quote:In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing confidential information.
The site, Wikileaks.org, invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. It has posted documents concerning the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual concerning the operation of prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.
I really love the idea of this site. I've only just discovered it. In an age when corporations and particularly the US Government are striving for secrecy in order to get around the rules limiting them with out too much public outcry, something like this may be exactly what is needed. As long as it doesn't become a place where rumors and false information are posted or individuals private sordid secrets, it could become extremely handy for keeping large powerful organizations in check. Especially the US Government and Military.
On the other hand I'm not entirely sure just how it could keep itself from becoming a place that is spammed by random, worthless rumors and false documents.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
confidential information should be kept confidential. if you have access to confidential info that you think is illegal, report it to the police, don't post in on the internet.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Kama, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchmen?)
Often times info is stamped classified because it's embarrassing and illegal. If information is embarrassing to the administration(s), often they will go to great lengths to bury it. Usually such info is stuff the public has a right to know, and needs to know.
Case in point was the recently disclosed RAND study of US involvement in Iraq solicited by the Army. It was very critical of many of the decisions made and their devastating consequences. RAND made both a classified and unclassified version. The government stamped the unclassified version classified to bury it.
That's just the sort of thing Wikileaks is great for ferreting out.
Alcon, if you like wikileaks you'll like cryptome.org
Also wikileaks has several off-shore mirror sites (I think including cryptome.org ?)
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikileaks can still be accessed directly by IP Address (as you show in your link) as well as by many backup sites such as wikileaks.be, wikileaks.de, wikileaks.cx, etc. The only thing this judge was able to do was shut down the wikileaks.org domain.
I find it disturbing that the judge thinks internet censorship is an acceptable policy. Furthermore, his order seems like a violation of the first amendment. Can a resident legal expert comment?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alcon, if you like wikileaks you'll like cryptome.org
Huh, I'm not sure how I feel about it. It feels much, much sketchier than wikileaks does. I guess that's not saying much when it comes to this sorta thing.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's very, very few situations in which prior restraint is constitutional. I imagine there are even fewer situations in which third parties can be ordered to stop someone else's expression.
However, without looking at the pleadings and other filings, I can't know if this even comes close to one of the few situations where this might be allowed. The injunctions don't give any real analysis of the issue.
On the odds alone, I bet this is overturned on appeal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I especially like this bit in the wikipedia article:
quote: The Chinese government currently attempts to censor every web site with "wikileaks" in the URL. This includes the main Wikileaks site as well as regional variations such as wikileaks.cn and wikileaks.org.uk. However the site can often be accessed from behind the Chinese firewall via sites listed below. As these alternatives may change frequently, the site suggests users from the mainland of China search for "wikileaks cover names" on non mainland-china search engines such as google.co.uk to locate the latest alternative names. Mainland based search engines, including those of Baidu and Yahoo, also censor references to "wikileaks.
If the CCP (with much more legal ability to do this kind of thing and more technical experience) cannot censor this kind of thing, I find it amusing that an American judge thinks that it is possible to do it by banning merely one domain name.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't purge stuff from the Internet. I thought everyone knew that by now. Lawsuits like this inevitably bring more attention to the data at issue. An honest attorney would advise potential clients of this.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this stuff was obtained in violation of a confidentiality agreement by the bank employee, I think that employee and possibly Wikileaks (depending on what they knew when about that agreement) should be held accountable for damages.
Moreover, I would have no problem with an injunction against the employee who signed the agreement (which isn't what is happening here).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If this stuff was obtained in violation of a confidentiality agreement by the bank employee, I think that employee and possibly Wikileaks (depending on what they knew when about that agreement) should be held accountable for damages.
Moreover, I would have no problem with an injunction against the employee who signed the agreement (which isn't what is happening here).
Do you still feel that way even if the documents, as they are claimed to, hold evidence of all sorts of illegal activity by the said bank? Wikileaks claims the documents describe methods by which the bank launders money and runs tax evasion schemes.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you still feel that way even if the documents, as they are claimed to, hold evidence of all sorts of illegal activity by the said bank?
Yes. Turning them over to the authorities is one thing. Turning them over to a public web site is another.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As do I. And steven, what if those theoretical bank documents happened to include YOUR social security number, bank account number, and bank balance? Bet you'd be singing another tune then.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why is it that when you insult me, I feel as if I've received an enormous compliment?
The only argument made in this thread in support of public leaks does not apply to this situation (nor did the people making it try to do so - both clearly distinguished their remarks).
If you would like to make an argument about why this particular leak would be justifiable if the leaker signed a confidentiality agreement, I might be able to respond.
