch of lies, then the bank officials would have pointed that out. That they are scrambling to censor is proof this is absolutly 100% legit. kind of nice of them to remove any doubt eh?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The proof is in the reaction by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule in the judicial system to ensure safe trial, not a rule to live by in general.

    2. Re:The proof is in the reaction by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The downside of following "Innocent until proven guilty" as a rule to live by in general is far less than the downside of witch hunts! I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Re:Interesting by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is also (usually) a correlation between their enthusiasm for suppressing the information and the need for it to be revealed in public interest.

  8. A total misuse of the legal system... by iserlohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To protect private interests against the public's need to know.

    This is the stuff that we should be angry about. Not putting some trailer-trash families in rehabilitation programs discussed about in the recent front page article (That's the one with the hyperbole about 24hr surveillance BTW).

  9. Hey, at least they tried by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We (in the USA) still have no idea where our TARP funds went. And no documentation likely to appear on Wikileaks either. When our gov't asked the banks what they did with the money we gave them, they just replied, "We'd rather not say".

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Hey, at least they tried by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one cares, really... they are loans and will (mostly) get paid back. The banks unable to pay back end up being owned by the feds anyway, and then the books are wide open.

      Aw. They're so *cute* when they're that trusting, aren't they?

  10. Silly elected officials by binaryspiral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once this shit hits the internet - it's out there. There is no undo button or magical legal action you can take to cover it up anymore.

    You'd be better off to admit you fucked up and spend your efforts cleaning up the mess instead of trying to cover up this crap.

    Oh yeah - and piss off the media - that helps your case too.

  11. logical fallacy, for starters by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it was a bunch of lies, then the bank officials would have pointed that out.

    And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.

    First off, I didn't say the claims were lies. I said there was no explanation or analysis, and thus no way for me to verify them. There isn't even any explanation as to why they believe the documents are authentic. I was lamenting, in general, at the lack of explanations and analysis of documents posted to Wikileaks as a whole. Putting down a list of companies and calling it "analysis" isn't.

    Second, it does not logically follow that if someone doesn't deny something, it is true- in part or whole. 5th Amendment, anyone? Same goes for trying to get something out of the public spotlight. Maybe the whole reason they want to suppress it is because it IS bullshit, and letting it spread would make it difficult or impossible to find impartial jurors in a criminal or civil trial- or harm existing companies that have done legitimate business with them.

    Lastly, very often a public relations effort involves not even acknowledging claims, regardless of their merit. There are a variety of reasons why. For example: sometimes the claims are bullshit but you don't feel you can convince the public otherwise. Sometimes you want to keep a low profile and hope people will get bored and move on to shinier news items. Sometimes you cannot say anything because of pending legal action- either because it would be risky to comment, or you've been told not to.

    But hey, feel free to play out the simple Hollywood conspiracy movie plot. The world is rarely that simple.

    1. Re:logical fallacy, for starters by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.

      But they also don't take him to court and file a gag order against him or issue takedowns. Furthermore, if the guy is on public property and not interfering, they can't really do anything. (Right to free assembly.)

  12. Information wants to be free in every country by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Especially if it describes how the country's currency became worthless.

    Just because you are in ICEland doesn't mean you can freeze the free flow of information.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  13. Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mod parent up! Although, I think the grandparent may have been sarcastic? It's not obvious if so.

      Censorship is almost always *officially* about national security, but 99.9% of the time they're actually trying to suppress information which is embarassing or damaging to some particular junta.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  14. Re:driveways !public and neither are private docs by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the exact reason why whistleblower laws exist: to prevent people from being sued for exposing ethics violations.

  15. Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible by he-sk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, unless, of course, it's the blogs that break a story.

    Like Monica Lewinsky, Dan Rather's Memogate, the doctored Reuters pictures of bombings in Lebanon, the firing of U.S. prosecutors, "Macaca", etc. etc.

    Face it, the relationship between bloggers and the mainstream media is not parasitic anymore, it's symbiotic.

    It's true, most blogs (including my twitter feed) contain only marginally useful information, if at all. But so do most newspaper articles or TV shows, that merely recite the stuff fed to them by corporations and governments.

    Good investigative journalists are a rare kind. Some of them blog.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  16. Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible by infinitelink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Americans are just conditioned to be politically angry: they're like trained monkeys, throw-in 'corporation' and they become a ravenous mob--probably too glib to realize that any non-individual entity recognized by the government is basically a corporation: corporations are not evil, they can be evil, or they can be otherwise: but nuspeak has conditioned so many to associate them with being so. AIG was living-up to legal obligations: they could have done that, or gotten sued and payed even more: and it was the very top ordering-down to put the dang 'loophole' (i.e. it wasn't a loophole) in there in the first place. But one can expect Americans to be outraged: it's like they know they have a part to play in a giant, pretensious, stage in a giant, fake, show. And they are fake. Signed, An American.

    --
    Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.