Forum Moderators: open
In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing confidential information.
Unethical Behaviour Site Shut Down By Judge [nytimes.com]
Thank heavens. I was getting so worried about all that information being exposed in the public domain. It could have put pressure on powerful people to think about the way they operate and that wouldn't have been good for any of us.
[edited by: lawman at 4:34 pm (utc) on Feb. 20, 2008]
The site, Wikileaks.org, invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. It has posted documents said to show the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual for the operation of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.
Man, is that a risky business model or what? Kudos to the creators for taking such a stance on this subject. I'm sure they are well aware of the associated risks involved with this type of business model. People go missing because of stuff like this. And, they usually don't show up again. :(
People go missing because of stuff like this. And, they usually don't show up again. :(
This has been true in some countries during some time periods... However, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that sort of thing is going on in the US today.
there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that sort of thing is going on in the US today
Check out the video store, dude. Lots there...
The judge did not shut down the site. The judge can not shut down the site.
Check out the video store, dude. Lots there
For example?
I was surprised he could lock the domain from registrar transfer.
I think the registrar was in US.
This is quite different than the Pentagon papers. It is ANYONE publishing anything they get their hands into--stolen corporate secrets, military info, etc. etc. For example, if the material can cause immediate danger to troops (such as "Three submarines are in #*$!x, near the Russian base",) kiss the site bye bye.
People go missing because of stuff like this. And, they usually don't show up again. :(there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that sort of thing is going on in the US today
Check out the video store, dude. Lots thereFor example?
Bourne Ultimatum comes to mind. ;-)
Bourne Ultimatum
I suppose then we also have proof of alien invasions [imdb.com] sitting on the shelves at blockbuster.
alien invasions
The tabloids have the best investigative reporting on that, according to this source [imdb.com].
But we're getting off the subtopic, there are modern consequences [washingtonpost.com] to information leaks abroad, probably in the USA [public.cq.com] too.
It remains doubtful that Wikileaks will ever be shut down. That's because the site, as reported earlier by the The New York Times Bits blog, is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based outfit that provides highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services to its customers. It has almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs.Oh yeah, PRQ is also run by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij, two of the founders of The Pirate Bay, the BitTorrent tracker site that, as a frequent target of the Hollywood elite, has amassed considerable expertise in withstanding legal attacks from powerful corporate interests.
[nytimes.com...]
SC:
'Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.'
Memo to self: read more carefully and argue all points.