My earlier statement rests on the premises that (1) people should generally keep their word; (2) when justification for breaking one's word exists, the breaking should be as constrained as possible to meet that justification; and (3) harm to innocent third parties should be minimized. Here, the ability to turn over information to the police in this case means that (2) is not satisfied and, as rivka points out, (3) is very likely not satisfied.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If WikiLeaks is a true wiki then are they really responsible for everything anonymous users post? Lets say someone posted child pornography that then got removed a few minutes later. Can WikiLeaks still be charged? Or is the problem in this case that WikiLeaks knew about the document but did not remove it?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If WikiLeaks is a true wiki then are they really responsible for everything anonymous users post?
This is still unsettled law. There are protections for forums and myspace-like sites that prevent liability for certain providers based on the postings of users. But the people posting on a wiki are editors of the wiki's contents - they aren't posting in their own areas, but providing a service to create the content for the wiki. There's a decent case to be made that they are acting on behalf of wiki when they edit or post an article, making the wiki ineligible for the protection offered by the law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, for wikileaks to avail themselves of the protection I mentioned, they would have to state that the leaked documents are not wikileak's expression but a user's expression. That would tend to make it easier to uphold an injunction forcing them to remove it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think in this case the belief (of those posting) is that if the government hasn't already done something about this, then turning over these documents to the police would result in nothing happening. I think the point of Wikileaks is to galvanize the government into following it's own laws in situations where it hasn't really so far by revealing the fact that it's not really following them to the general public.
But I could be wrong, that was just what I got from it from a pretty brief scan over it. I didn't actually look at the bank documents in question.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I think in this case the belief (of those posting) is that if the government hasn't already done something about this, then turning over these documents to the police would result in nothing happening.
On what are you basing this? The private bank records almost certainly haven't been turned over to the government before this. Why do you think that the government's failure to pursue this in the past, with no evidence they knew of it, is evidence that the government wouldn't do anything.
quote: I think the point of Wikileaks is to galvanize the government into following it's own laws in situations where it hasn't really so far by revealing the fact that it's not really following them to the general public.
That might be the point of wikileaks, but the posting of private documents rather than turning them over to proper authorities doesn't really contribute to that point.
It is, in essence, allowing a private citizen to decide when legal protections associated with confidentiality should be stripped. It's also done with little of the procedural safeguards (redacting, etc.) associated with publicizing private information.
The right to keep certain things private is a legal right. Generally we like to give due process before stripping them of a legal right.
The wikileaks paradigm removes that process and makes an unaccountable individual the arbiter of when a legal right should be stripped.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This is still unsettled law. There are protections for forums and myspace-like sites that prevent liability for certain providers based on the postings of users. But the people posting on a wiki are editors of the wiki's contents - they aren't posting in their own areas, but providing a service to create the content for the wiki. There's a decent case to be made that they are acting on behalf of wiki when they edit or post an article, making the wiki ineligible for the protection offered by the law.
I'm not sure I follow, what exactly do you mean by "posting in their own areas" when distinguishing wiki software from well, forums like Hatrack? Also, does that mean that factor would treat the accompanying "discussion page" that is attached to every wikimedia article differently from the article itself?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I predict that even as the government is fighting this in the courts, they will spam the site into oblivion with bogus leaks and minutiae.
Even if it isn't done maliciously, the site will become bogged down with volume before long. A wiki is like a flea market; great for finding unexpected treasures, not so great for outfitting a revolution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I follow, what exactly do you mean by "posting in their own areas" when distinguishing wiki software from well, forums like Hatrack?
When you post on Hatrack, each user's post is not only identified but is presented as the separate expression of the user. A wiki does not make this distinction. I know you can look and see what each person changed, but the article is a single entity that is essentially the wiki's content.
The purpose of a wiki is to develop and present that content, not to allow individuals to post their individual content.
Again, this hasn't been clarified in court yet.
quote:Also, does that mean that factor would treat the accompanying "discussion page" that is attached to every wikimedia article differently from the article itself?
posted
Pooka and others, I don't think wikileaks is a true anybody-edits wiki. Every page cannot be edited. Though I could be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: My earlier statement rests on the premises that (1) people should generally keep their word; (2) when justification for breaking one's word exists, the breaking should be as constrained as possible to meet that justification; and (3) harm to innocent third parties should be minimized. Here, the ability to turn over information to the police in this case means that (2) is not satisfied and, as rivka points out, (3) is very likely not satisfied.
