Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Networking United States

WikiLeaks Moves To Swiss Domain After DNS Takedown 488

Posted by Soulskill
from the musical-dns-providers dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Netcraft posted two reports on the movement of the WikiLeaks website today. First the site was taken down by EveryDNS, who terminated the DNS provision for wikileaks.org. A few hours later, WikiLeaks moved to a Swiss domain (wikileaks.ch). Netcraft suggests this move could be because the wikileaks.org domain was registered with a US company, which could be influenced by the US government. The new wikileaks.ch site is hosted in Sweden, but redirects all of its traffic to France. Strangely, WikiLeaks has chosen to use EveryDNS again for their new domain." This follows Amazon's removal of WikiLeaks from their cloud hosting, which has the EFF and others worrying about free speech on the net as various hosting providers receive political pressure to censor certain content. Amazon claims their decision wasn't influenced by a government inquiry, while Tableau Software freely admits that a public request from Senator Joe Lieberman prompted them to take down WikiLeaks data visualizations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Moves To Swiss Domain After DNS Takedown

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:05AM (#34429628)

    LOL!

  • by Shivetya (243324) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:08AM (#34429646) Homepage Journal

    and brave in dictating how we think other people's money should be spent.

    Welcome to the me generation, where the freedom and justice are just buzzwords to drive angst on message boards, but wait Jennifer Anniston has a new boyfriend? I can't believe they allowed that Palin girl to get to the finals, and did you see who the new judges on Idol are going to be?

  • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:09AM (#34429648) Homepage Journal

    So why did they take that customer back?

  • by migla (1099771) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:10AM (#34429654)

    And, ultimately, no more Internet? Or what are the power elites gonna do to hide their shenanigans from the people?

    If this is what the so-called free and so-called democratic world is, I'd say we must be progressing nicely towards a total worldwide fascist corporate police state and/or a distributed and decentralized revolution to eliminate all hierarchies.

    Anarchism (as in wiki/Anarchism) FTW!

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:13AM (#34429666)
    So at what line do we consider something as 'free speech' no matter if it is in print, or on the internet?

    If a newspaper gets classified information through regular investigative journalism, they are now NOT allowed to print that information? (see: Pentagon Papers) [wikipedia.org]

    If Joe Lieberman was in power in 1971, would we even know the extent of the corruption of the Johnson and Nixon administrations? Or would all their lies and wrongdoing just be 'swept under the rug' and out of sight, out of mind? Would the New York Times and the Washington Post be threatened and censored from publishing their information?

    Some quotes to contemplate:
    Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. - Potter Stewart
    The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. - George Bernard Shaw
    The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. - John Gilmour
    As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends. - Jeremy Bentham
  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:20AM (#34429710) Journal

    The romans had bread and circuses, the conservatives/tories have home owner ship, holland has to mortage deduction and America has the two cars in the drive way.

    What does this do? It is about creating a working "middle" class. A hard working "middle" class. But not a real middle class. Not a middle class that has power but a middle class that have just enough to give them something to loose if they try to gain anything. The principle is VERY simple. Feed the masses just enough to don't make it an issue of starve or riot but rather, eat enough or riot and starve.

    Strike, and you loose your mortage, can't make the monthly car payments and therefor you got to swallow everything, just so you can keep the two cars you so desperately need for the job to pay for the cars because there is no public transport alternative.

    It is VERY effective. Look at the recent election results, people voted to protect the rights of rich people. Unemployed people voted against unemployment protection. All in the believe that they are some kind of middle class that doesn't need any government protection from the super rich. The divide between rich and poor has never been so big and the poor are voting to increase the gap.

    Forget about letting them eat cake. Let them dream of cake, and they will go as sheep to the slaughterhouse.

    There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

  • by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel,hedblom&gmail,com> on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:30AM (#34429780) Homepage Journal

    If the US has a hidden goal of making China look pretty moderate and nice in comparison to the west, its working like a charm. It would be doubleplus ironic if China would lighten their censoring at the same time as the west applies what now looks like total censorship on all leaked material.

