Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Moves To Swiss Domain After DNS Takedown

An anonymous reader writes "Netcraft posted two reports on the movement of the WikiLeaks website today. First the site was taken down by EveryDNS, who terminated the DNS provision for wikileaks.org. A few hours later, WikiLeaks moved to a Swiss domain (wikileaks.ch). Netcraft suggests this move could be because the wikileaks.org domain was registered with a US company, which could be influenced by the US government. The new wikileaks.ch site is hosted in Sweden, but redirects all of its traffic to France. Strangely, WikiLeaks has chosen to use EveryDNS again for their new domain." This follows Amazon's removal of WikiLeaks from their cloud hosting, which has the EFF and others worrying about free speech on the net as various hosting providers receive political pressure to censor certain content. Amazon claims their decision wasn't influenced by a government inquiry, while Tableau Software freely admits that a public request from Senator Joe Lieberman prompted them to take down WikiLeaks data visualizations.

83 of 488 comments (clear)

  1. Ch Ch Ch Changes by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Informative
    From Scave (1952132) on Friday December 03, @04:36AM (#34428870):

    "WIKILEAKS: Free speech has a number: http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] "

    Wikileaks.ch ch ch changes!

    1. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

      Is that you Prince Andrew?

    2. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Scave · · Score: 2

      It's ironic that you wouldn't know details of his assassination unless agents like Wikileaks existed. All you'd read is "Rape suspect dies in tragic staircase accident".

    3. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      wow the hate! did Julian Assange break a condom inside you or something?

    4. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who told Palin how to use a computer, and most of all, why?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Who are you?"

      "I am #2".

      "Who is #1?"

      "you are 88.80.13.160."

      "What do you want?"

      "Information."

      "You won't get it."

      "By hook or by crook, we will."

    6. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      It's ironic that you wouldn't know details of his assassination unless agents like Wikileaks existed. All you'd read is "Rape suspect dies in tragic staircase accident".

      First of all, let's remember that we are talking about a purely hypothetical situation.

      Second, lets remember that no intelligence services leaks have occurred (yet?) - I highly doubt that diplomatic cables would contain details of a clandestine CIA operation.

      Third, why the heck would they assassinate him?

      And finally, eventually any government documentation will get released. Yeah, you'll have to wait until some bureaucrat decides it's time, but eventually it will all be public record.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's Sarah Palin.

    8. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 2

      What, you think something like that would be made to do anything but instill terror?

    9. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The nice thing about governments when it comes to history buffs is that everyone is covering their ass all the time. They cover their ass by documenting what they were told to do when and by whom... otherwise they might someday be accountable for their own actions, or be accused of doing things on their own.

      I do not have high confidence in the desire of government to be open, because government is made up of people and people do not like to be subject to scrutiny. That said, there is so much cover-your-ass (CYA) going on in government that there will always be a paper trail.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This smear campaign seems to be working. In the strangest ways

      My Parents have a TV and hooked up to that TV is a computer. They use that computer to stream in movies. Not from Netflix or anything. Just those websites. I knew it would happen sooner or later, they got a nasty virus, I had to go and clean it up. Since I had the drive mounted to another computer in the back room while doing the scan, they had the news on. Of course a little blurb about Wikileaks comes on.

      My mom says something along the lines of "oooh, you shouldn't visit that site!" To my father. What spurred this comment I couldn't quite tell. So I poke myself out of the back room, the scan was started and it would be a while before it was finished anyways. So I pondered. Then I queried "Why would you say that?". She paused, and looked at me. I couldn't quite tell if she had answer ready, so in order to give her time and keep us from an awkward silence I say "Well, I am actually quite informed of the whole situation, but I don't watch the news with any regularity, so I'm just curious what the public opinion is on the situation. Don't worry I'm not going to lecture you or anything."

      To which she slowly spilled, "Well, I don't know anything about the site really. But I know that whenever a site makes it in the news like that, its a target for virus writers to try and put their code on the site and infect a lot of users."

      Which is kind of something I told her earlier, about how people will try and inject malicious code onto an actually innocent website, but I could tell my laymen explanation of it wasn't quite technical enough for her to actually grasp how it works.

