Wikileaks .org domain shutdown by US court and DDoS attack by corporation

[Andrew]

So the latest rage in the past day or so is that wikileaks released documents relating to a bank laundering money to caymen islands. Shortly before this was leaked the website became under attack by 500mb/s denial of service attack. The corporation then got California judge to shutdown .org domain. But wikileaks is still online all over the place with these documents. and now the wikileaks website is down because of a large amount of people wanting to look at the website now, and these incriminating documents.

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks  <-- official website down due to popularity

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_Court_shuts_down_leaked_doc_0218.html

Bank documents info

Article about censorship and DDoS

Mirrors

http://wikileaks.be/

http://cryptome.org/

http://www.wikileak.org/

Try to suppress info, and get screwed!

[TMA_1]

I have never heard of wikileaks, it is absolutely wonderful! it makes me feel good, the reactions by this whole banking affair are priceless. There is no way to fight this without making it look painfully obvious there is an attempt at hiding curruption.

[Egeides]

What are the Caymen Islands doing into this? Is it to the point of seeing government groups financing through financial paradises' laundering or something?

[Andrew]

Caymen islands have no personal or corporate taxes. That is where all rich people go and have their corporate "offices" (which are usually just one or two rooms with a telephone).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caymen_islands#Taxation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caymen_islands#Financial_services_industry

[Egeides]

Ah, I found what Caymen had to do into this. It's a Swiss banker who got into his hands dirty:

In January 2008, Wikileaks posted documents about the Swiss Bank Julius Baer with allegations of illegal activities at the bank's Cayman Island branch. The Bank soon contacted Wikileaks about documents. Baer alleged that some leaked documents were libellous, trade secrets, copyrighted, or otherwise prohibited for distribution, in a manner that would cause harm to it. Negotiations with Wikileaks were brief and unproductive. On February 6, 2008, Baer filed suit against Wikileaks and against its DNS registrar, Dynadot of San Mateo, California. Negotiations between Baer and Dynadot proceeded without Wikileaks providing further input. On February 16, Dynadot removed the Wikileaks.org domain name records from its DNS servers and set its EPP status to "Inactive" and "Client transfer prohibited". On February 18, the presiding judge Judge Jeffrey White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, approved the agreement between Dynadot and Baer (an injunction based on stipulation). Baer filed a dismissal with prejudice in favor of Dynadot, i.e., a promise to never sue Dynadot again over the issue. The judge has scheduled more arguments on the issue for February 29. [22] [23] [24] [25]

After the outage of the wikileaks.org domain name, the web site updated many of its email addresses, changing @wikileaks.org to @sunshinepress.org .[26]

After the injunction was issued, Wikileaks board member Assange claimed that "the order is clearly unconstitutional and exceeds its jurisdiction", and Harvard Law School's David Ardia has called the shutdown "prior restraint in the most extreme fashion". Ardia further criticized the District Court Judge, "This is a judge who doesn't have a good understanding of the Internet." [27]

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Bank_Julius_Baer_suit)

[gunner154]

"This is a judge who doesn't have a good understanding of the Internet."

A wrong judgement could be burning the hole in your own pocket sometimes.

[Sneakgab]

The people who run Wikileaks must be pretty busy with all the sueing and demands for taking info off Wike by the all corrupt rich people running around. :P ;D.

''Baer alleged that some leaked documents were libellous, trade secrets, copyrighted, or otherwise prohibited for distribution, in a manner that would cause harm to it''

Couldn't someone review these documents and simply edit out any information about their LEGAL business practices and tactics?

Demanding the removal of all the information just makes these Swiss Bankers look more guilty to me.

BTW, it seems that whenever somebody sufficiently rich demands that some info be taken of Wiki, it is done. So much for free speech, find a scource of media/info that the rich cannot bribe into their control and you count of the good ol US of A legal system/practitioners to remove it for them.