    I was uncertain before but now im 100% certain, China will take over as the next super power and it will happen a lot faster than i could ever expect. I couldnt imagine just how willing the west is to commit seppuku and dismantle the democracy in favour for totalitarian fascism. Moussilini would be proud.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:31AM (#34429792)

    One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

    Is that you Prince Andrew?

  • Open Government (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:31AM (#34429794)
    And so now that Open Government has well and truly arrived our leaders are busy trying to shut it down. Well the public have had no privacy for a long time. Now politicians and bureaucrats are getting a taste of their own medicine.

    The moral is don't say or do anything unless you wouldn't mind the entire world knowing. That means you too, Hillary!
  • by unity100 (970058) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:41AM (#34429892) Homepage Journal
    now what's important is, what are you americans going to do about this. some dipshit is censoring you at his will, using the power you gave to him.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:44AM (#34429924)

    There is a reason the rich are rich. They are smarter then the poor people.

    I wasn't aware that being born to rich parents means you are intelligent. There can only be so many opportunities to exploit during one's lifetime. Sure, there are always brilliant and/or lucky people (usually both) who ride the innovation wave, but most of the "elite" could trace it's money at least a generation back.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:56AM (#34430054) Journal

    Democracy ONLY works when the public is well informed and this means the public must know things you would rather keep secret. How can I vote for the guy who is going to make foreign policy if I don't know the foreign policy?

    Yes, this makes life very hard for democratic leaders. Though shit. It comes with the political system. I am sure cops would be able to do their jobs far better if we restrict the freedom of citizens as well. For instance a curfew would make patrolling the streets just so much easier.

    But we can't do that so we accept that criminals go free because they got rights.

    Wikileaks just made life harder for US politicians. So? What do you value more? Freedom or an easy life for the diplomatic core?

    And the silly thing is that the outrage isn't really present in the countries the US has the most troubled relations with. Iran doesn't even give a shit.

    But all this HAS given the US public a real insight into the true goings on on the diplomatic front. Just what is the official line? Well now we know. So we can base our votes on that... or one who promises the largest tax cut. Whatever takes the shortest attention span.

  • by segedunum (883035) on Friday December 03, 2010 @09:57AM (#34430064)

    There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

    Hmmmm. OK. Fair enough.

    It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments.

    Right..... That sounds like a pretty political statement to me. Firstly, Amazon cannot say whether or not WikiLeaks controlled or had 'rights' to the content on there nor is it Amazon's place to judge whether it was putting anyone in jeopardy. Given that's almost the exact wording of the government 'enquiry' then the first statement seems grossly inaccurate. None of what Amazon says has been established legally.

  • This Is Huge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:04AM (#34430142) Homepage Journal

    This issue goes to the heart of the controversy over who controls the internet; specifically who controls ICANN and the DNS root servers.

    Right now, DNS control resides with the United States, and up to this point they have defended this status quo by assurring the world that the US is a bastion of absolute free speech and therefore best placed to control this most centralised, hierarchical and critical piece of internet architecture.

    And now, when faced with the first real and signifigant test of its will, the United States' resolve crumples almost immediately. Gone is any guarantee--implied or otherwise--that the DNS servers will be beyond political or domestic influences(In truth, the takeing down of "terrorist" sites has been ongoing for some years). The weak appeal that these are the actions of a private company is a thin rag which fails to cover the US governments nakedness. This censorship is on the express will of the government.

    This was the first real test; the US failed it. This has the potential to split DNS completely; with US trust now bankrupt, no other country will give it credit. In 5 years time, when you go looking for wikileaks.org or indeed slashdot.org, don't expect to get the same IP address as everyone else.