      I wanted to respond to her silly logic, because she still visits Facebook, CNN.com, Yahoo, MSN - whatever, and there's no more assurance those sites will be safer than Wikileaks, but I just let my mom believe whatever it is she wants to believe.

      It could have been full well that she doesn't like what Wikileaks is doing, or Julian Assange, or something else, but didn't want to get into a debate with me.

      In any event, my anecdotal evidence is that the negative light the media shows on wikileaks is working on the average joes of North America.

    11. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, state mandated murder! I assume you're American?

    12. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by dissy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps this is a solid reminder that we are becoming too reliant on 'domain names' and not doing enough to track and keep actual IP addresses. Perhaps it's time for a review of some of our habits, bookmarking, browsing history and, address finding

      Sounds like what we need is a browser plugin that logs the IP of a website when bookmarked, or perhaps even in history, along with the name.

      In future requests, it could only lookup DNS to check for changes, and prompt for action (update or not)

      If the domain ever disappears, it could use the IP from the log to reach the site, and the original domain name to send as a Host: header (For virtual hosts where just using the IP alone won't get you to the right website)

    13. Re:Ch Ch Ch Changes by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      1) Take a domain->IP translation.
      2) Hash it
      3) Put it in a distributed hash table similar to what most newer Bittorrent clients do with torrents
      4) Congrats! You now have a distributed DNS system with little to no central control.

  2. LOL, "land of the free and the home of the brave"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    LOL!

  3. Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    EveryDNS already said that their DNS servers were getting DDoSed, and so they found it a better move to drop one customer and their baggage for the sake of their other thousands of customers.

    1. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So why did they take that customer back?

    2. Re:Netcraft may have confirmed it, but by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      So why did they take that customer back?

      3. Profit!

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  4. p2p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    futile... http://thepiratebay.org/search/wikileaks/0/7/0

  5. Free as long as we don't cross our own politicians by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and brave in dictating how we think other people's money should be spent.

    Welcome to the me generation, where the freedom and justice are just buzzwords to drive angst on message boards, but wait Jennifer Anniston has a new boyfriend? I can't believe they allowed that Palin girl to get to the finals, and did you see who the new judges on Idol are going to be?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  6. What next in the arms race? No Google results? by migla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And, ultimately, no more Internet? Or what are the power elites gonna do to hide their shenanigans from the people?

    If this is what the so-called free and so-called democratic world is, I'd say we must be progressing nicely towards a total worldwide fascist corporate police state and/or a distributed and decentralized revolution to eliminate all hierarchies.

    Anarchism (as in wiki/Anarchism) FTW!

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    1. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      Wikileaks' successful movement from the country which it has transgressed* to one of the many countries that are willing to give it safe harbour is a sign of "a total worldwide fascist corporate police state"? It strikes me as a reminder that whistleblowing will survive so long as nations exist and are sometimes unwilling to play by eachother's rules. Heterogeneity for the win.

      *I don't mean this pejoratively, it's just a graceful verb in this instance.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      How much does it cost to set-up my own Web Hosting Engine?

      Uh, really? You've never hosted a website, even if just for tests?
      It costs the price of a decent internet connection (upload bandwidth is the most important) that doesn't block port 80 (some ISPs do, others don't) and a PC connected 24/7.

      I switched my default search engine to Yahoo.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4221538.stm

    3. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      People spouting off about the lack of freedoms (and lack of democracy?!?!?!) demonstrated by the wikileaks relocations need to go back to 8th, maybe 9th grade Civics-- and relearn that Bill of Rights protections do NOT apply to private entities, and that EveryDNS / Amazon have every right to drop anyone who costs them more money than its worth (unless they signed a contract forbidding that).

      In fact, if youll go back and look at the Amendments again, youll note that theyre "Congress shall not"s, and that Congress HASNT. FURTHER, since Wikileaks isnt governed by US law, its all pretty much irrelevant, since what Congress does has very little to do with what Wikileaks does.

      Im not even sure how to respond to the comment about "so-called democratic", since the private entities involved very patently ARENT democracies.

    4. Re:What next in the arms race? No Google results? by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yahoo! search is now Bing. You're going to have to find someone else.

      Infowars isn't being censored that I can see, either. It's very difficult to get into Google News, and top-tier providers bounce in and out all the time.

