shemp
21st February 2008, 07:47 AM
Whistleblower Web Site Flourishes Overseas Despite Judge's Order To Block Domain Name (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/20/tech/main3852636.shtml)
(CBS/AP) The whistleblower site Wikileaks.org has found itself in the center of a storm of protest by Internet activists and libertarians over a court-ordered shutdown.
Last week, under pressure from a Swiss bank which said a disgruntled ex-employee had posted stolen documents on the site, Wikileak's San Mateo, Calif.-based hosting company, Dynadot, agreed to turn off the site and prevent Wikileaks from transferring its domain name to another host.
The next day, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White issued a series of rulings demanding Dynadot shut down Wikileaks. He also ordered Dynadot to disable Wikileak's Web address ("Oops! We can’t find the webpage you're looking for"), and prevent the transfer of the domain name to another registrar.
Most chillingly, the judge ordered Dynadot to turn over the "IP addresses and associated data used by any person, other than Dynadot, who accessed the account for the domain name" - in effect, parting the curtain behind which anonymous whistleblowers have been passing documents.
Wikileaks said in a statement that shutting down the entire Web site - instead of narrowly ordering the removal of the disputed materials - amounts to unconstitutional "prior restraint" by the government of an entire publishing organization.
"This is akin to seizing all the copies of The New York Times, locking the doors and ordering the landlords not to let anyone back in the building," said Julie Turner, a Palo Alto Internet attorney who briefly represented Wikileaks (but not during last week's hearing in front of White). Wikileaks was not represented at that hearing.
I had never visited this website before, so I don't really know enough about it to pass judgment on it. But I do know enough about the internet to pass judgment on this idiot judge. Does he really think he's going to shut down this place? Aside from appeals which almost certainly will overturn this decision, Wikileaks is still alive and kicking on several mirrors:
Wikileaks vowed to continue publishing the bank's documents on mirror sites in other countries, such as England (Wikileaks.org.uk), Belgium (Wikileaks.be) and Germany (Wikileaks.de).
Although the domain name is disabled, an online movement has begun to publicize and link to the IP address directly, with more and more blogs and Web sites linking to 88.80.13.160, where Wikileaks' files can be found, hosted by a Stockholm, Sweden firm called PRQ Inet.
Duh!
(CBS/AP) The whistleblower site Wikileaks.org has found itself in the center of a storm of protest by Internet activists and libertarians over a court-ordered shutdown.
Last week, under pressure from a Swiss bank which said a disgruntled ex-employee had posted stolen documents on the site, Wikileak's San Mateo, Calif.-based hosting company, Dynadot, agreed to turn off the site and prevent Wikileaks from transferring its domain name to another host.
The next day, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White issued a series of rulings demanding Dynadot shut down Wikileaks. He also ordered Dynadot to disable Wikileak's Web address ("Oops! We can’t find the webpage you're looking for"), and prevent the transfer of the domain name to another registrar.
Most chillingly, the judge ordered Dynadot to turn over the "IP addresses and associated data used by any person, other than Dynadot, who accessed the account for the domain name" - in effect, parting the curtain behind which anonymous whistleblowers have been passing documents.
Wikileaks said in a statement that shutting down the entire Web site - instead of narrowly ordering the removal of the disputed materials - amounts to unconstitutional "prior restraint" by the government of an entire publishing organization.
"This is akin to seizing all the copies of The New York Times, locking the doors and ordering the landlords not to let anyone back in the building," said Julie Turner, a Palo Alto Internet attorney who briefly represented Wikileaks (but not during last week's hearing in front of White). Wikileaks was not represented at that hearing.
I had never visited this website before, so I don't really know enough about it to pass judgment on it. But I do know enough about the internet to pass judgment on this idiot judge. Does he really think he's going to shut down this place? Aside from appeals which almost certainly will overturn this decision, Wikileaks is still alive and kicking on several mirrors:
Wikileaks vowed to continue publishing the bank's documents on mirror sites in other countries, such as England (Wikileaks.org.uk), Belgium (Wikileaks.be) and Germany (Wikileaks.de).
Although the domain name is disabled, an online movement has begun to publicize and link to the IP address directly, with more and more blogs and Web sites linking to 88.80.13.160, where Wikileaks' files can be found, hosted by a Stockholm, Sweden firm called PRQ Inet.
Duh!