 |
|
The order had the effect of locking the front door to the site – a largely ineffectual action that still kept back doors to the site available to sophisticated Web users who knew where to look…
The feebleness of the action suggests that the bank, and the judge, did not understand how the domain system works, or how quickly Web communities will move to counter actions they see as hostile to free speech online.
The site is still available at its IP address and mirror sites.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5813 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I must admit my first reaction is to support this because “secrets” should not be revealed. The same documents could be used in a lawsuit wherein the need for secrecy is balanced against the merits of the lawsuit and a considered judgment is made==all for the purpose of protecting opposing legitimate interests.
Then just yesterday I saw the near dead Daniel Schorr on Book TV regailing the crowd of college students with his memoirs and opinions. He said the damage occasioned by release of secrets was far less than the damage done by the government acting in secrecy. Bushieboy has clamped down across the board making our government more secret than it has ever been. Hillary has the same MO.
So, I’ve switched positions. There should be a high bias towards a transparent government. If there is stuff that really should be secret, most people working with it would keep it so.
Just like camera’s in public–“the truth” has a paramount value over anonymity and claims of privacy/national security.
Transparent gov’t is all well and good, but they are breaking laws.
This one is similar and more disturbing to me:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331469,00.html
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3663
The Judge backed off a bit.
The lawyers and legal aids at Groklaw are paying close attention to this, between making comments about SCO.
Of course the government has secrets that need to be kept. But it has shown no concern whatsoever of its citizens rights to privacy and confidentiality. The issue cuts both ways.
This story is TOTAL BULL, The judge in question rescinded that order {to force the i.s.p. to close the site) Hours after his first ruling, “upon further consideration it’s a question of free speech bla,bla,bla”)said the Judge. Commenter #3 has a link, Which explains the WHOLE story, Not just some hand picked headline. This site has gotten progressively tabloid, Dvorak should be ashamed of this kind of reporting!
#5 makes a surprisingly loud noise considering his head is up his ass. Wikileaks.org is still “officially” offline – as #3’s link also acknowledged.
Go back to foxsnooze.com and play in their litterbox.
The site isn’t down — its been removed from DNS servers. You can still reach it through its IP address (88.80.13.160) and anyone with the slightest knowledge can add it to his Hosts file.
#4–McCullough==the point and what is put at issue by the OP is that the government also has secrets that NEED TO BE MADE PUBLIC.
Can we trust the judgment more often than not of long term government employees who become concerned enough to make data public, or should the judgment of evil doers who are elected for short terms be trusted in their self serving attitude to make everything a secret?
Of the harm to the GOUSA that can arise, I think the most damage is done when the government keeps secrets. The peoples’ right to privacy is enshrined in the Const. No such provisions for the government which is the servant of the people. No–it doesn’t cut both ways and BushCo is using a one edged knife on the wrong subject.
Uh, #7 – that’s exactly what the IHT article says. I imagine that’s why you get to wikileaks if you click on their logo next to the post.
#7 If you check out where that address (88.80.13.160) points to, you’ll find that the site has moved to Sweden, and is now hosted at PRQ, which hosts a lot of websites kicked out of their respective countries. PRG is probably most well known for hosting thepiratebay.org and being raided by the Swedish police in May 2006. Anyone having problems with hosting “inconvenient” websites can usually contact PRQ and find them sympathetic. Those guys are seriously pro freedom-of-speech.
#8. It sounds like you are trying to make a case for complete transparency. Does that include the military? I am not sure I follow your logic.
You must admit, that there are things that must be kept from public view to protect those involved. I agree that the evil doers should be outed, and at one time didn’t we have a whistle blowers protection for that purpose? And yet I am sure that protection no longer exists.
#11–McCullough==in context, I’m saying the harm caused to our country by complete transparency (including military secrets) is probably less than the harm caused by an excess of secrecy. But with MORE CONTEXT the issue goes to whether or not the secrecy concern should go to pre-emptively shutting down this website. If “true and valid” national secrets are posted there, of course the publishers could be prosecuted. But if its just Bushieboy trying to keep his subversion of the US Constitution a secret, then any such prosecution would fail.
I do think “secrecy” is over emphasized in our society to the society’s detriment. Thats not to say their aren’t specific cases it should be maintained==but in those cases, I’d be willing to bet the secrets would be kept?