      As for censorship, Youtube isn't stopping anyone from talking about the issues, only from showing graphic violence. Private site, their policies. It's not hard to start your own site and do it yourself - but it is slightly hard than just whining about it.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  7. No, they didn't by 68kmac · · Score: 5, Informative

    wikileaks.ch is actually registered by the Swiss Pirate Party. They just happen to have it pointed to the right server anyway. Tweet from the Swiss PP president (in German, sorry): http://twitter.com/#!/SciF0r/status/10641251581829120

  8. Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So at what line do we consider something as 'free speech' no matter if it is in print, or on the internet?

    If a newspaper gets classified information through regular investigative journalism, they are now NOT allowed to print that information? (see: Pentagon Papers)

    If Joe Lieberman was in power in 1971, would we even know the extent of the corruption of the Johnson and Nixon administrations? Or would all their lies and wrongdoing just be 'swept under the rug' and out of sight, out of mind? Would the New York Times and the Washington Post be threatened and censored from publishing their information?

    Some quotes to contemplate:
    Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. - Potter Stewart
    The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. - George Bernard Shaw
    The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. - John Gilmour
    As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends. - Jeremy Bentham

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Spad · · Score: 2

      It's free speech as long as you agree with it, obviously.

    2. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by tius · · Score: 2

      One of the most interesting comments that I've seen in regards to the wikileaks publications was along the lines: "Now western governments are concerned with privacy?!?"

      Personally, I see this whole thing as an educational reminder of the true nature of our species as a whole. I mean, really, step back. This is not about Americans, it's about humans.

      In the end I suspect the Buddhist's are right in believing that true compassion for one another will be our route to a better (human) world.

    3. Re:Secrecy, Legality and Government Censorship by Voline · · Score: 4, Funny

      You Have the right to free speech
      So long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it

      -- The Clash, "Know Your Rights"

  9. Playing victim (DNS A recs still working) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    put in your /etc/hosts:

    46.59.1.2 wikileaks.org
    91.194.60.112 cablegate.wikileaks.org
    91.194.60.112 cables.wikileaks.org

    source: google robtex

    also, no ddos attacks (supposedly over 10gbps) were ever confirmed by their upstreams (bahnhof/ovh).

    either they're obstructed by their current registrar to change their root zone dns or just playing victim.

    well done, assange, sir.

  10. Time for a US samizdat? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Joe Lieberman's basic mindset appears to be that the public should know only what the US government wants us to know. He's hardly alone in this - people who want to control access to information want to control thought. However, this gives him and people like him about as much credibility as the Iraqi Information Minister.

    And of course, it's an anathema to democracy, but that never stopped Joe before. I should also mention that given who his financial backers are, you might as well call him the senator for Israel, not the senator for Connecticut (To be clear, I treat corporate-sponsored senators much the same way, for instance "Bob Dole (R-ADM)").

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  11. Bread, circusses and home owners by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The romans had bread and circuses, the conservatives/tories have home owner ship, holland has to mortage deduction and America has the two cars in the drive way.

    What does this do? It is about creating a working "middle" class. A hard working "middle" class. But not a real middle class. Not a middle class that has power but a middle class that have just enough to give them something to loose if they try to gain anything. The principle is VERY simple. Feed the masses just enough to don't make it an issue of starve or riot but rather, eat enough or riot and starve.

    Strike, and you loose your mortage, can't make the monthly car payments and therefor you got to swallow everything, just so you can keep the two cars you so desperately need for the job to pay for the cars because there is no public transport alternative.

    It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

    Forget about letting them eat cake. Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.

    There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

    1. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      I wasn't aware that being born to rich parents means you are intelligent. There can only be so many opportunities to exploit during one's lifetime. Sure, there are always brilliant and/or lucky people (usually both) who ride the innovation wave, but most of the "elite" could trace it's money at least a generation back.

    2. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by RustyShaft · · Score: 2

      Yeah - this one got my britches in a bunch BIG time......

      >> There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      While I agree with the majority of your post - the last statement is just flat incorrect sir!!

      Some are, yes. But how many PhD's are millionaires? Uncle Bill and Microsoft kinda blows you theory to hell and back!! Do you need more examples? Pro athletes, movie stars.........it's a long list.

