Not sure Ulairi. I wish I had time to dig more in depth to find you an answer. This just popped up in my twitter from Ars Technica.

Quote:

The order isn't particularly effective (the site can be accessed simply by going to wikileaks.be, wikileaks.de, and wikileaks.cx, among others), but the fact that it can happen seems incredible. Rather than just put a hold on the particular documents in question, a judge has attempted instead to remove the entire site from the Internet. Wikileaks was not present at the hearing where the decision was made, saying that it was notified only by e-mail and given just a few hours' notice. As is common in such situations, the order was essentially written by the bank and then adopted by the judge.

In addition to the Dynadot block, Wikileaks itself is ordered to remove all documents from the bank that "are internal non-public company documents" and to do so "whether or not such documents and information are authentic, semi-altered, semi-fraudulent or forged."

Based on the correspondence between Wikileaks and a US lawyer representing the bank, the bank appears to be claiming copyright over these internal documents. A lawyer for the bank complained repeatedly about the lack of a designated DMCA agent for Wikileaks and warned the site, "You act at your own peril" and "govern yourselves accordingly." (Biggest question raised by the letter: real lawyers actually write this sort of stage villain stuff?)

The restraining order against Wikileaks is temporary, and in the order Judge Jeffrey White notes that the group can fight the block during a February 29 hearing. Wikileaks says that it has several lawyers in San Francisco willing to work pro bono on the case.

Well, if they are non-public companies then they have the right to keep things private. The right to privacy is also important.

DudleySmith wrote:

now and forever, Julius Bär will for me be a synonym for money laundering and embezzlement.

Really? Now and forever? I'm not going to make a reference to Julius Bar in, like, 3 months and have it go completely over your head?

There is a difference between reporting said criminal activity and publishing it. People are innocent until proven guilty. Just publishing some documents online, is not reporting criminal activity.

What is it with this board and ridiculously hyperbolic thread titles?

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

*Legion* wrote:

What is it with this board and ridiculously hyperbolic thread titles?

I don't know, man. In less than a microsecond, this place went from the best board ever in the history of the internet, the kind of place Jesus and Buddha would hang out at, to the kind of place even Hitler would be embarrassed to tell his army of Nazi poop demons about.

I haven't been around too long... but trust and believe, this is definitely one of the better places for religious/political debate. There are other forums where everyone considers everyone else family (my other hangout on the intertubes besides GWJ), and there's still some pretty bitter political arguments.

San Francisco - A federal district court judge in San Francisco today rescinded a controversial order that disabled the "wikileaks.org" domain name which had -- until two weeks ago -- pointed to Wikileaks, a website designed to give whistleblowers a forum for posting materials of public concern.

This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) moved to intervene in the case, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). In a hearing in federal court today, EFF and its fellow intervenors and amici argued that the order infringed on the First Amendment rights of Internet users who have an interest in accessing material of public concern on the site. Ruling from the bench, Judge Jeffrey White cited concerns about the First Amendment, the effectiveness of disabling the wikileaks.org domain name, and the court's own jurisdiction over the case as reasons to dissolve his previous orders.

"We're very pleased that Judge White recognized the serious constitutional concerns raised by his earlier orders," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Attempting to interfere with the operation of an entire website because you have a dispute over some of its content is never the right approach. Disabling access to an Internet domain in an effort to prevent the world from accessing a handful of widely-discussed documents is not only unconstitutional -- it simply won't work."

Wikileaks permits third parties to post corporate and government documents that they believe expose wrongdoing. For example, in the past year individuals have posted materials documenting alleged human rights abuses in China and political corruption in Kenya.

The lawsuit began earlier this month, when Swiss bank Julius Baer filed suit against Wikileaks for hosting allegedly leaked documents regarding personal banking transactions of Julius Baer customers. Also sued was Wikileaks' domain name registrar, Dynadot LLC. On February 15, following a stipulation between Julius Baer and Dynadot, the court issued a permanent injunction, disabling the wikileaks.org domain name and preventing that domain name from being transferred to any other registrar.

In addition to dissolving the permanent injunction, which permits the wikileaks.org domain name to be reactivated, the court also declined to extend a previous temporary restraining order requiring Wikileaks to disable access to 14 disputed Julius Baer documents.

Joining the EFF, ACLU, and POGO motion to intervene was Wikileaks user Jordan McCorkle. The papers were filed in consultation with and on behalf of the intervenors by Steven Mayer of the law firm of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin. Other attorneys on the case include Christopher Kao and Shaudy Danaye-Elmi of Howard Rice; Zimmerman, Cindy Cohn, and Kurt Opsahl of EFF; and Aden Fine and Ann Brick of the ACLU and ACLU-Northern California, respectively.

For the full order:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/baer_v_wikileaks/wikileaks102.pdf

For more on the Wikileaks case:
http://www.eff.org/cases/bank-julius-baer-co-v-wikileaks

Contact:

Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz@eff.org

The United States has often presented itself as the guardian of Internet free speech. China may censor the Internet, and otherwise-civilized nations such as Germany or France may attempt to block what they view as unacceptable material, but the United States of America likes to think of itself as a place that doesn't censor people online... unless you happen to own a foreign travel business that offers trips to Cuba. Under such circumstances, as Steve Marshall discovered, all bets are off.