A few days back a poster made the remark that she was prohibited from
speaking freely by the laws of her state. I think it unconscionable
that anyone would have to live in such a country in this day and age.
It turns out that there is no such country:
Every now and again, an event comes along and takes our breath away by
reminding us just how far out of step the legal system can be with
today's changing world. The latest example is last week's attempt by a
federal judge in California to shutter Wikileaks, a website devoted to
disclosing confidential information that exposes unethical behavior.
Almost a week after US District Judge Jeffrey White unequivocally
ordered the disabling of the guerrilla outfit, it remains up, and its
foot soldiers are as defiant as ever. More to the point, it continues
to host internal documents purporting to prove that a bank located in
the Cayman Islands engaged in money laundering and tax evasion - the
same documents that landed it in hot water in the first place.
[Snipped ins and outs of the safeguard of the freedom some declare an
human right]
There's a name for arrangements such as these. It's called
"bulletproof hosting," and it's historically been used to insulate
online criminal gangs against take-down efforts by law enforcers or
private parties. As Wikileaks has demonstrated, the measure can also
be used by those engaging in civil disobedience. Wikileaks uses a
different term: "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document
leaking."
All of this seems to have been lost on Judge White.
Last Friday, he issued a sweeping court order that directed Wikileaks
and a dizzying array of ISPs, DNS hosts and website server providers
to suspend all Wikileaks websites. White went so far as to extend his
directive to "all those in active concert or participation with the
Wikileaks defendants ... and all others who receive notice of this
order."
Given the number of internet users who have joined Wikileaks' cause
since learning of the case, the order could easily extend to tens of
thousands of people or groups, many of them well beyond the
jurisdictional reach of White's San Francisco-based court.
White's lack of internet savvy was in further evidence when he
directed that a copy of his order be emailed to Wikileaks within 24
hours of the issuance of his order. The only problem there was that
the suspending of Wikileaks.org prevented the organization's email
system from working.
[Is this oaf still in gainful employment? I thought Britain was the
last bastion for such neddies. OH!
I just realised that a chimpanzee has been hiring and firing all the
lawyers over there.]
A few days ago, nary a soul had heard of Julius Baer or Wikileaks.
Julius Baer's alleged money laundering has since gone mainstream
thanks to the order, which has generated an endless series of
headlines and provoked the ire of censorship opponents who have begun
spreading the internal documents on mirror sites and peer-to-peer
networks.
[And now the important bit:]
There are also perceived shortcomings in White's order. Specifically,
the directive disabling the entire site is perceived by some First
Amendment lawyers as a clear violation of free speech. And his
prohibition on the publishing of "any other new or additional yet
unpublished documents and data" that might belong to Julius Baer,
likely amounts to prior restraint, another constitutional no-no.
As Eric Goldman, a professor of Law at Santa Clara University and
author of the Technology and Marketing Law Blog, observes: "There's
simply no good remedy once confidential information hits the internet,
and that's very frustrating to judges who are used to solving
problems." Judge White, welcome to the internet age.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/wikileaks_bulletproof_hosting/
