Quote :

"To Stop a Leak Did Bank Julius Baer overstep when it demanded an entire Web site be disabled for hosting a handful of documents? By Brian Braiker Newsweek Web Exclusive http://www.newsweek.com/id/114415 Updated: 4:28 PM ET Feb 21, 2008 The Julius Baer Bank claimed in papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco this week that a fired executive stole internal documents and illegally posted them on Wikileaks, a Web site that specializes in publishing anonymous leaks and whistle-blowers. A federal judge ordered the site's Web address blocked for posting the internal documents, which accused a bank branch of money laundering and tax-evasion schemes. It was, by all accounts, an innovative move: when threatening Wikileaks with legal action didn't get the documents removed, the bank demanded that Dynadot, the domain-name registrar, block traffic to wikileaks.org. Curious Web surfers were, as a result, not only rendered unable to access the Julius Baer documents, but everything else posted on Wikileaks, as well. (Of course, a bevy of mirror sites and alternative Web addresses--including the original numeric Internet protocol address for Wikileaks--remained available, and began rapidly multiplying after the judge's order came down.) Lawyers for both Dynadot and the Julius Baer bank declined to comment on the case. In a statement on one of its mirror sites, Wikileaks responded: "When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch ... But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown." The court has scheduled a hearing on the injunction for Feb. 29. Dan Tynan, who writes the Gadget Freak column for PC World magazine and maintains the insidery Robert X. Cringely blog Notes From the Field for InfoWorld, noted yesterday that "the bank's solution is so mind-bogglingly stupid, you have to wonder if these guys need help getting their pants on each morning." Tynan, who also writes the Our Digital Life column for US Airways Magazine, spoke with NEWSWEEK's Brian Braiker about the Wikileaks imbroglio and what he expects to happen next. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: My understanding is that a judge ordered the registrar to disable the Wikileaks.org domain. Was he overreaching? Dan Tynan: Absolutely. In many ways, he was overreaching and underreaching at the same time, actually. How so? He was overreaching because he ordered the site shut down when you're really only talking about a handful of documents out of more than a million. He was underreaching because all he did was turn off the domain name Wikileaks.org. He didn't turn off the Web site. Say you're operating an illegal gambling ring out of your living room. Now, to punish you I'm going to take your number out of the phone book. The number still exists. And the Wikileaks Internet protocol still exists. Not only that, but Wikileaks operates mirror sites in several countries, all of which were completely unaffected. It's funny that you mention that because Wikileaks is based outside the United States. Both plaintiffs also reside outside the U.S. The company Wikileaks registered its domain name with is the only American operator in this case. Does the judge even have jurisdiction? Probably not. I think they went after the registrar because it's based in San Mateo, Calif., and they could find them. [The people who run Wikileaks] are all very well hidden. They are anonymous, they use servers in Sweden used by the same guys who operate Pirate Bay--which is notoriously used by people to swap movies and music. It's call bulletproof hosting and it's typically used by spammers and people on the dark side. These people are using it for good. What the Julius Baer Bank did was go for the lowest hanging fruit. And they shot themselves in the foot by doing it. Because now everybody's heard about Wikileaks? Talk about free publicity. I had never heard about Wikileaks before and now, frankly, I'm glad I did. Not only did this publicize the existence of Wikileaks, but they publicized the fact that this bank is [allegedly] helping people evade taxes and launder money. Even if that's not true, everyone thinks it is because of the coverage the story has gotten. It's classically stupid. Did Dynadot fold? Yeah. They fell over. What should they have done? They didn't really have too many choices, I don't think. If you look at any legal agreement with any [Internet service provider], if you read the fine print it says we will keep your information confidential unless we get a court order, in which case you're toast. There are few cases of people resisting that. You've had people like the [Recording Industry Association of America] going on fishing expeditions. The RIAA asked Verizon to give them lists, saying we want everyone's information at certain IP addresses [suspected of harboring pirated music. Verizon declined. Over all, though, you're kind of stuck if you're Dynadot. Is that RIAA case the closest parallel? The other parallel that comes to mind is demanding information from journalists and jailing journalists for not revealing sources. Another is Apple suing sites for leaking confidential information. What Apple is trying to do is find out the names of the sources of leaked information, though. These guys are a little different. Julius Baer Bank actually claims to know the name of the employee that posted these files. What they're trying to do is have them taken down. What they've done is permanently enshrined them on the Internet. Because of all the mirror sites that have popped up? It's the Streisand Effect. Barbara Streisand sued to get some satellite photos of her house removed from the Web. What that ended up doing is that people downloaded the pictures and posted them elsewhere, making it impossible to find and take them all down. You don't sound too surprised by all the bloggy furor that has erupted. One of the things I mentioned in my blog is that at first blush I was outraged. My second response was "what a great story." It has all the elements of a big evil corporation versus a plucky upstart trying to do good. Does a case like this have the makings of something that could end up before the Supreme Court? There is another hearing on the 29th of February. My guess is that it will not get that far. I would hope that the folks at this bank have learned their lesson. They've blown it, and they may just want to back off. They can't do anything now. They can't remove the files. All they can do is hope people forget about them, and the best way for people to forget about them is to drop the case. We've recently seen the Church of Scientology threaten Web sites for posting internal documents online. Is there a trend toward clamping down on content online? Or, as we're seeing with all these little sites hosting the Julius Baer documents, does the Web simply make it almost too easy to distribute content? Both. With the Scientology thing, it was posted and pulled by major corporations. [The Web site] Gawker[.com] decided it was newsworthy and stuck with it. So the smaller guys are hoping to hide under the cover of "there's ten thousand of us; if they find me there's still 9,999 of us." There's two movements: defiant copyright holders attempting to assert more control--like when we saw Viacom sue YouTube for $1 billion--versus a million ants scurring around, each carrying a crumb. You can't step on all of them. If Pirate Bay is taken down, someone else will take their place. Sounds like both a good thing and a bad thing. It can be positive or negative. I'm happy to have government secrets posted on the Web. But I'm not so sure I am happy to have my own. There are some things that are for the public good. The question is: who decides?"

