Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Without Registration, Swedish Law Does Not Protect Wikileaks Sources

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the nice-rule-y'got-there dept.

Censorship 86

An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks, which currently stores a lot of their material on servers in Sweden, may not be as safe there as once believed. From the above linked article (from April): "Wikileaks is benefiting form Sweden's basic law 'Grundlag' on the freedom of print information, because it also guarantees the anonymity of sources in digital media, say sources at the European Parliament. In Sweden, if a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief, then it can also be protected under the law, argues the parliamentary source." Says the anonymous submtter, "However, it seems Wikileaks never registered with the public authorities (article in Swedish; here it is auto-translated to English), and thus is not protected by the freedom of print information basic law even if they do have an editor-in-chief."

cancel ×

86 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So register (3, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173356)

What is the problem? Do they get no retroactive protection?

Re:So register (2, Insightful)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173974)

I would guess that the law also says that the editor in chief is responsible for the content published...

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174314)

That would be contradictory - if the law protects a legitimate news source from being prosecuted for their content, then none of their staff can be liable either.

Re:So register (4, Interesting)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174494)

Well, it's not really that simple. The editor in chief is directly responsible for what is published. A typical situation would be if a news paper commits copyright infringement, then the editor in chief is directly responsible and may be personally fined for that. Registering does not allow you to break the law.

The legislation does actually give some protection, and that includes things like not having to reveal your sources. Not even the police can force a registered news media to reveal their sources. That's were the protection is targeted, not at the media itself.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174732)

So why don't they just sue them for copyright infringement? Surely distributing 15 000 illegally obtained documents have to qualify to that. Send them a takedown notice and the problem is solved.

Re:So register (1)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33177950)

Under American law, the government can't copyright things funded by taxpayer money.

Re:So register (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#33178378)

The insignia and seals of the armed forces are copyrighted, as far as I can tell. I've called several branches, and all indicated that they have and will sue for unauthorized duplication.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33179524)

Well, someone better tell Wikimedia, because this exact argument-- that the US government has no right to copyright works created by public servants-- is what it uses to counter FBI's recent takedown "threat" of its seal of the FBI article. Of course the FBI also try a law specifically protecting its seal on for size, but that seems only to cover forgery and passing off, neither of which Wikimedia are doing.

Re:So register (1)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 4 years ago | (#33182244)

Are you sure they're suing for copyright infringement? If you use a government seal to make it look like you are endorsed by them (such as printing paper with a Department of Defense watermark and then sending people letters printed on it), that's covered under a different law because you're using it to mislead others. Using a seal of the government in something like an encyclopedia article is (regardless of what the FBI thinks) perfectly legal. In this case, the seal is probably present on some of the leaked documents, but as they really are from the DoD, I can't see how Wikileaks could be charged with fraud.

Re:So register (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#33221148)

I wanted to sell vinyl decals of the insignia of all the branches. All 4 branches that I called (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) stated that this would be copyright infringement and would be prosecuted. The decals would go on vehicles, typically as part of a large graphic - those tacky memorial decals, "My son is in the ________s" decals, etc. I was clearly not impersonating.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33178134)

No. Sorry. Utgivningsbevis demands you have an 'ansvarig utgivare'.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utgivningsbevis

And purportedly they don't have one. Or that.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenskt-skydd-galler-inte-wikileaks_5100621.svd

Re:So register (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174146)

"You must register with the authorities to qualify for anonymity." No.... it can't be.. they must be fucking with us. In order to get anonymity, you must forfeit anonymity? I give up hoping that there's a single sane law maker on this planet.

Re:So register (3, Informative)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174242)

No, you have to register with the authorities to be considered a Newspaper. Once you're qualified as a newspaper your sources are protected by law making it illegal for the government to investigate them. Obviously the newspaper itself can't be anonymous, but their sources can be.

Re:So register (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33183576)

Obviously the newspaper itself can't be anonymous, but their sources can be.

Hmmm, I see that "Obviously" and I think to myself "Is that obvious? Just what is it about a "newspaper" that precludes anonymity of publisher?"