      A great many "rich people" (and I'm not saying ALL) are nothing more than the equivalent of a pack of butt sniffing dogs....also known as "the Good 'Ol Boys" network. I live in Mayberry USA which is absolutely F-U-L-L of Republicans so I've seen this first hand.

    3. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Anonymusing · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a Congressional speech from Bernie Sanders about this very thing... worth watching, IMO.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    4. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by AntEater · · Score: 2

      I listened to that speech last night. He lays out the situation for what it is pretty well. I almost linked to that youtube clip in my previous comment.

      --
      Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
    5. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      You want change? Start quietly assassinating the rich.

            Oh, here's that socialist delusion again. If you assassinate the rich, you will merely end up with other people who take their things and then are rich.

            Isn't it funny how all revolutions end up with a new super-class (be it the Party, or the "monarchy" like in N. Korea) that subjugates the rest?

            Killing the rich is not the answer. If I have a single dollar more than everyone else, I am rich and therefore you are all poor. What a sensible answer is to allow fairness, to discourage wealth being used to destroy men, and rather to promote the use of said wealth to finance new development and economic growth. That way everyone benefits.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      I liked the comment, but a few nits:

      just enough to give them something to loose

      Touluse, as in "No Time Touluse". ;)

      Strike, and you loose your mortage

      You just said "Strike, and you set your mortage
      free".

      Loose and lose are both verbs, but they have very different meanings. If you loose your money you're unwise, if you lose your money you're unlucky. I'm assuming English isn't your 1st language.

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter than the poor people. (ftfy)

      No, just more fortunate. I've known smart poor people and incredibly stupid rich people. The rich, however, do have a lot of tricks up their sleeve -- like owning the media outlets so they can spoon-feed your information/misinformation to you. The poor aren't stupid, they're deliberately misinformed.

      The rich aren't rich because they're smarter than you -- there are MENSA members driving taxicabs. They're rich because they were in the right place at the right time -- like in a private school rather than a public school. Like not being born to a crackhead. Like having connections that the poor can't and never will have.

    7. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by jonescb · · Score: 2

      There is a direct correlation between education and wealth. Meaning the more education you have the more money you will make in your life. If only people who are wealthy to begin with are capable of going to law school or medical school, then they will get more education that someone who can't afford any education past high school. So it's a case of the rich get richer because they can afford education. That said, I don't like how GP said "they're smarter than poor people." They're certainly more educated, but not necessarily smarter.

    8. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade. There is no hope. There is no reason. It's a pack of teens and young "adults" who have somehow already managed to ossify their brains with the political equivalents of crystal meth and heroin. These are the people who think they live in an actual police state and the NSA is building $100 billion dollar decryption farms to find out what women's underwear they secretly buy on amazon.

      You might as well argue the merits of love and charity with Dexter Morgan. They simply cannot understand the idea that if, say, Bill Gates makes another dollar, that does *not* prevent them from earning their own dollar. They view the "rich" as Scrooge McDuck swimming around in a money vault, all those gold coins locked away forever and not, say, out there acting as capital and investments. It's a pre-school, cartoon view of economics that sadly affects all of our cukture. That's why we (as a society) keep doing the same dumb things and voting for the same sociopaths over and over again.

      Pogo (speaking of cartoons) was absolutely right. Disclaimer: yeah, I feel the same way about the Tea Party. All you ideologues can go fuck off and die already. You're fucking killing us.

    9. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by baKanale · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk.

      They're working on it.

      No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      Unless you count their ability to "campaign finance" the legislation they want that benefits them and their business interests.

      So yeah, there might be more zeroes at the end of the net worth of rich people than there were before, but considering that "poor" people and "middle class" people usually have shelter, television, transport (private or public), food, etc, it's actually the poor who are better off than ever before.

      And more and more people have to work two or three jobs to keep those things, because the rich people are paying workers less and charging more for goods and services in order to keep adding those extra zeroes.

    10. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by ideonexus · · Score: 2

      Nowadays the "ultra rich" may be able to afford many homes and travel often. But unless they fly out of non commercial terminals, they still have to stand in the TSA line line everyone else. They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk. No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      The ultra rich don't fly commercial, they fly charter or private; therefore, they don't go through TSA. They can't legally kill or drive drunk, but they can hire armies of lawyers to reduce their sentences while poor people can't even make bail to give themselves a fighting chance. If Lindsay Lohan wasn't rich, she'd be in prison for the next 20 years like any poor person would.

