Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
Thread beginning with comment 451263
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by JokeyRhyme on Sat 27th Nov 2010 11:11 UTC
Member since:

It's quite strange that they exercise this power on websites hosting or linking to pirated material instead of focusing on websites that supposedly compromise "national security".

I mean, you would think that if WikiLeaks is so dangerous, it would be the first website to be shut down.

I don't which to believe:
A - the US government has been lying about having such a big problem with WikiLeaks
B - their completely warped sense of values means policing copyright is more important than protecting themselves


Reply Score: 4

RE: Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 11:23 in reply to "Why not WikiLeaks yet?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Th backlash will be bigger if they block WikiLeaks. They're just busy framing it right now. Of course, the smear campaign against its founder continues.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by boulabiar on Sat 27th Nov 2010 11:40 in reply to "RE: Why not WikiLeaks yet?"
boulabiar Member since:

Do you mean that we are now living in a "V for Vendetta" environment ??
TSA, censorship, where are the rights ?

Reply Parent Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

I really do respect you Thom, despite your love of unicorns of the pink fluffy variaty. But Julian Assange, while noble for his role in creating wikileaks is a douche-bag in real life. Unfortunately, begin a giant douche-bag isn't a crime yet. But, don't pretend that his douche-ness is part of a vast conspiracy by a government that's unable to do even the simplest jobs correctly.

The truth is the leaks aren't that bad. You have a few idiots that spend all of their time engrossed in the details of the secrecy of war, suddenly losing control of that minutia. They freak out, but the guys with the bigger picture understand how non-valuable that info is to the enemy. Its just mostly embarrassing that it contradicts what the official government line was in the past. People hate it when you catch them in a lie.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by twitterfire on Sun 28th Nov 2010 11:54 in reply to "Why not WikiLeaks yet?"
twitterfire Member since:

It's quite strange that they exercise this power on websites hosting or linking to pirated material instead of focusing on websites that supposedly compromise "national security".

You are terribly wrong. They are focusing on websites that disturb the US government. They are targeting Wikileaks. US govt reportedly asked Germany, UK, Australia and other countries to open criminal investigations and to persecute Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

More than that, they are targeting Wikileaks with financial warfare. The company responsible for collecting Wikileaks donations was forced to terminate their account after US and Australia placed Wikileaks on black lists.

Meanwhile, army intelligence analist, Bradley Manning, was imprisoned for leaking a video of a us military helicopter killing a group of innocent iraqis in Bagdad.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by boldingd on Tue 30th Nov 2010 22:27 in reply to "RE: Why not WikiLeaks yet?"
boldingd Member since:

None of which is actually particularly out-of-band for the treatment of individuals who are believed to have distributed classified documents, or an organization that re-distributes illegally obtained classified documents. I worked for about 22 months for a company that had a classified lab and handled classified data, and I can tell you, the U.S. government takes security classification seriously, and the penalties for distributing classified data are pretty hefty. Penalties pretty much begin at probation and dismissal, and end at being tried for treason (which, I believe, could potentially carry the death penalty). What you're reporting is exactly the treatment that I would've expected if I'd walked out of the lab with classified information - even if I didn't distribute it, in point of fact.

One day, I copied a chunk of source-tree onto a disk and took it out of the lab, at my boss's request. When I reviewed it to make sure there was no classified data included, I missed one file (out of, I think, 500 or so) that had classified constants in it. I was in serious jeopardy of loosing my job. And I never distributed that disk: it sat on my boss's desk over night, and he physically shredded it in the morning, when he discovered the slip. (I didn't loose my job, just FYI. My boss, the person who requested the files, took the hit.)

This has nothing to do with WikiLeaks and net censorship; this is how the U.S. Govornment has always reacted to people who distribute classified documents. And they've always taken pains to make sure that people with clearances know what happens if you distribute classified data and get caught.

Edited 2010-11-30 22:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by Calipso on Mon 29th Nov 2010 20:53 in reply to "Why not WikiLeaks yet?"
Calipso Member since:
RE: Why not WikiLeaks yet?
by boldingd on Tue 30th Nov 2010 22:19 in reply to "Why not WikiLeaks yet?"
boldingd Member since:

When I heard this reported in the non-tech news (the News Hour), it was treated like any run-of-the-mill property seizure, as a component of an effort to take down what where described as counterfeiting operations. I think this is more in the area of the government not properly understanding technology, and applying pre-internet laws and practice to the internet, more than it's a sign of the coming net-censorship apocalypse.

Which is why not WikiLeaks. This isn't a new problem, a sign that the U.S. government wants to take over and thought-police the internet (or, rather, that it might be about to succeed at it). This is an old problem, that of courts and government agencies trying to use laws and practices that pre-date the internet to regulate the internet, in complete ignorance of the ways that the web sites and the internet are different from physical storefronts and properties in a city.

Which certainly is a problem, but it's a different problem than the looming destruction of worldwide free speech, and has different solutions.

Reply Parent Score: 2