Well, it took a whole day for wikileaks to be mirrored and redistributed, and now thousands of people are redistributing the wikileaks content. I am happy to say that I am one of them (using peer to peer technology). It would be immoral not to redistribute that content, especially since Julius Baer has tried to suppress
the content. the entire site, to get their content taken down.
In any case here is a link to the wikileaks site: http://220.127.116.11/wiki/Wikileaks
There is a big stink here. There is no reason for the judge to put a lock-down on the whole site. In addition, the DNS attack that has been reported by Wired Magazine seems strange–would a bank pay for a DNS attack? And the fire…?
It’s possible there is another leak that is being covered by the collateral damage inflicted by the Bank Julius Baer leak. The DNS attack needs to be analyzed. If it leads to BJB or someone else…? This is getting interesting.
Wikileaks, the whistleblower site that recently leaked documents related to prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, was taken offline last week by its U.S. host after posting documents that implicate a Cayman Islands bank in money laundering and tax evasion activities.
In a pretty extraordinary ex-parte move, the Julius Baer Bank and Trust got Dynadot, the U.S. hosting company and domain registrar for Wikileaks, to agree not only to take down the Wikileaks site but also to “lock the wikileaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar.” A judge in the U.S. District Court for Northern California signed off on the stipulation between the two parties last week without giving Wikileaks a chance to address the issue in court.
Julie Turner, an attorney in California who represented Wikileaks prior to this latest litigation but is not counsel for the group on this matter, is surprised that the court sanctioned such a broad agreement.
“It’s like saying that Time magazine published one page of sensitive material so (someone can) seize the entire magazine and put a lock on their presses,” she says.
Go Julie Turner Go!
When the bank’s lawyers indicated they would be filing a suit, she asked them to tell her where so that Wikileaks could find an attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction to represent it. She says the lawyers refused to tell her. Two and a half weeks later, the bank filed a restraining order against Dynadot and Wikileaks in San Francisco. Wikileaks received notice only a few hours before the case went to a judge who accepted the agreement between Dynadot and the bank.
Turner says that rather than trying to censor the information, the bank could have simply responded to the claims on the Wikileaks site. She also chastised the bank for not having better security over its documents.
Unless, of course the claims are in fact: True! How strange that wikileaks wasn’t given time to respond. Seems odd.
And, as I noted yesterday, due to the ’09 F9 effect’ the files from the wikileaks site can be found all over the web, esp. piratebay. I can’t believe how stupid these high priced lawyers are. Here’s a clue: if you want something plastered all over the world, from Antarctica to Greenland, just try to suppress it. Web 2.0 has spoken: “Thou shalt not EVER be permitted to put the genie back in the bottle!”
In any case, here are the links, thanks to Wired magazine, who have thoughtfully updated the article with links, and which E_F covers here, as part of the news reporting on this important matter of public concern:
UPDATE: Readers have asked for links to access Wikileaks. Cryptome has provided the bank documents in a convenient download. You can also view a mirror of the Wikileaks site or download a torrent of the Wikileaks archive. Alternatively, as a few readers have pointed out, you can still reach the original Wikileaks site by using this direct link to it.