  • IF your publication takes and charges for advertising, then you probably need to let anonymity slip a little to get paid. But note the initial "IF".
  • Probably the same point if you pay your journalists/ typesetters/ copy-editors, etc.
  • Consumable suppliers too. Obviously all links in the chain that are greatly more amenable to anonymisation and also are much less one-to-one relationships in the digital world.

We're already pretty close to anonymous publishing of "news" with the various forms of "blog". While it will continue to be suppressed by "the authorities", the samizdat form of news distribution will I'm sure continue in it's various digital offspring.

Re:So register (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#33186158)

The reason it can't be anonymous is because to grant it the freedom of the press (which goes above and beyond the normal freedom of speech) it needs to have an official editor that's legally responsible when it oversteps those freedoms(for instance when it libels someone).

Re:So register (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33189204)

The reason it can't be anonymous is because to grant it the freedom of the press (which goes above and beyond the normal freedom of speech) it needs to have an official editor that's legally responsible when it oversteps those freedoms(for instance when it libels someone).

Maybe in your jurisdiction. But unless your government is in the habit of invading or nuking other sovereign nations over legal disputes, then your government's jurisdiction ends at your government's borders.

Which is precisely Assuagues (however it's spelt!) point with Wikileaks.

Re:So register (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#33190214)

My jurisdiction happens to be the country that Wikileaks is located in, remember?

Re:So register (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33192558)

My jurisdiction happens to be the country that Wikileaks is located in, remember?

Hmm, no, I'd missed that point, or forgotten it.

So, you're in the country where the Wikileaks domains are registered (America, probably, for some of them at least)? Or the country where the legal entity is registered (Sweden, wasn't it?). Or the country where the keys for the Tor core service are located (probably neither of the above, and probably changes irregularly and unpredictably)? Or the countries where the Tor servers are located (almost certainly many different ones)? Or the countries where it's sources, editors and "journalists" operate (also multiple)?
Or, for that matter, the countries where the funders are located.

Re:So register (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#33197514)

Sweden yes. The point here is that if you register, then the police can't legally track your sources down, they can't even begin an investigation, and you're not legally allowed to disclose your sources without the sources consent either. If you don't register, you might be able to hide behind Tor nodes or what not, but it's a gamble.

Re:So register (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174390)

Please let me clarify.

If you become a registered publisher in Sweden all your sources anynomity are protected by the law. Your anynomity is however not.
The interesting part about Swedens laws about protecting sources is that it is illegal for the publisher to tell who his sources is so the source will not need to trust the publisher completely. It is also illegal to ask the publisher about his sources so the police, government or anyone who want to track the source cannot do so through the publisher.
The law is made to protect the sources, not to protect the middlemen. (There are other laws for that.)

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174768)

There are some exceptions, involving threats to national security and such. Unfortunately, with the last 3 regimes(though this is by far the worst one) being extremely fascist and willing to suck up to the grand fascist state, the US, even something like being involved in the giant armed robbery and mass homicide that is Afghanistan can very well be considered a matter of national security, just because politicians like Reinfelt, Bildt etc stand to earn money from it.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33175556)

So it's really the same everywhere? Corruption, surveillance and censorship on the rise, the only difference being the level they started rising from. :(

Re:So register (2, Funny)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#33176110)

If you become a registered publisher in Sweden all your sources anynomity are protected by the law. Your anynomity is however not.

So you have to register as the editor of two newspapers and have each be the other's source. Then you'll disappear in a puff of recursive logic!

Hrm, I think I should stay away from zebra crossings for awhile.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33177486)

Repeat after me: "anonymity". You can remember this easily because the first 6 letters and the first three syllables are the same as in "anonymous."

Hint: when the squiggly red lines show up under a word, right-click it.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33182718)

A rather lackluster attempt at grammar patrolling. If you've ever actually spoken these words out loud (correctly), you'd realize the first three syllables aren't pronounced the same. Anonymous - stress is on the second syllable. Anonymity - stress is on the third syllable. Quit trolling.

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174882)

"You must register with the authorities to qualify for anonymity." No.... it can't be.. they must be fucking with us. In order to get anonymity, you must forfeit anonymity? I give up hoping that there's a single sane law maker on this planet.

