• 📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you build custom picture books for kids in seconds. Let me know what you think here!

Wikileaks gets cut down

Miles Teg

Nuclear Powered Mentat
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,817
Location
One Flag Short of a Theme Park
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/wikileaks_shut_down_in_us/

The US arm of Wikileaks, a website that makes it easy for whistleblowers to leak documents, has been cut off after hosting evidence that claimed a bank located in the Cayman Islands engaged in money laundering and tax evasion.

Dynadot, the US-based company that hosted Wikileaks' main site, not only severed wikileaks.org from the net; it also agreed to lock the domain name so it can't be transferred to another provider. A federal judge in San Francico signed off on the agreement on Friday (15 Feb).

The agreement came in a lawsuit brought by Bank Julius Baer, the parent company of the accused Cayman bank. After trying unsuccessfully to get Wikileaks to remove the documents, Swiss-based Julius Baer went after Dynadot, which according to this copy of the court order, agreed to roll over in exchange for the suit against it being dismissed. Dynadot also agreed to turn over records related to Wikileaks, including "IP addresses and associated data used by any person, other than Dynadot, who accessed the account for the domain name".

Wikileaks, allows whistleblowers to post documents anonymously. At least when its webhost isn't coerced into turning over IP addresses and other information most customers would consider confidential.

According to this piece from Wired News, Wikileaks was unable to argue its position on the matter at a Friday court hearing because it only learned of the hearing a few hours before it started. Astonishingly, US District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California signed off on the stipulation, anyway.

The episode is another reminder that an organization's security is only as good as the security of the people who provide its internet connection. Wikileaks claims that it is an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis". But this is true only if its webhosts can be trusted not to pull the plug on its customers or divulge sensitive client information.

In this case, Julius Baer quickly realized it couldn't silence Wikileaks, so it went after a weaker link in the chain, which evidently was much less willing to put up a fight.

Wikileaks was founded in 2006 by people from a host of countries, including the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. It has generated headlines by hosting documents exposing several high-profile scandals, including those related to the collapse of the UK's Northern Rock bank and to prisons in Iraq and and Guantanamo Bay. The site says it has posted more than 1.2 million documents.

According to Julius Baer, a former vice president called Rudolf Elmer posted the documents, which purport to show that the Cayman Islands bank helped customers hide assets and launder funds.

The contested documents remain available on Wikileaks websites hosted in other countries, including in here in Belgium and here in India. The site says here that over the past few days it has also withstood a 500 Mbps denial-of-service attack and a fire to its uninterruptible power supply.

Of course, there's no evidence that Julius Baer was behind either the attacks or the fire. But it's clear that Wikileaks hasn't been silenced, at least for now.

Hey, maybe there really is something to these claims about being uncensorable.

I'd just like to take the time to say this sucks. Or to be more specific, freedom of information is a good thing. I wonder how long it takes them to get around this?
 
Miles Tag said:
I wonder how long it takes them to get around this?

Immediately.

88.80.13.160

or

wikileaks.be

So all they did was close the wikileaks.org domain, but there's still mirrors and you can just enter the IP address of the original.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can't keep information unfree. All you can do is harass it and waste public time and money.
 
delete post
 
Thanks for the leak. None of the mirrors I could find were working last night.

Anyways, questions about free flow of information arise from this. How much is to much? Was the closing justified?
 
This is absurd, domain hosting companies should not be able to shut down there customers or provide their customers information without permission. That's just commonsense.
 
Dynadot, the US-based company that hosted Wikileaks' main site, not only severed wikileaks.org from the net; it also agreed to lock the domain name so it can't be transferred to another provider. A federal judge in San Francico signed off on the agreement on Friday (15 Feb).

How is that legal? They paid for the domain name - it belongs to them. How can the provider 'lock it down' ??
 
Something a court/judge orders someone to do.

It's temporary probably because the appeal should go in favor of the site. That and the order was poorly done and they were easily able to get around it.
 
Back
Top Bottom