silly judge....


once again, the legal community hasn't kept pace with the rapid growth of internet technology

I only see this kind of thing getting worse with time (or better, depending on how you look at it)

of course, I always thought WW3 would be a global cyber-war with little distinction between civilians & the military

2/24/2008 9:21:45 AM

Holy shit, this site is fregin awesome!

https://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks

DOWN WITH THE MAN!

2/24/2008 9:45:47 AM

lol, I love the obvious complete disregard for the order.

The details of it seem sketchy, i don't understand them.

https://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks.org_under_injunction

2/24/2008 10:26:03 AM

Why do you guys hate our freedom?

USA #1

2/24/2008 12:39:26 PM

awesome

Quote :

" Wikileaks takes its sources seriously. Wikileaks takes their efforts to get material out to the public very seriously. That means we are obligated not only to protect their identity, should they desire, but also to give full voice to the risks they have taken. This is our moral bedrock. As the following correspondence demonstrates, BJB refused to put their allegations in writing as repeatedly requested. Consequently continued publication was a foregone conclusion. Wikileaks received no further demands from BJB until the surprise ex-parte hearing. Full correspondence over the demands follow: ----- Forwarded message from Wikileaks Legal <legal@wikileaks.org> ----- X-Original-To: legal@wikileaks.org Delivered-To: legal@wikileaks.org Privacy: yes Privacy: yes From: Wikileaks Legal <legal@wikileaks.org> To: Evan Spiegel <espiegel@lavelysinger.com> Cc: Wikileaks Legal <legal@wikileaks.org>, Wikileaks <wikileaks@wikileaks.org>, usa@wikileaks.org Subject: Re: Legal Notice & Demands Privacy: yes In-Reply-To: <20080116202710.29B2C393F34@mail.wikileaks.org> Privacy: yes Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:39:08 +0000 (GMT) > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:28:11PM +0000, Evan Spiegel wrote: > > > Dear Sir or Madam: > > > > > > Please immediately send the undersigned your full contact details for > > > transmission of legal notices with regard to content posted on wikileaks > > > that constitute violation of tradesecrets, conversion and stolen > > > documents by former employee in violation of a written confidentiality > > > agreement and copyright infringement, among other wrongful and tortuous > > > conduct. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Evan N. Spiegel > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ. > > > LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION > > > ATTORNEYS AT LAW > > > 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400 > > > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906 > > > TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501 > > > FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615 > > > http://www.LavelySinger.com > > > E-MAIL: espiegel@lavelysinger.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wikileaks [mailto:wikileaks@wikileaks.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:57 PM > > To: Evan Spiegel > > Cc: legal@wikileaks.org > > Subject: Re: Legal Notice & Demands > > > > Dear Mr. Spiegel, > > > > Wikileaks is run over multiple national jurisdictions. So we can > > assign your request to the appropriate group for processing, please > > inform us which document(s) you are referring to, the name and > > jurisdiction of your client and the jurisdiction under which L&S > > is making legal claims or demands. > > > > Best wishes, > > K Lim. > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:33:36PM +0000, Evan Spiegel wrote: > > > > Dear K Lim: > > The jurisdictions at issue include California, the UK and Switzerland. > > Legal proceedings will be commenced separately in each location should > > the stolen documents at issue not be removed. Please provide contact > > information for your legal representatives in each of the three > > locations in order that we may transmit formal legal demands and notices > > with detailed information with regard to the claims and identifying the > > documents at issue. As you should be aware, under US federal copyright > > law, it is your legal obligation to provide contact information for a > > designated DMCA agent - this is our second request. > > Sincerely, > > Evan N. Spiegel > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ. > > LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION > > ATTORNEYS AT LAW > > 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400 > > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906 > > TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501 > > FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615 > > http://www.LavelySinger.com > > E-MAIL: espiegel@lavelysinger.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikileaks Legal [mailto:legal@wikileaks.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:01 PM > To: Evan Spiegel > Cc: Wikileaks; legal@wikileaks.org > Subject: Re: Legal Notice & Demands > > Dear Mr Spiegel, > > Thank you for your part answer. > > We receive many notices from different jurisdictions. We ask that > you as a matter of efficiency and politeness read carefully our > responses. We asked that you provide a list of the documents concerned > and the client or clients represented. We will then provide you > with the legal contact details of the most appropriate counsel from > our pool. > > Failure to provide the information requested in a timely manner may > introduce additional delays and processing costs. Our counsel may > claim these costs from your client should the matter proceed. > > I have asked one of our DCMA counsel to follow up on the DCMA > the specific DMCA technicalities you mention which may have been > introduced when we went from a single counsel to a pool. > > In the