It's the anonymity of the source of information that is protected, not the people publishing the information. There has to be one editor responsible for what is published on a (Swedish) news site, paper, or said on radio or TV. He/she is the one responsible for that the content don't break any law (e.g. it is slander, deliberately spread some kind of misinformation or encourage people to commit crimes). This law has been active since mid 18th century. In short: the publication can get their license revoked, the responsible editor and journalists may be punished, but they rarely will be asked to reveil their source of information. It is very rare that an editor or a journalist gets punsihed, but it happens that a publisher get their licence revoked.

My guess is that this content is indeed legal to publish and that the source and wikileaks rights to publish the content, would have legal protection in Sweden, if only Wikileaks had someone that was registered as responsible for its content. But I'm not sure that all of the other content on wikileaks is legal to publish in Sweden and then wikileaks could loose it's license and , in a very extreme case, be ordered by court to reveal a source of information (for the illegal content, but I don't think this has actually ever happened) and the editor responsible could be facing some kind of punishment. As I recall, no editor has been punished by law for that kind of crime since the 19th century and that was for treason against the Crown (that is a fancy way of saying that an article critisised the king), today it is legal to critisise the royal family (in the case I'm thinking about, the king was accused of not following the Swedish constitution in an news paper article (which indeed he didn't), but as the Swedish royal family is immune against legal prosecution (still is, sigh!) and the law about treason against the Crown was still valid, the editor in question was forced to leave Sweden or face prison time and the king remained unpunished for his crimes). There were two Swedish journalists imprisoned for one year each as late as 1974 though (called "IB affären").

Re:So register (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33201458)

A sane person would not be making laws.

Why do they need this? (3, Interesting)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173376)

Sweden's stringent whistleblower laws are protecting the anonymity of sources that have been feeding the controversial Wikileaks website with sensitive government and corporate information, according to Swedish political sources.

I thought their process of submitting leaks to Wikileaks provided the source with anonymity anyway, so that even if they were forced to give up their sources they would not have the information at all.

Re:Why do they need this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173518)

What if the source identifies themselves?

Re:Why do they need this? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173684)

If the source reveals itself, then nothing in the world can restore anonymity for it, no law, no technology, no nothing. The point of the article is that the press can not be compelled to reveal their sources under Swedish law, so if Wikileaks became a registered publication and knew who their sources are, then they would not have to reveal them. That however is a strawman argument. Wikileaks is operated in a way to facilitate anonymous "leaks". The less they know about the sources, the better the source is protected.

Re:Why do they need this? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#33176308)

The only thing that bothers me, is that we cannot know if the document is real or fake. If all sources are anonymous how can we filter out those who spam with false documents?

Re:Why do they need this? (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#33176500)

Well, if a given organization calls for stricter control of Wikileaks, the chances are that whatever they have published lately is true.

More cynically, the more malicious stupidity some document contains, the more likely it is to be true. Love makes fools, marriage cuckolds, and patriotism malevolent imbeciles.

Re:Why do they need this? (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 4 years ago | (#33176624)

In the case that WikiLeaks happens to discover the identity of the source, then they destroy the information completely (the leak, and everything pertaining to it).

They will not allow anyone to come in harm because of what they do.

Re:Why do they need this? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173768)

I suppose it'll come down to Sweden protecting the journalist when it has extradition treaties with other countries who are demanding Julian's head on a platter, errr, I mean a trial for embarrassing those other governments (by revealing the truth of their actions).

Of course, 'protection' is a weird term because really Sweden would only be protecting Julian (or whomever) from Sweden, because it's not likely that those third parties would stage a military kidnapping.

It's weird that in Sweden you have to fill out paperwork to apply for protection of human rights (free speech isn't free under the cloud of kidnapping).

Re:Why do they need this? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33175354)

It's weird that in Sweden you have to fill out paperwork to apply for protection of human rights (free speech isn't free under the cloud of kidnapping).

You don't have to fill out paperwork to protect human rights in Sweden. Freedom of speech for ordinary people is even "more free" then in USA, with no paperwork what so ever. With a publishing license the journalistic freedom is a hell of a lot more free then in USA. Without a publishing license it is still a bit better then in USA.