I certainly agree with (1) and (3), and (2) with some reservations.
quote:When the leak of trust structures was discovered in 2003, Bank Julius Baer initiated legal investigations on the Caymans, involving the search of the home of each employee and when not gaining any insights from that, undertaking a polygraph test on the employees. It still remained unclear where the data went. http://www.wikileaks.org.uk/wiki/Swiss_bank_obtains_injunction_against_whistleblower_site
So a leak occurred to a magazine, and the bank searches every employee's home? Isn't that overkill? It wouldn't even be contemplated in the US or most EU countries. Does that pass (3)? How about this:
quote: According to Elmer’s December 2007 court documents, he was subject to more or less permanent observation, as was his family.
His then 6-year old daughter was followed on her way to school, while his wife and daughter claim to have been engaged in a chase on a Swiss autobahn by the private detectives, which police confirmed to have intercepted.
What reason to follow and harass a 6-year-old, and the man's wife, other than to pressure Elmer? Does that pass (3)?
Finally,
quote: He hinted that he was in possession – lawfully - of information on the bank’s Cayman Islands operations, to make sure nothing would happen to him or his family.
Wikileaks said the document was submitted in a bundle with the legal denial notice issued by the prosecutor in Zurich after Elmer launched claims against the bank.
Elmer might not have broken any confidentiality agreements. The documents he sent to wikileaks seem to have come from a Zurich prosecutor after he was no longer an employee of the bank but was subject to harassment and bribe attempts from the bank.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So a leak occurred to a magazine, and the bank searches every employee's home? Isn't that overkill? It wouldn't even be contemplated in the US or most EU countries. Does that pass (3)?
quote:What reason to follow and harass a 6-year-old, and the man's wife, other than to pressure Elmer? Does that pass (3)?
You seem to be under the impression that I am defending the banks actions in response to the leak in any way. That impression is mistaken.
quote:Elmer might not have broken any confidentiality agreements. The documents he sent to wikileaks seem to have come from a Zurich prosecutor after he was no longer an employee of the bank but was subject to harassment and bribe attempts from the bank.
I carefully caveated the conditions under which I would find the injunction to be acceptable: "If this stuff was obtained in violation of a confidentiality agreement by the bank employee..."
Moreover, the quotation you provided does not say that the documents came from the Zurich prosecutor. It says the documents were submitted to wikileaks (presumably by Elmer, but the passive voice makes this hard to determine) with the legal denial notice.
Finally, we still have no additional information about whether he was subject to a confidentiality agreement: such agreements generally survive employment, and being in lawful possession of a piece of confidential information does not necessarily grant the right to reveal it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the actions of the bank I quoted predates the wikileak leak, and probably instigated it. The bank's legal actions afterwards are a separate issue.
Yes, wikileaks was a little coy there, it's hard to pin down the facts of the documents submission/origination.
That's why I said "might not have violated any confidentiality agreements."
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually the actions of the bank I quoted predates the wikileak leak, and probably instigated it. The bank's legal actions afterwards are a separate issue.
I was talking about the 2003 leak when I referred to "the banks actions in response to the leak," not the leak to wikileaks. I should have clarified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it makes sense in context now--the multiple leaks are confusing.
What I think is plausible is Elmer was used as a scapegoat for the original leaks, was harassed past his breaking point, found no justice with the Swiss or Cayman governments, and finally went to wikileaks. Not necessarily probable, he could have been the original whistle-blower--but plausible.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think you have an inherent faith in authority that, quite frankly, worries me. You could end up a DA, etc., and I don't want people in that job trusting cops or anybody else, at least not automatically. Maybe it's just my own exaggerated fear of power structures of all types. However, you scare me sometimes, not by what you say, but by what I fear it implies. I think you might be a little too quick to support authority, and that, IMHO, is not the best trait for someone who might end up as a judge or a DA, etc. Not that I think you're a bad guy, I really don't. I actually like you. However, I'd hate to see you prosecuting some hippy friend of mine for a nonviolent protest, and proceeding in good faith to believe the lies of the cops involved, then suddenly being saddened by finding out that they, the cops, lied. I don't mean to preach, I just know how some, not all, but some (about 50%, IME) really can be. They suck. They're awful. They abuse power, and have no problem doing so, and I don't think you know this. Which would be almost not worth remarking on, except for your career track. 'Nuff said, IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can tell, Dagonee's position is not based on placing trust in the police but rather based on protecting an individual's privacy. Here is what he said:
quote:(1) people should generally keep their word; (2) when justification for breaking one's word exists, the breaking should be as constrained as possible to meet that justification; and (3) harm to innocent third parties should be minimized.