mean time, we note that your client(s) have and have always > had an automatic public right of reply to any material made available > through any Wikileaks website. > > Best wishes, > K Lim. > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:27:09PM +0000, Evan Spiegel wrote: > > Dear Wikileaks: > > Your continued failure and refusal to provide designated DMCA agent > contact information, despite request from counsel and our statement of > location/jurisdiction, is now documented and will be included in our > evidence exhibits in our complaint and application with the court for an > injunction against wikileaks. > > As a result of your failure and continued refusal to comply with the > requirements of the copyright act, you have thus waived the safe-harbor > provisions therein and will be held liable for copyright infringement. > You have no legal right to demand advance knowledge of the name of our > client and the documents at issue -- that is the information that is to > be and will be included in a DMCA notice and demand letter. The > copyright act DMCA requirements are quite clear. > > Your site promotes, encourages and facilitates the publication and > distribution of stolen, illegally and/or tortiously obtained corporate > records and private records of third-party consumers, including that of > my client and its consumers. In furtherance thereof, you hide your > identity and refuse to provide legal contact information. Accordingly, > we have been instructed to proceed with an action against you in federal > court in California. > > This is your final warning -- if you desire to resolve this matter > without the necessity of litigation, your counsel may contact the > undersigned within twenty-four hours. > > You act at your own peril. > > Govern yourselves accordingly. > > Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to > constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of our client's rights or > remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly > reserved. > > Sincerely, > Evan N. Spiegel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > EVAN N. SPIEGEL, ESQ. > LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION > ATTORNEYS AT LAW > 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400 > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2906 > TELEPHONE: (310) 556-3501 > FACSIMILE: (310) 556-3615 > http://www.LavelySinger.com > E-MAIL: espiegel@lavelysinger.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Dear Mr. Spiegal, Your opinions are baseless and entirely rejected. Please confine yourself to the facts in any future correspondence and keep your tone civil. Wikileaks is an international in scope. You have made vague references to several different national jurisdictions, but extremely oddly, refuse to name your client or any matter relevant to us, including the names of any documents you object to. Under the circumstances we feel you may not be acting in good faith. Your odd refusal to provide even the most basic information makes it appear that you are trying to set up some obscure provision in DCMA law and have little interest in resolving what you claim to be the issue at hand when given an opportunity to do so. Infact you have provided us with no information for us to ascertain that we have any involvement whatsoever with your concealed client. As a organization for justice and the upholding of first amendment rights we are somewhat of a cause celibre amongst lawyers and are able to maintain a pool of high first rate councel to respond to requests, each of which specializes in some juristiction or area of law. Refusal to identify your client and the documents concerned makes this assignment difficult. Are you now claiming something in relation to the DCMA? In California? Is this your primary claim? Please be clear. Best wishes, K. Kim. ----- End forwarded message ----- https://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Full_correspondence_between_Wikileaks_and_Bank_Julius_Baer"

[quote]




[Edited on February 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2008 1:33:48 PM

Your bank transfer of fail has arrived

2/24/2008 8:40:19 PM

2:1 on WikiLeaks.

2/24/2008 9:06:57 PM

We must remember that the Constitution is just a living, breathing document. That First Amendment thingie can be mis-read by folks who think they have so-called freedom

Judges are put there so we don't have to read stuff we don't need to be readin.

2/24/2008 10:10:44 PM

you can do better than that

2/24/2008 10:23:50 PM

^^
sarcasm detector reads: "inconclusive"

2/25/2008 7:48:56 AM

^^^
sarcasm? or are you actually backing the judge here?

2/28/2008 2:18:14 PM

If you look up the "Bank Julius Baer" category on the site, almost all articles are on tax evasion cases, mainly dealing with the Cayman Islands.

2/28/2008 3:08:21 PM

i wonder how much spam that lawyer has been signed up since this went up there

2/28/2008 8:21:19 PM

bump by request

11/25/2009 7:23:33 PM

Quote :

"The following are national US pager intercepts that cover the September 11 tragedy from 3am on the same day (Tuesday) until 3am the following day. Due to popular demand we provide a new block of pager data every 5 minutes, synchronized to the actual time of day the message was sent. This way the world has a chance to objectively see how the tragedy progressed. A full archive containing all the messages will be released on Thursday November 26 at the conclusion."

http://911.wikileaks.org/files/index.html

This seems like something that possibly may be illegal.

Most of the texts appear to be automated messages; however, a good portion of them include names, email addresses, and even phone numbers that I assume people would have preferred to not have leaked onto the internet.

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 7:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/25/2009 7:47:06 PM