 |
In a move that legal experts said could present a major test of First Amendment rights in the Internet era, a U.S. federal judge in San Francisco has ordered the disabling of a Web site devoted to disclosing confidential information. |
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.
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.