      Our Democratic government has the power, but the rich have the money to influence public opinion and pay for the lobbyists making $300k a year to influence our elected officials. Campaign strategists actually have formulas for how much money needs to be spent for each point of popular opinion gained.

      I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I have to get back to work to pay for the car that I drive here and the underwater mortgage on the house I bought three years ago that talking-heads put on television by the wealthy assured me would never lose value.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    11. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Maybe way back when, but not anymore. Now it's the rag tag rebels fighting the Evil Empire of... someone or other. Jesus or Sarah Palin or somesuch creature. Maybe the Jabberwock?

    12. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 2

      Sure, because sitting in a university/college and learning "how to work for someone" is really "education" these days.

      sheesh. I'll never understand people's fixation with "being told they're doing good in life". there was a time that a university degree represented a "learned person, who specialized in the field of [whatever]". these days, it's just a ticket that some people insist others have, to prove that:
      1) the person is willing to sit and do as their told for at least a few years at a time,
      2) the person has demonstrated some simple understanding of 'common' topics
      3) the person either has money or is in enough debt that they need more money.

      no matter how you choose to do it: rich or poor, ugly or beautiful, smart or like an idiot, You're doing fine.

      stop trying to please other people and focus on being happy with yourself. You'll thank yourself later.

    14. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, I love the smell of blind, rampaging individualism in the morning!

      You may have heard about the "poverty trap". Poverty is a condition that's really hard to reverse, most people will never do it and will pass it along to their children.

      With social support, many of the poor can improve their way of living. They can study, they can have their kids in school, they can have better health and education, which makes them better workers, benefiting the whole economy in the end. Yes, I mean you and me.

      Of course, just throwing money at them will fix nothing, of course. That's what a populist politician would do. But social programs are not about throwing money at the poor.

      Without social support, all the poor can do is fight against each other for day-to-day survival. I think it's pretty clear this doesn't bring up the best in people. Just correlate the crime rates with social protection in rich countries, and it's pretty clear.

      A very small percentage, the smarter of the poor, will probably make it into the middle class. A minority will resort to crime, hurting society (yes, you and me). The vast majority will live a life of scarcity and resignation. It's not so bad if at least you can survive and have your basic needs covered. When this is not the case, it sucks big time.

      Even worse, instead of the social ascension you talk about like it's so easy, I've been watching more and more middle-class raised people fall into poverty. Many with higher education have shitty jobs where they make the minimum wage or little more. And there's no way they can improve their situation because more and more companies have employees fighting between each other like dogs. Guess who wins, the competent and honest or the greedy and deceitful? Once again, the whole society loses.

      The more money goes to the few richer, the more they want. The less they will want to contribute to the lower layers, and money brings power, so it gives them even more ways to shit the balance to their side. This eventually hurts the vast majority of the people. If you can't see this, you have your brain washed.

    15. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by tylersoze · · Score: 2

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      God I wish I had mod points on this thread, because this is literally stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard in my life. So I guess that means you're a homeless person then?

      Yeah, just like this: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/government-employee-salaries/the-university-of-texas-at-austin/

      Steven Weinberg (nobel prize winning physicist) $391,791
      Mack Brown (a fucking football coach) $2,511,667

    16. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      They can't kill anyone or have anyone killed. They can't drive drunk. No, all they have is "bigger" toys, but the POWER that comes with riches is gone - reserved by governments only.

      You sure about that? They can buy off the cops and judges. And hell, even if they do get caught, they can afford the best lawyers in the country. Even if they don't get away with it entirely, they're going to get a _far_ lighter sentence than anyone else who committed the exact same crime. My father got a DUI and was given a far harsher sentence than a _17 year old_ rich kid I knew who had one. What was that kid's punishment? His highschool said they were going to withhold his diploma for a while. They never did. Yes, it was the city police that caught him, and the only even _threat_ of punishment came from his highschool. Meanwhile, the average adult who gets a DUI (doesn't even have the added crime of underage drinking) gets a huge fine, possibly jailtime, and a breathalyzer on their car for a while. Oh, and let's not forget that a $100,000 fine means a lot more to someone if it's 2 years wages compared to someone for whom it's one month's salary.

