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!

WikiLeaks Case Reopened

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the it-is-so-ordered dept.

Privacy 25

JediLow brings news that the judge who signed the order to take down is now reconsidering his actions. Judge Jeffrey White ordered a new hearing to be held on Friday morning to answer further questions about the case[PDF]. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has responded harshly to the recent statement issued by the bank Julius Baer.

cancel ×


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

A simple patch (4, Funny)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598094)

One simple command should take care of all this:
echo "" >> /etc/hosts

Done! My system is now judge-proof. :)

Re:A simple patch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22598200)

And in response to this Slashdot article, the entire world sighed a collective "who gives a fuck" and then went to bed.

Re:A simple patch (4, Interesting)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598230)

A popular site like this was able to get their ip address widely public. What I feel concerned about is those sites which are less known and possibly suffering similar situations. What do they do to get users to their site? TOR? Distributed DNS? How do we go about preventing this kind of censorship in the future?

Re:A simple patch (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598376)

Mirror the content to more popular sites and blow the whistle there.

And repost, repost, repost the content over and again till they find a destruction-proof host.
I had mine destroyed thrice before I found a safe haven with admin who has enough balls not to bend to blackmail.

Re:A simple patch (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598776)

Mirror it. In as many different countries as you can. In China, if you can. While they really love to keep their own dirt under the rugs, they're just outright helpful and very "free speech" when you try to publish the dirt of people and organisations they don't like.

I'm quite aware that someone will cry now "But most people won't find it there". Right. But, and that's the catch, those "most people" don't care either. Go out on the street and ask anyone what he thinks about WikiLeaks. If you're lucky the response you get is "Huh? You mean Wikipedia?". If you're less lucky, the respsonse is just "Huh?".

People that do care will find it, and they will crosspost it to topical boards that deal with certain specific issues, when the issues discussed there touch what WikiLeaks is about.

Re:A simple patch (1)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602804)

Anyone interested in reaching WikiLeaks would also be able to find one of the mirrors through a simple web search. Wikipedia, for example, has links to the IP address and several out-of-US domain names.

Hijacking this for another subject (0, Offtopic)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598374)

Whenever the subject of IPv4 running out of addresses comes up, people suggest all kinds of solutions, from NAT to shared IP.

But in this case, the only reason the site still works is because it doesn't share its IP. It shows rather clearlty why having your own IP is so important.

I wonder what does who tag every IPv4 story with NAT have to say about this case. Offcourse you could argue that in no way does BILLION of people need to have their own IP in case some judge decides to take down your domain but still, we have to keep in mind when talking of tech solutions to this problem the social consequences. If this site had been "responsible" with its IP usage it would have been on a shared IP and used that for all its sister sites. It would work perfectly, until someone pulls the plug on you.

NAT violates end-to-end, never suggest it (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22598538)

Deploying NAT rather than deploying IPv6 would destroy the internet - it would never be able to improve, as NAT violates end-to-end. Every protocol has to be specifically handled by the NAT layer, so if you're using an out-of-date NAT solution, it will simply corrupt packets by not knowing how to recalculate whatever new protocol's inner checksum is in use. This is already a major problem trying to deploy DCCP, a protocol that's years old. Previously, 'deploy' would have been something that could happen the same day you'd implemented the stack, the 'traditional internet' working the way it is supposed to. Today, it'll likely be 10-20 years before existing NAT devices that don't support it fade away and it can be relied on - same goes for any new protocol. Don't make this a bigger mess than it already is by proposing doing it on a global scale. Use IPv6 like you're supposed to and stop breaking the damn internet.

Re:Hijacking this for another subject (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603410)

I hate NATs too, but it should be noted that putting this into your /etc/hosts would continue to allow vhosting to work just fine.

Re:A simple patch (1)

greedyturtle (968401) | more than 6 years ago | (#22600086)

This isn't a technical issue though, but a social one. The technology workaround is easy, defending the rights of WikiLeaks (and by extension, the rest of us) is the hard part.

Just remember (3, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598098)

It doesn't matter so much if you're right or wrong, but which side the judge (and/or jury) believes.

Responded harshly (3, Interesting)

gazbo (517111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598136)

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has responded harshly to the recent statement issued by the bank Julius Baer.
Am I the only one who read that "harsh response" and heard little more than "we were treated unfairly in court!"? Especially poor was the section that could be paraphrased as "They said we posted confidential bank records, but they weren't - they were Word files! And quite old! And maybe just a bit confidential! Did we mention Word?"

Re:Responded harshly (3, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598298)

Don't the bankers realize they have nothing to worry about? According to the OOXML people, these documents will be unreadable in a matter of days or something because they're not saved in an XML format!

Re:Responded harshly (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598632)

I'm really not sure what their point is there. If I send a word document to the bank then I expect them to keep it in their records, and keep it confidential. And this release from wikileaks seems to alternate between arrogant and whiny thus damaging its case in the court of public opinion.

Re:Responded harshly (0, Flamebait)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22599102)

"alternate between arrogant and whiny thus damaging its case in the court of public opinion."

Hmmm...sounds like every liberal blowhard I can think of.

Here's a hint - if you want folks to listen to you, try reasonable, and even indignant.

Re:Responded harshly (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22599018)

Only if you choose to ignore the relevant part of the section, which is "files setting up trust arrangements used as anonymizing shell structures. In its court filings, Baer claims to have been aware of the documents release since 2003 and the Swiss media had the documents in 2005. The only relevence these documents have now is that they expose the bank's ultra-rich clients suspiciously funneling money through Cayman Islands trusts nearly a decade ago."

Only on Slashdot will you find people so preoccupied with Microsoft that they don't get past their name and on to the actual statement.

Re:Responded harshly (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22599090)

What? The Word thing was kind of a joke. I have no interest in Microsoft, and am in fact perfectly happy with their software. However:

The only relevence[sic] these documents have now is that they expose the bank's ultra-rich clients suspiciously funneling money through Cayman Islands trusts nearly a decade ago.
What part of that makes publishing them OK? The fact that it happened "nearly a decade ago"?

Re:Responded harshly (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22599252)

None of that part, of course. Read the sentence before it. Those papers were already leaked.

Re:Responded harshly (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22599328)

What in the world did you read, because what I read was "the documents in our possession are in Word format, and contain information which first came to light in 2003, and has been in the public record since 2005". Double checking, they are quite correct here, which makes baer's claim even more ludicrus. Having read the letter exchange, that the lawyers even refused to name their client garners even less sympathy. And to refuse to tell where suit would be filed should be criminal.

The judges actions in this case border on incompetence, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the underlying technologies involved in this whole case. In such a situation, the judge should have excused him/herself and referred to a judge who does understand the technologies which they will be passing judgement on.

Oblig (4, Informative)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 6 years ago | (#22598144) [] [] []
File archive torrent []

Re:Oblig (1)

Slashdot Suxxors (1207082) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602198)

You forgot []

Re:Oblig (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#22624834)

Yaay! A .cx that *isn't* goatse. :)

What time (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22599924)

When does the case take place? B/c right now it's only 7:05am on the west coast.

Re:What time (1)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602468)

9:00 AM Pacific time. Which means, at the time of this posting, it started an hour ago. Based on the judge's statement, it's probably still in progress.

Ha! (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605042)

Getting a little hot for you judge? Shouldn't have listened to your lawyer golf-buddies? Don't want to be seen on the same side as alleged money-launderers? Imagine that.

Your name. On the web. In lights. Forever.

rm -r \corrupt\officials

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>