#12. “I do think “secrecy” is over emphasized in our society to the society’s detriment. Thats not to say their aren’t specific cases it should be maintained==but in those cases, I’d be willing to bet the secrets would be kept?”
I agree with your explanation, for the most part. Its a slippery slope nonetheless…
#13==McCullough==thanks. I can’t think of any position that doesn’t have a slippery slope going downhill somewhere, and uphill somewhere else?
Absent a blockade to the uphill, and the close proximity of a very steep downhill, I think the concept is not worth much? It is in fact a slippery slope to not really thinking at all?
JUDICIARY. FAIL. PWNED.
Is everyone in power in this country a technophobe? We have had personal computers for over 25 years and the modern Internet for almost 15 years. Get with it people.
I love Internet Justice.
C’mon geeks! This is your chance to save the world! We need you now.
Governments CAN and WILL control the internet unless you build security into all our on-line tools.
… and you need to do it now before the door closes.
C’mon guys! This is your chance to be heroes.
#2, MissBloddyNose
Trolling again. Google asked Inner City Press for credentials in order to be classified as journalists. Apparently their credentials had a problem as they were not a true media company with reporters. Also, apparently, several of their stories were seriously questioned. Inner City did not respond to Google’s request.
In case you didn’t notice, Google is a private company and has no obligation to this or any other company. That they dropped an extreme right wing news outlet was raised only by another extreme right wing news outlet shows how serious this whole thing is. Much ado about crap.
If you don’t like Google, try Yahoo. Or MSN. Or About.com.
I think a certain Swiss Bank hasn’t learned sometimes it is best to just swallow your pride and go on. Instead, they have raised a ruckus they surely can’t win. But then, maybe they have someone like Dozier and Associates doing their gunning for them.
At the least they are going to lose some customers. At the worst, they will end up being the cause of many of its customers being jailed for tax evasion and quite possibly even some of the bank’s own executives.
Point #1- Is this an oblique attempt to get more traffic to them? I hadn’t hear of them before today but I looked and now I have them bookmarked!
Point #2- Now that they have new hosting isn’t it a simple matter to get a new domain, similar to the old one?
It is interesting to note that OpenDNS still resolves the address.
Also, my provider here in Switzerland has censored wikileaks.org, which I do not think is quite right.
#18 – Control who gets to be a “news” outfit and you control the news. On your other point, yes Google is a private company and can do what they want.
First, the creators of the internet in all their paranoid wisdom made it notoriously dificult to shut a server down or isolate it from the net.
Second, Judge A–hole only went after the domain, obviously this is a very lame attempt. Many sub/ co-domains continue to be accessible.
Third, use the force luke, forget the domain modify the link in your bookmarks to the ip which is 88.80.13.160.
If the government is allowed to filter and restrict information then you ain’t gonna know anything other than what they want you to know.
Do you trust your goverment?
trustno1
The vast majority of government secrets should be exposed. I want to know, for example, exactly where my tax money is going. Most of our secrets are related to the military industrial complex that serves as the police of the corporatocracy. In other words, we shouldn’t need all these secrets since we shouldn’t be invading countries, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, and setting up military bases in every corner of the world for the sole purpose of protecting corporate profits to the detriment of human beings and the environment everywhere (but mostly in poor countries).
Yes, it’s good not to leak security codes to our nuclear waste facilities. No, you don’t want the President’s every move posted on the internet. Security is one thing. Hiding details about tax payer funded government programs is another. If our government has secrets, then it’s doing things it shouldn’t be doing.
#5 – This site has gotten progressively tabloid, Dvorak should be ashamed of this kind of reporting!
When did this site become a news reporting agency? When did the contributors here become reporters?
It would be nice to have an old fashioned flamewar between people like me and the people who are wrong without having some pedantic side debate about who should be ashamed of what because a story didn’t meet John Q. Whothefuckareyou’s ambiguous standards for credibility.
and rather than comment on any particular post, or take the time to school bobbo, let me just say…
Individual private citizen’s privacy = Good
Local, State, Federal government’s privacy = Bad
Now, I can go play video games safe in the knowledge that my irrefutable claims will settle any disagreement that may arise amongst the masses.
#26–OFTLO==while your statements are absolute as written surely you admit that there are exceptions or standards to be met in each case? so, it would be nice to know what your standards might be. Or maybe not?
Would you admit to “any” situation were a citizens privacy is not good and when governments privacy is good. The trap is too obvious so I know you would only jump into it just to be argumentative and maintain your absolutist position.