  • Real Villains... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Notquitecajun (1073646) on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:05AM (#34430168)
    At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.
  • Enough Side Talk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:15AM (#34430272) Homepage Journal

    For fucks sake, can we give the social polemical shit a rest for just one article?

    The heart of the internet just skipped a beat. This is important in a technical and political sense. Is it too much to ask for some comments giving technical insight into the DNS system, historical precedents, or exisiting context? Instead we get a +5 copy paste rant about the death of the middle class that could be placed in just about any other thread or a ZeroHedge comment section for that matter.

    TOPIC, GENTLEMEN; PLEASE.

  • by should_be_linear (779431) on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:22AM (#34430360)
    I proudly closed my Amazon Account and also reversed EC2 deployment plans of my company. I know, it is not like Amazon could care less, but I _had_ to do it.
  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:23AM (#34430368) Homepage Journal

    No, it's Sarah Palin.

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:31AM (#34430458) Journal
    I think you're underestimating the difference between rich and poor in Rome. The very poorest were slaves - they could be raped or killed by their owners without any legal redress. They could be flogged (sometimes killed) simply for showing disrespect to any member of the Patrician class, although if this person was not the owner then they might be expected to make some financial restitution (to the owner, not the slave). Meanwhile, the Patricians were waited on hand and foot, had access to good food, entertainment, and very little trouble. They had the best medical care that their society could provide (admittedly, very primitive by modern standards), and often lived to a similar age to the rich today, largely due to a good diet. In times of plague, they would retire to their country estates, where they were effectively quarantined (any slaves near them showing signs of illness were killed and the bodies burned immediately) until the infection ceased to be a problem in the city.

    The gap between rich and poor is large in America today, but certainly not the largest that it's ever been. Even if you confine yourself to American history, I think you'll find that the gap between a typical black slave working on a plantation and his owner was larger than any gaps you'd find today. Just compare their average lifespans...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:39AM (#34430546)

    One morning Julian Assange will awaken to see an unmanned drone hovering outside his bedroom window. It will fire a small but deadly missile through his window, ending his miserable little life. And I will smile...

    So when you say a small missile from an unmanned (by your tone, US) drone, you mean it'll take out half a city block, murder two hundred innocent civilians and be in an area where Assange hasn't lived in six months?

  • by divisionbyzero (300681) on Friday December 03, 2010 @10:59AM (#34430782)

    At what point will wikileaks go after who they were originally intended - despots in Africa and the Middle East, and maybe some dirty corporations? Just about everything that I've seen released this time is a bunch of "well, duh" stuff and driven by base anti-Americanism. I'm not saying some secrets don't need to be exposed, just that Assange seems so callous in doing it.

    Uh, if the greatest trove of confidential information in history about one of the most holier-than-thou countries in the world (and I say this as an American) fell into your lap, you'd be a complete moron not to publish it.

  • by Q-Hack! (37846) * on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:00AM (#34430790)

    Nice strawman argument in the video... "The erosion of the middle class"

    It always amazes me how people fixate on the disparity of the distribution of wealth. Let me say this a distinctly as I can... SO WHAT! It shouldn't matter that so-in-so makes $10 billion and I only make $30,000. Ask yourself this, what is your standard of living? Could it improve? If so, then take responsibility and improve it. Stop worrying about the Jones and start worrying about your own situation. Do you find yourself in a career path that doesn't lead to promotion? Change it. Can't find a job in your chosen profession? Change it. Take responsibility for your own life and stop worrying about others.

    Every time I make this argument, I always get a response to the effect of: We should help those who need a leg up... I say BAH! There are plenty of resources to help those in need already. Giving handouts (redistribution of wealth?) does nothing more than encourage the poor to stay poor.

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime - Lao Tzu

  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:15AM (#34431002)

    Dude, you're arguing with the Slashdot Ideological Brigade. There is no hope. There is no reason. It's a pack of teens and young "adults" who have somehow already managed to ossify their brains with the political equivalents of crystal meth and heroin. These are the people who think they live in an actual police state and the NSA is building $100 billion dollar decryption farms to find out what women's underwear they secretly buy on amazon.