#2 does not imply placing blind faith in the police. Notice that Dagonee said "as constrained as possible." If law enforcement fails to take proper action then more drastic options can be pursued.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that Dag is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Also, I've always hated being discussed as if I'm not actually reading the discussion, so...Dag, would you like to give us an idea of where you're at?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I believe that Dag is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.
Don't post in a public forum if you want a one-on-one conversation. I wasn't trying to put words in his s mouth. Only lightly interpret what he has already said.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Also, I've always hated being discussed as if I'm not actually reading the discussion
Maybe you should wonder why you give the impression of not actually reading the discussion.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Maybe you should wonder why you give the impression of not actually reading the discussion."
Because I hardly give a fig for Dag's actual opinion on this issue in comparison to how much I care about a more general discussion with him about his thoughts and feelings on trusting cops and authority. Hate me for thread drift, but that's where my head is at in the moment.
This is something that I've been wanting to bring up with him for at least the better part of a year, but haven't. I do that sometimes, keep silent for too long, then suddenly go off on a tangent. Sorry. However, I still want the issue addressed. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... The purpose of a wiki is to develop and present that content, not to allow individuals to post their individual content.
Oh, I get your point. Here's the thing though, from a brief look at Wikileaks, it seems that the primary purpose of the site is simply to use the Wikimedia software to post the content but not really to allow other users to edit the content except for posting their views on the content and how likely that content is to be true. The wiki part of the software seems to be a bit superfluous.
(I'm using content here to mean the leaked document)
If they simply re-organised around a different piece of software to something like this BBS, where the OP posts the leaked document and further contributors were clearly separated by post, would that not circumvent this particular objection and make wikileaks eligible for protection again?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I believe that Dag is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Also, I've always hated being discussed as if I'm not actually reading the discussion, so...Dag, would you like to give us an idea of where you're at?
I really have no desire to discuss things with someone who simply throws out assessments of my beliefs without even pretending to try to justify them. "Dag, I think you have an inherent faith in authority that, quite frankly, worries me" is without basis. In fact, my inherent distrust of authority is one of the things that drives my political and legal views most strongly.
Regardless, it's irrelevant to this discussion. In addition to Thread's analysis, as much as I distrust authority, I distrust more the idea that legal rights should be destroyed based on the decision of one potentially disgruntled employee.
quote:Because I hardly give a fig for Dag's actual opinion on this issue in comparison to how much I care about a more general discussion with him about his thoughts and feelings on trusting cops and authority.
Oh, gee - can we really have a discussion where you pick attack my core beliefs without exhibiting the least sign of understanding them? I'm so lucky you've singled me out for this honor.
quote:However, I still want the issue addressed.
The only hope - not promise, but hope - you have of getting me to address this issue is to explain the basis for your opinion with specific references to my posts to justify why you hold it.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Oh, I get your point. Here's the thing though, from a brief look at Wikileaks, it seems that the primary purpose of the site is simply to use the Wikimedia software to post the content but not really to allow other users to edit the content except for posting their views on the content and how likely that content is to be true. The wiki part of the software seems to be a bit superfluous.
(I'm using content here to mean the leaked document)
If they simply re-organised around a different piece of software to something like this BBS, where the OP posts the leaked document and further contributors were clearly separated by post, would that not circumvent this particular objection and make wikileaks eligible for protection again?
Thanks for the explanation. If that's the case, then the question would be even closer. The theory I described is untested as of now. If I ever right a paper on this, I'll use wikileaks as a comparison point.
quote:If they simply re-organised around a different piece of software to something like this BBS, where the OP posts the leaked document and further contributors were clearly separated by post, would that not circumvent this particular objection and make wikileaks eligible for protection again?
Very likely. That doesn't render it entirely immune, of course, but it probably allows it to gain the immunity shared by service providers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The only hope - not promise, but hope - you have of getting me to address this issue is to explain the basis for your opinion with specific references to my posts to justify why you hold it."
I don't necessarily hold it. You rarely provide your own thoughts on things, and it makes it hard to understand what spin you're putting on something. I'm not blaming you, necessarily, any more than I'm blaming myself. It's a tendency of yours, and I feel (based on my own tendencies) that I have to then make guesses and then test those guesses. So, I'm testing them by asking.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, either explain how my posts in this thread led you to say "Dag, this is why people hate lawyers" or leave me the hell alone.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I think being a lawyer is like having any kind of power. When you have power, it's natural to think less and less about what should be done, and more and more about what can be done. I'm not accusing you of this, I'm sort of thinking out loud. More to the point, though, is that it's very difficult to tell if you understand that people in power should not be automatically trusted any more than people not in power. I'm trying, perhaps imperfectly, to create space for you to talk. Woud you like to fill it?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