A journalistic outlet that is registered can't be asked to reveil its sources of information, even if an informant broke the law to get the information or by reveiling the information. The police can't spy or commit a search on a registered publisher to reveil an informant (not even if the informant commited murder to get the information, and not even, hypothetically, if he/she is a murderer that sends pictures of his/her victims to a newspaper (but I'm pretty sure most newspapers would cooperate with the police in such a case anyway)). A registered publisher is pretty much untouchable by the police when it comes to anything that has to do with the content of the publication.

Registration is free of cost (many Swedish bloggers register). What is required is someone that is responsible for that the content is legal ( and as mentioned earlier, a lot of content that would be illegal to publish in USA is legal in Sweden, but nothing that is illegal to publish in Sweden is legal to publish in USA, the freedom of the press is greater in Sweden then in USA).

Basic Mistake Regarding Human Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33176352)

You really should learn the difference between a publication and a person. Freedom of speech and human rights are much stronger in Sweden and Europe in general. However this is not about the private blog of Julian Assange.

Human rights do apply to some legal entities such as corporations/organizations but only if they're actual publications... that's the whole point of this registration!

Pointless exercise in trying to fit WL into print (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173398)

WL exists because the sources are anonymous, not because the sources are protected by law. Registration is just a way to denote a person who takes the blame instead of the source. It doesn't relieve the publication from blame, it shifts it. That's not the point of WL. The concept behind Wikileaks isn't journalism, it's making raw information available. It's in the name, you know? If Wikileaks were to be taken offline by any country, servers in other countries are ready to replace them. If push comes to shove, there's Freenet.

Re:Pointless exercise in trying to fit WL into pri (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174194)

The sources aren't protected by law (and can't be) because the sources are far outside Swedish jurisdiction in any case. Swedish law cannot prevent the US military from prosecuting Bradley Manning for publishing documents. What the Swedish law is supposed to protect is their anonymity, by preventing an organization or the government from legally ordering Wikileaks to reveal the source (which doesn't help if the source is discovered independently, anyway).

Of course, if a source manages to contact Wikileaks without even Wikileaks knowing their identity, they're still mostly safe.

Re:Pointless exercise in trying to fit WL into pri (1)

ashkar (319969) | more than 4 years ago | (#33177828)

As much as I respect Wikileaks and what they do, I would argue your point based on their yellow journalism exhibited with the "Collateral Murder" headline and heavily edited presentation. That is a very sore spot with me. I don't see anything wrong with the highlights that they are using to present the latest leaks as they are just that, highlights, but Wikileaks should have been a lot more responsible with the release of the Apache video. If they want to make "raw information available", that's what they should do and all they should do.

Re:Pointless exercise in trying to fit WL into pri (1)

Pastis (145655) | more than 4 years ago | (#33178418)

Isn't that's what they are doing right now ? They give the raw sources. The only thing they seem to be doing with the telegrams is rendering them anonymous. The journalism part was outsourced to the 3 main newspapers.

Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173408)

Sounds like a wiki wituation.

Bust Their Asses (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173412)

I hope everyone of these assholes gets a prison sentence.

Re:Bust Their Asses (1)

zhong-guo (1872764) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173586)

A truth, eh?. You and some american and the chinese are together with this. Even when china this is a danger, but maybe a good too.

Re:Bust Their Asses (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33177514)

Don't know why this was modded flamebait, seems like a reasonable expectation for treason. I would have preferred and believe they eventually will get [insert your favorite fear / doom scenario] for aiding and materially supporting espionage against a nation state and knowingly endangering sources and soldiers fighting against sharia law. Wikileaks hasn't expressed an opinion nor reported as a reporter. No law protects against release of facts or material gained illegal and without authorization.

These people are doomed, and they pissed away any reporting or informational value they could have had to the world by supporting terror and those who hate freedom and love Sharia law.
This is not about censorship, this is about a team loosing focus, loosing a mission, revealing they never had principles and endangering lives in the process.
scum bags all.

The fucking commies are gonna ge tit now, just w (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173442)

Watch and see the commies get theirs.

Those who needed these documents... (0)

hotfireball (948064) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173460)

Those who needed these documents already downloaded them. Now, go get and catch a wind in the field!

"Grundlag" (4, Informative)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173496)

It literally means Sweden's constitution.

Re:"Grundlag" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173582)

Wikipedia article: Constitution of Sweden [wikipedia.org]

The relevant law in this case is probably the Freedom of the Press Act. I am not a Swedish lawyer, thought.