    You might as well argue the merits of love and charity with Dexter Morgan. They simply cannot understand the idea that if, say, Bill Gates makes another dollar, that does *not* prevent them from earning their own dollar. They view the "rich" as Scrooge McDuck swimming around in a money vault, all those gold coins locked away forever and not, say, out there acting as capital and investments. It's a pre-school, cartoon view of economics that sadly affects all of our cukture. That's why we (as a society) keep doing the same dumb things and voting for the same sociopaths over and over again.

    Pogo (speaking of cartoons) was absolutely right. Disclaimer: yeah, I feel the same way about the Tea Party. All you ideologues can go fuck off and die already. You're fucking killing us.

  • by The Fanta Menace (607612) on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:17AM (#34431016) Homepage
    Your economy is in the shitter because you've spent trillions chasing ghosts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe if you spent the money on, gee, INFRASTRUCTURE, like rail and roads, and thereby plowing money back into your own country, you might have something to show for the last ten years, instead of thousands of dead soldiers.
  • by fast turtle (1118037) on Friday December 03, 2010 @11:24AM (#34431126) Journal

    They Can't? Strange, they've got the money to afford the Lawyers and pay off the judges in the case of a DUI involving a fatality. To me that's getting away with Murder (Killing someone). They're also major stock holders in corporations that sell products that kill thousands if not millions of people (Bhopal India) - Mass Murder and don't forget Enron. How many people lost their life savings there plus the manipulation of the California Energy Crisis? How many folks died there due to the rolling blackouts - elederly and sick folks on medical equipment?

    There's alot that the wealthy do that impact the middle/lower classes directly. Things such as the so called War on Terror. Who started the war? It sure as hell wasn't the American People. It was the Fat Rich Cats who think Profit at all Cost is the only way to make money. To hell with ethics and responsibilities.

  • by daem0n1x (748565) on Friday December 03, 2010 @12:23PM (#34431970)

    Ah, I love the smell of blind, rampaging individualism in the morning!

    You may have heard about the "poverty trap". Poverty is a condition that's really hard to reverse, most people will never do it and will pass it along to their children.

    With social support, many of the poor can improve their way of living. They can study, they can have their kids in school, they can have better health and education, which makes them better workers, benefiting the whole economy in the end. Yes, I mean you and me.

    Of course, just throwing money at them will fix nothing, of course. That's what a populist politician would do. But social programs are not about throwing money at the poor.

    Without social support, all the poor can do is fight against each other for day-to-day survival. I think it's pretty clear this doesn't bring up the best in people. Just correlate the crime rates with social protection in rich countries, and it's pretty clear.

    A very small percentage, the smarter of the poor, will probably make it into the middle class. A minority will resort to crime, hurting society (yes, you and me). The vast majority will live a life of scarcity and resignation. It's not so bad if at least you can survive and have your basic needs covered. When this is not the case, it sucks big time.

    Even worse, instead of the social ascension you talk about like it's so easy, I've been watching more and more middle-class raised people fall into poverty. Many with higher education have shitty jobs where they make the minimum wage or little more. And there's no way they can improve their situation because more and more companies have employees fighting between each other like dogs. Guess who wins, the competent and honest or the greedy and deceitful? Once again, the whole society loses.

    The more money goes to the few richer, the more they want. The less they will want to contribute to the lower layers, and money brings power, so it gives them even more ways to shit the balance to their side. This eventually hurts the vast majority of the people. If you can't see this, you have your brain washed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03, 2010 @01:32PM (#34433282)

    Ah, state mandated murder! I assume you're American?

  • by Prune (557140) on Friday December 03, 2010 @02:36PM (#34434486)
    One great tool against this problem is raising the estate tax.

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...