      Nowadays the "ultra rich" may be able to afford many homes and travel often. But unless they fly out of non commercial terminals, they still have to stand in the TSA line line everyone else.

      ...Unless they're a government or airline official. But that point aside, a _lot_ of people have or rent private jets. I wouldn't quite say it's only the "ultra rich" - there are hundreds of families in Pittsburgh alone that can afford such things. I know one that rents a jet every year for their family vacation. Within the richest 1%, sure - but that's still 1 out of every 100 people.

      So yeah, there might be more zeroes at the end of the net worth of rich people than there were before, but considering that "poor" people and "middle class" people usually have shelter, television, transport (private or public), food, etc, it's actually the poor who are better off than ever before.

      Yea, while being thousands of dollars in debt for it - something that wasn't always possible, and certainly not as prevalent, in previous generations.

    17. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by rvw · · Score: 2

      There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

      I wasn't aware that being born to rich parents means you are intelligent. There can only be so many opportunities to exploit during one's lifetime.

      Rich kids are (on average) probably more intelligent than poor kids because of their environment. Rich usually means better food and health care, better education, parents that stimulate their children more, parents that have a better network that can help their carreers, and less stress factors as crime in the neighbourhood or in the family etc.

    18. Re:Bread, circusses and home owners by Prune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One great tool against this problem is raising the estate tax.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  12. not exactly a new problem by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    PC World wonders: "In an idyllic future where we make heavy use of the cloud, what happens if a cloud service provider removes content it deems inappropriate, or just doesn't like?"

    Welcome to the mid-1990s. At least that's when I started worry about that, after my ISP deleted my web site because of content that offended the owner's moral sensibilities. That's when I sat down, figured out how to install Linux and Apache on an old computer, and began self-hosting.

    It's the exact same issue here, but with "cloud" substituted for "web" or "net".

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  13. On other news... by golden+age+villain · · Score: 2

    Eric Besson, the French ministry for digital economy, has declared that France cannot accept to host a website which violates the secret of diplomatic relations and endanger people who should be protected by said secret.

  14. Re:No need for DNS anymore by miojobr · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I stated on my recent tweet: "Do we really need DNS afterwards? Give me an IP and I'll give them a shortened URL through Social Nets" - http://twitter.com/#!/brunoborges/statuses/10682824059256832 I don't think DNS is needed anymore, at least for websites. With the advent of URL shorteners, we all can publish websites online, without DNS, and through Social Networks show it to the world, easily through some link like http://bit.ly/myFooWebsite. DNS is, IMO, the last hope for Internet control. I have no idea how E-Mail or other protocols could deal with an Internet without DNS, but surely there's a way. Maybe, not invented yet.

    WikiLeaks will never be shut down http://bit.ly/WiKiLeaks

    --
    All we need is a little bit of mojo in our lives...
  15. Live Q&A with Julian Assange happening NOW by Atmanman · · Score: 4, Informative
  16. Make China look good? by miffo.swe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the US has a hidden goal of making China look pretty moderate and nice in comparison to the west, its working like a charm. It would be doubleplus ironic if China would lighten their censoring at the same time as the west applies what now looks like total censorship on all leaked material.

    I was uncertain before but now im 100% certain, China will take over as the next super power and it will happen a lot faster than i could ever expect. I couldnt imagine just how willing the west is to commit seppuku and dismantle the democracy in favour for totalitarian fascism. Moussilini would be proud.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:Make China look good? by Radtoo · · Score: 2

      Nah. You forget that the EU and Japan and Australia and many more are also still in this boat, and they will not at all dismantle democracy because China exists or grows. And the US not being so influential anymore does not have to be a bad thing - it will just mean a different mix of EU-US-Japanese-Australian etc influence. Not a full change in direction.

      Of course, even in a democracy, it is always a problem maintaining freedoms. I think the decline in number of people who likes objectivity and the scientific method and reason as a thing to strive for in life (and politics) worrisome in that regard, and a failure in western education. And it has strong effects on how our governments act and communicate, too. But that's not China's fault at all.

      Not that China doesn't have highly questionable politics and distribution of wealth. But you also ought to see that the growth China has right now is the only chance for 1.3 billion Chinese to no longer live in abject poverty. It is not really something to dislike per se.

