[johnnyburst79]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm

A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US. Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says. The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities. Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed. However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers. The court also ordered that Dynadot should "prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis. Our primary interests are in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we expect to be of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact...(more)

The Judge in this case, Judge Jeffery White, was appointed by President Bush. More censorship by the Bush Co.

I can understand that legal documents must be kept from public view that are to be used in legal proceedings, but to shut down an entire site instead of to remove the offending material is ludicrous and totally unjustified. Furthermore, the case has to do with a Swiss bank operating in the Cayman Islands, why must the US get involved? The servers are hosted here, yes, but should not the site be blocked in the offending country?

[Chicon]

The judge's decision is a wise one.
If the mass document leaking is untraceable, who will be able to tell if the documents are forgeries or not ?

[johnnyburst79]

I am in agreeance that the documents should be taken down, but to have the entire site taken down is wrong IMHO.

[Chicon]

It makes no sense to keep the site alive. If people are not allowed to show documents, all they say will be considered as allegations. On the web, there're millions of blogs where people may freely express their concerns.
IMO, it is the job of journalists to investigate about and to report what is good or wrong in the government of their countries.

[johnnyburst79]

The documents described were involved with a court case. If the documents are not involved with a court case, what is the problem?

[gordon russell]

Hello johnnyburst79 . If the site had just kept to former Soviet bloc, sub-Sahara Africa and Middle Eastern nations,[ with the caveat of ' no major oil suppliers ? ] . it may have been " allowed " to exist . But endangering a Western Swiss bank is Corporate , Capitalist anathema . Big Brother could probably read all the postings, sender info. etc. anyway . It would not be my route to blow the whistle, but glad it put the willies up the banks .

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by johnnyburst79

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm

The Judge in this case, Judge Jeffery White, was appointed by President Bush. More censorship by the Bush Co.

I can understand that legal documents must be kept from public view that are to be used in legal proceedings, but to shut down an entire site instead of to remove the offending material is ludicrous and totally unjustified. Furthermore, the case has to do with a Swiss bank operating in the Cayman Islands, why must the US get involved? The servers are hosted here, yes, but should not the site be blocked in the offending country?

No end to corruption!

[Lost in Here]

This was also in the articles of note thread

The site is still up, just use the ip address not the domain nam.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Lost in Here

This was also in the articles of note thread

The site is still up, just use the ip address not the domain nam.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

[GiganticSquirrel]

.

Wish I would have known about that site before it shut down.


Way too dangerous for corporate America...


It is problematic in that anyone could forge and present documents. It would create anonymous slander and probably spin out of control eventually.


.

[valis]

can still get there here.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

[GiganticSquirrel]

Originally Posted by valis

can still get there here.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

Very Cool, Thanks. Unfortunately, I must get some real work done today. I hope the site stays up for a while.

[Fidelista]

Works for me >f

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by johnnyburst79

The documents described were involved with a court case. If the documents are not involved with a court case, what is the problem?

How about privacy and trade secret? I suspect if it was your company and people were posting these documents you'd be quite upset.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

No end to corruption!

Moore-onic statement. Are you saying that employees of your bar should be able to post whatever documents they obtain from the company on the Internet?

Sometimes I wonder if some of you people actually THINK before you post. Chicon is the only one that recognized the legal issues here.