Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Privacy Your Rights Online

WikiLeaks Case Reopened 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Case Reopened

Comments Filter:
  • by djcapelis ( 587616 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:03AM (#22598094) Homepage
    One simple command should take care of all this:
    echo "" >> /etc/hosts

    Done! My system is now judge-proof. :)
    • Re:A simple patch (Score:4, Interesting)

      by n3tcat ( 664243 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:40AM (#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?
      • 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @08:42AM (#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.
        • by Bovius ( 1243040 )
          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.
    • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:04AM (#22598098) Homepage
    It doesn't matter so much if you're right or wrong, but which side the judge (and/or jury) believes.
  • Responded harshly (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gazbo ( 517111 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:16AM (#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?"
    • by tgd ( 2822 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:59AM (#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!
    • 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.
    • by MrHanky ( 141717 )
      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 wi
      • by gazbo ( 517111 )
        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"?
        • by MrHanky ( 141717 )
          None of that part, of course. Read the sentence before it. Those papers were already leaked.
    • by downix ( 84795 )
      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 th
  • Oblig (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @05:19AM (#22598144) [] [] []
    File archive torrent []
  • When does the case take place? B/c right now it's only 7:05am on the west coast.
    • by Bovius ( 1243040 )
      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.
  • by Jaysyn ( 203771 )
    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

Forty two.