  17. Open Government by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And so now that Open Government has well and truly arrived our leaders are busy trying to shut it down. Well the public have had no privacy for a long time. Now politicians and bureaucrats are getting a taste of their own medicine.

    The moral is don't say or do anything unless you wouldn't mind the entire world knowing. That means you too, Hillary!

  18. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    . Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

    You can't blame them. Propaganda says that if they work hard, get an education (and more debt with that) and invest their money smart (does anyone actually think the super rich invest in those shit mutual funds you invest it or even those "small caps" that your newsletter points out every month?!?); they too can be rich.

    Or the biggest one - anyone can be rich! Just start a business and a way you go!

    As someone who's started a couple of businesses, I really wish that were true. It's really hard with all the competition out there (all computer services are saturated) and laws that benefit big business supported by the little people and written by lying politicians who say that the law will help small business.

    Of course I'm now broke because I thought I could have the American dream - which was a lie.

  19. Home of the free, my ASS by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    now what's important is, what are you americans going to do about this. some dipshit is censoring you at his will, using the power you gave to him.

  20. Time for a network controlled by its users by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    Maybe it is time to establish a network that is controlled by its users, rather than large corporations and powerful governments?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  21. Re:Free as long as we don't cross our own politici by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Bread and circuses. It's been this way for thousands of years - you're just realizing it?

    For a while we had a chance to build a different world. But human nature (I'm too lazy to do it myself so I will "trust" my politician/god/celebrity to do it for me) won out in the end. So either continue to be a sheep, or be a wolf.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  22. Real Cyber World War by Juel · · Score: 2

    This is history! With the unreal number of denial-of-service (DOS) attacks and Goverment actions against wikileaks, for me this is the First Real Cyber World War against a website!

  23. Re:No need for DNS anymore by icebraining · · Score: 2

    You're just replacing DNS for a similar system. If they can bring down/seize wikileaks.org, why couldn't they bring down http://bit.ly/wikileaks, or whatever?

    And relying on social networks for uncensored information spreading is the worst idea ever, unless you're talking about distributed social networks, which basically don't exist yet. Do you think Facebook or Twitter won't censor if the US govt asks "nicely"?

  24. demonoid by alphatel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Demonoid has switched from .com to .ME overnight and .com no longer resolves. Obviously there's more brewing about out there than the sheeple care to realize.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  25. It is the weakness of democracy by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret. How can I vote for the guy who is going to make foreign policy if I don't know the foreign policy?

    Yes, this makes life very hard for democratic leaders. Though shit. It comes with the political system. I am sure cops would be able to do their jobs far better if we restrict the freedom of citizens as well. For instance a curfew would make patrolling the streets just so much easier.

    But we can't do that so we accept that criminals go free because they got rights.

    Wikileaks just made life harder for US politicians. So? What do you value more? Freedom or an easy life for the diplomatic core?

    And the silly thing is that the outrage isn't really present in the countries the US has the most troubled relations with. Iran doesn't even give a shit.

    But all this HAS given the US public a real insight into the true goings on on the diplomatic front. Just what is the official line? Well now we know. So we can base our votes on that... or one who promises the largest tax cut. Whatever takes the shortest attention span.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

    1. Re:It is the weakness of democracy by dpilot · · Score: 2

      It would be a good idea for us to write to our "direct reports" - our congress-critters, Obama, and perhaps Biden - in direct support of Wikileaks. I plan to. I'm also struck that the government intelligence agencies keeps increasing their surveillance along with the statement, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear."

      I would suggest that the same applies to governments and other large organizations, and Wikileaks.

      It's kind of similar to a kid saying, "I'm sorry," when what he really means is "I'm sorry I got caught," not "I'm sorry it did something bad." As far as I could tell, our government has felt no remorse whatsoever about having done the stuff released, only that now everyone knows. In some cases, such as the diplomatic issues, I don't think they're done anything wrong, and if there's an issue it's with those whose public and private statements are so different. (As about Iran's nuclear ambitions.) With some of the Iraq information, it seems to me that the US was clearly in the wrong.

      Fun little aside I heard last night. Apparently someone in the US government wants to use Interpol to get at Assange. At the same time, the Nigerian government has gone through Interpol channels to issue the same kind of extradition request for Dick Cheney - I believe for the crime of fraud, when he was running Halliburton. It'll be interesting to see us refuse to honor one request while insisting that others honor ours.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  26. I Loved Amazon's Statement by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

    Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.