Re:"Grundlag" (1)

hpa (7948) | more than 4 years ago | (#33175122)

Actually, it's the combination of Freedom of The Press Act (which covers print media only), and the Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression, which covers all other media. The reason for print media being treated separately is historical.

Re:"Grundlag" (3, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174188)

It literally means Sweden's constitution.

No, it literally means "ground law". It actually is the constitution.

I don't normally bother pointing out the difference between literally and actually, but when "literally" is used when explaining what a word means, some precision is required.

Re:"Grundlag" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174246)

No, you fucking twerp. That's like correcting a French person who said that "pineapple" ~literally~ means "ananas", whereas you think it should be "pin" + "pomme" ("pine" + "apple").

You don't have to decompose a word into its components for it to be a "literal" translation.

Re:"Grundlag" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174310)

wrong it literally translates to "foundation law" not "ground law"

Re:"Grundlag" (3, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174456)

Och hur vet du det?

Your apparent belief that "ground" doesn't mean "foundation" or "base" like "grund" does in Swedish, and that you thus have to use "foundation" is... groundless.

"Foundation law" is stilted. We say "ground rules", and "ground law" follows the same semantics.

That "ground" also shares the same etymology as "grund" makes it an even better literal translation.

Re:"Grundlag" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174518)

O KNÄPPA!

Re:"Grundlag" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174652)

RÄÄÄVAAA!!!

Re:"Grundlag" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174736)

GRÄÄÄSLIGT!

Re:"Grundlag" (0, Flamebait)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33175522)

SKITSNAK!

Re:"Grundlag" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33176222)

Nå må dere tjenerfolk fra øst se å klappe igjen og servere en kald øl.

Re:"Grundlag" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33175402)

Your apparent belief that "ground" doesn't mean "foundation" or "base" like "grund" does in Swedish, and that you thus have to use "foundation" is... groundless.

Are you trying to say that his belief is without foundation?

Re:"Grundlag" (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174766)

I'm just wondering, does this "ground law" also have poor latency? I mean, I can understand, being that it's been around since before modern networking technology.

Re:"Grundlag" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33175270)

In case anyone senses some amount of tension between the Swedish posters and wonders why...

As a Swede I've found that there are few things more humiliating to a Swedish person than the implication that another Swedish person might be better at English.

The next Swedish civil war will probably be about which part of the country produces the worst/best English accent.

Also, if you ever fancy a Swedish girl and it seems like you have a chance, remember to gracefully slip in a compliment or two about her English (unless her English is disastrous). That will get you to what we call "halva inne" -- half of it in.

Re:"Grundlag" (1)

Anzya (464805) | more than 4 years ago | (#33186716)

Oh this is painfully and embarrassingly true. Remembering how proud I felt when I was skiing in France and a "native" referred to me as "Un Monsieur Anglais". :)

Re:"Grundlag" (2, Informative)

Hazelfield (1557317) | more than 4 years ago | (#33175554)

You have to notice though, that there's a difference between the American constitution and the Swedish Grundlag in that the Swedish one doesn't enjoy the protection of a Supreme Court. In the U.S., proposed legislation can get struck down by the Supreme Court if found unconstitutional. In Sweden there is Lagrådet with a similar function, except it doesn't have the ability to overrule the Riksdag (the parliament that writes the laws). It can only issue recommendations to the Riksdag, who may very well decide to ignore them.

In other words, there's nothing to prevent the parliament from accepting legislature that blatantly conflicts with the constitution.

Alert: Gay Ninjas On Patrol (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173616)

GAY Ninjas are watching...

Re:Alert: Gay Ninjas On Patrol (-1, Flamebait)

spartacus_prime (861925) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173776)

Clearly you don't know what the GNAA stands for.

Original source (4, Informative)

akanouras (1431981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173630)

Original source [sydsvenskan.se]

Fucking rumour starters at it once more.

Re:Original source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173958)

PsyOps, bitches!

Re:Original source (1)

akanouras (1431981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174116)

Where's "+1, Depressing" when you need it...

freedom... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173678)

Freedom is having same without needing to "register with the civic authorities".

American ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33176282)

No, it's not. Swedish citizens and journalists have more rights than Americans in terms of press freedom, but publications are on shaky ground in the US without a "registration"!

This is about publications and their status as "publications" in the eyes of the law. Is a blog a publication or just the musings of a private citizen? These are questions judges have to deal with in many countries.

God damn, "blind" American nationalists without a clue about themselves and especially the world.

(plus one Informative') (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173688)

t@rack of where

I noticed one thing odd on WIkileaks web site (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173742)

www.wikileaks.com has OLDER news than wikileaks.org

Why is that? Why 2 different sites for 2 different domains? I thought they pointed to the same news?

WikiLeaks Denies (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173812)

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20558340142

I really know little about the matter, but I thought it was worth pointing out that WikiLeaks is refuting this claim.

CAPTCHA was "spinners".

Re:WikiLeaks Denies (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174534)

I wonder who all has access to that Twitter account? I'm betting it is Julian Assange and Julian Assange alone who can post on that account, and of course he would refute the claim because if the claim proves to be true then Sweden is no longer a safe place for him.

Re:WikiLeaks Denies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174820)

WikiLeaks is obviously going to be biased in their own favor, but their position here is notable; by refuting the claim on their Twitter page (and on their website's main page), they are giving it more attention, and that would be a bad thing for them unless they were telling the truth. Of course, that's no guarantee about the validity of their own claim, but it is noteworthy because they could have just crossed their fingers and ignored the issue, or even tried to spin it, but they flat-out refuted it instead. Hopefully they'll have some legal stuff to show off soon.

Re:WikiLeaks Denies (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174852)

It's not that it makes it safe for him, it would merely make it safe for wikileaks sources.
but wikileaks intentionally sets it up so that they cannot identify their sources even if they want to.

Re:WikiLeaks Denies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33176112)

then Sweden is no longer a safe place for him.

He has done nothing illegal (in Sweden), but you are probably correct.

The last Swedish government did allow for two Egyptians to be picked up by the CIA at Arlanda airport. The two of them could not be charged under Swedish law. The CIA then turned them over over to the Egyptian authorities who in turn tortured them. This was a wise move since US law apparently only allows for friendly torture under medical supervision. This was the other kind of torture.

The current Swedish government is not interested in finding anyone guilty for this crime although the Swedish constitution does not allow for torture and Swedish law also forbids extradition where there is a risk of torture.

Gn4a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33173934)

Link to written english article (no auto-translate (5, Informative)

Cothol (460219) | more than 4 years ago | (#33173986)

Another Swedish newspaper (Sydsvenskan) has a well written article in english here [sydsvenskan.se]

FUD (2, Informative)

dcollins (135727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33174134)

"An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks..."

Sounds like FUD.

Re:FUD (2, Insightful)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 4 years ago | (#33175170)

"An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks..."

Sounds like FUD.

Right, how can we trust this isn't disingenuous propaganda if we don't know who they are or at least some context?
Mr anonymous should post this info to WikiLeaks so we know it's accurate, THEN we can discuss what to think of it on enlightening Internet forums like this one. /sarcasm

Re:FUD (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33177520)

Sounds like false logic to me about the registration of an editor in chief. i.e. (A => B) does not imply (not A => not B). In this case A = "a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief" and B = "it can also be protected under the law". There could be many other reasons why Wikileaks can be protected under Swedish law. Furthermore, if there is no law against it, then it is legal, could be another reason why Wikileaks _may_ not be in trouble as the summary implies. Hopefully people do not automatically assume that wikileaks is in trouble so then when it really is, people say that it was doomed all along. Give peace a chance. (Doing the reverse here to promote Wikileaks)

wikileaks replied this is untrue / this is infowar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33174424)

wikileaks replied this is untrue / this is infowar / try to frighten sources to pull down wikileaks
Do you think WL had proved so dumb?

Election (2, Insightful)

foods (1524953) | more than 4 years ago | (#33175342)

Sweden is having an election to the parliament in september. My guess is that there will be no action on the Wikileaks server before that. The ruling parties would lose lots of votes if that happened. That is actually what happened with the Pirate Bay police action. A lot of Swedes thought it was pressure from American politicians that lead up to the action, which led to the Pirate Party's success in the election of the European Parliament.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>