    It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

    Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.

    1. Re:I Loved Amazon's Statement by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I proudly closed my Amazon Account and also reversed EC2 deployment plans of my company. I know, it is not like Amazon could care less, but I _had_ to do it.

      --
      839*929
  27. This Is Huge by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue goes to the heart of the controversy over who controls the internet; specifically who controls ICANN and the DNS root servers.

    Right now, DNS control resides with the United States, and up to this point they have defended this status quo by assurring the world that the US is a bastion of absolute free speech and therefore best placed to control this most centralised, hierarchical and critical piece of internet architecture.

    And now, when faced with the first real and signifigant test of its will, the United States' resolve crumples almost immediately. Gone is any guarantee--implied or otherwise--that the DNS servers will be beyond political or domestic influences(In truth, the takeing down of "terrorist" sites has been ongoing for some years). The weak appeal that these are the actions of a private company is a thin rag which fails to cover the US governments nakedness. This censorship is on the express will of the government.

    This was the first real test; the US failed it. This has the potential to split DNS completely; with US trust now bankrupt, no other country will give it credit. In 5 years time, when you go looking for wikileaks.org or indeed slashdot.org, don't expect to get the same IP address as everyone else.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:This Is Huge by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2

      What "terrorist" sites? There's PLENTY of garbage out there that stays up that should probably be more controlled - pedophilia, genuine terrorist sites (al-qaeda related, etc), etc.

      Just go look at racist sites from all sides of the aisle and you'll probably see better examples as well - sites that wouldn't see the light of day in Europe.

    2. Re:This Is Huge by houghi · · Score: 2

      Remember when all said that control must be with the US, because they did such a great job?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  28. Enough Side Talk by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For fucks sake, can we give the social polemical shit a rest for just one article?

    The heart of the internet just skipped a beat. This is important in a technical and political sense. Is it too much to ask for some comments giving technical insight into the DNS system, historical precedents, or exisiting context? Instead we get a +5 copy paste rant about the death of the middle class that could be placed in just about any other thread or a ZeroHedge comment section for that matter.

    TOPIC, GENTLEMEN; PLEASE.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  29. Look ma! No DNS by defaria · · Score: 2

    It's interesting that if you go to wikileaks.ch it redirects to http://213.251.145.96/. IOW once in you are using IP addresses and not names. No need for DNS anymore! And nobody should care because you merely click links after that. Brilliant.

  30. Amazon has been megatrolled by McTickles · · Score: 5, Informative

    Julian Assange: Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

  31. Can't they stop attacking Assange? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

    I mean... they already have got him fired!

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  32. Re:Swiss or Swede? by Poorcku · · Score: 2

    ch = Confoederatio Helvetica

    --
    I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
  33. Re:Real Villains... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.

    Uh, if the greatest trove of confidential information in history about one of the most holier-than-thou countries in the world (and I say this as an American) fell into your lap, you'd be a complete moron not to publish it.

  34. Re:What free speech? by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your economy is in the shitter because you've spent trillions chasing ghosts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe if you spent the money on, gee, INFRASTRUCTURE, like rail and roads, and thereby plowing money back into your own country, you might have something to show for the last ten years, instead of thousands of dead soldiers.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  35. Victim: Arbor Networks confirms it by chrb · · Score: 2

    also, no ddos attacks (supposedly over 10gbps) were ever confirmed by their upstreams (bahnhof/ovh).

    The ddos attacks have been confirmed by Arbor Networks.

    This image released by Arbor clearly shows a spike of over 10Gbps.

  36. Re:What free speech? by whoda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The bailout money was more than both wars, and did go to 'help' the country. Not that it went to the right places or did any good.

  37. Re:First leak! by Tynin · · Score: 4, Informative

    If only browsers bookmarked the IP address as well as the domain name.

    It would be an interesting feature to have, but generally speaking if you've been to the site, odds are pretty good you still have the A record in your local DNS cache. I find it easier to look this up on Windows than Linux. For Windows, you just run "ipconfig /displaydns", for Linux you need to have caching nameserver running, and then either dig or nslookup the site in question against your local caching nameserver.