Home | Community | Message Board

Mycohaus
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials.
    #8043136 - 02/19/08 02:41 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19cnd-wiki.html?hp


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.

Skip to next paragraph
Related
Wikileak.org Blog
Citizen Media Law ProjectThe site, Wikileaks.org, invites people to post leaked materials with the goal of discouraging “unethical behavior” by corporations and governments. It has posted documents concerning the rules of engagement for American troops in Iraq, a military manual concerning the operation of prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other evidence of what it has called corporate waste and wrongdoing.

The case in San Francisco was brought by a Cayman Islands bank, Julius Baer Bank and Trust. In court papers, the bank claimed that “a disgruntled ex-employee who has engaged in a harassment and terror campaign” provided stolen documents to Wikileaks in violation of a confidentiality agreement and banking laws. According to Wikileaks, “the documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.”

On Friday, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Federal District Court in San Francisco granted a permanent injunction ordering Dynadot, the site’s domain name registrar and Web host, to disable the Wikileaks.org domain name. That has the effect of making the site invisible to people looking for it by name. But the site itself remains available through its internet protocol address, as do ancillary sites run by Wikileaks in other countries, along with mirror sites run by third parties.

In a separate order, also issued on Friday, Judge White ordered Dynadot and Wikileaks to stop distributing the bank documents. The second order, which the judge called an amended temporary restraining order, did not refer to the permanent injunction but may have been an attempt to narrow it.

Lawyers for the bank and Dynadot did not respond to requests for comment. Judge White has scheduled a hearing in the case for Feb. 29.

In a statement on its site, Wikileaks compared Judge White’s orders to ones eventually overturned by the Unites States Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case in 1971. In that case, the federal government sought to enjoin publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

“The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing The Times’s printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power,” the site said, referring to the order that sought to disable the entire site.

The site said it was founded by dissidents in China and journalists, mathematicians and computer specialists in the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Its goal, it said, is to develop “an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.”

Judge White’s order disabling the entire site “is clearly not constitutional,” said David Ardia, the director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard Law School. “There is no justification under the First Amendment for shutting down an entire Web site.”

The narrower order, forbidding the dissemination of the disputed documents, is a more classic prior restraint on publication. Such orders are disfavored under the First Amendment and almost never survive appellate scrutiny.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineChemy
Jesus is Lord

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 6,276
Loc: A Church
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. *DELETED* [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #8043228 - 02/19/08 03:03 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Post deleted by Chemy

Reason for deletion: Reason for deleting?



--------------------
Alcoholics Anonymous

Narcotics Anonymous

Get help, help is free and available 24/7/365.

God bless you all and I hope you receive the help you need to turn away from your lives of sin.

Mushrooms and drugs make you gay, you can reverse this homosexual condition with rehab, get help! Stop being gay!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: Chemy]
    #8043464 - 02/19/08 04:13 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Between things like this and the recent actions against torrent trackers, the "authorities" are pushing the development of software that will make it next to impossible for a single authoritarian in a single jurisdiction to disable a web site on the internet. Distributed web hosting protected by an onion router with torrent like sharing of the pages will become the future for those that wish to remain anonymous.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: Seuss]
    #8043496 - 02/19/08 04:27 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

On Friday, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Federal District Court in San Francisco granted a permanent injunction ordering Dynadot, the site’s domain name registrar and Web host, to disable the Wikileaks.org domain name. That has the effect of making the site invisible to people looking for it by name. But the site itself remains available through its internet protocol address, as do ancillary sites run by Wikileaks in other countries, along with mirror sites run by third parties.




:rofl:

what an idiot, though maybe this relief was what was asked for by the plaintiff

for those interested:


http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: johnm214]
    #8043553 - 02/19/08 04:39 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

the only problem with anonymous underground "information" is its authenticity.
just like in real journalism, an anonymous source most often means dick since the quote, documents or whatever could have been falsified or tampered with.
all it does is raise paranoia in already paranoid people who search for it, because none of it will ever be allowed in any court or hearing, and most likely will not have any journalism worth.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #8043632 - 02/19/08 04:59 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

A lot of things reported dont have journalism worth and make people paranoid, every time theirs news about a stalker or murderer its designed to make people paranoid even though it doesnt affect me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #8043641 - 02/19/08 05:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
the only problem with anonymous underground "information" is its authenticity.
just like in real journalism, an anonymous source most often means dick since the quote, documents or whatever could have been falsified or tampered with.
all it does is raise paranoia in already paranoid people who search for it, because none of it will ever be allowed in any court or hearing, and most likely will not have any journalism worth.




this isn't true.


In court you could depose or propound interogatories to another party asking if the document is accurate. If not, ask the differences. Or simply subpoena the actual document.

The federal rules of evidence do not require the original document, they only require sufficient proof of authenticity. You could establish this as in the above, by asking the party to whom the evidence is introduced against if it is correct. (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1007.

I think the website is a good thing. Of course it isn't defacto correct, what is? Even certified copies of court orders aren't unimpeachable, and I doubt you're arguing these be deemed untrustworthy.



Addditionally these documents could be used to show facts dispelling a claimed privledge, show the relevancy of another admissable document or line of inquiry, and other uses. The rules of evidence requiring authenticity do not pertain to matters such as these.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineledfut
I once jerkedoff w/ bothhands
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/22/07
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 15 years, 20 days
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #8043643 - 02/19/08 05:02 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
the only problem with anonymous underground "information" is its authenticity.
just like in real journalism, an anonymous source most often means dick since the quote, documents or whatever could have been falsified or tampered with.
all it does is raise paranoia in already paranoid people who search for it, because none of it will ever be allowed in any court or hearing, and most likely will not have any journalism worth.


if it wasn't true, why would the judge order it taken down?

why would the suit be filed in the first place?


--------------------
May our only occupation be not having a job.
May the only cocktails that we make be molitov.
-Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: johnm214]
    #8043686 - 02/19/08 05:15 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:
the only problem with anonymous underground "information" is its authenticity.
just like in real journalism, an anonymous source most often means dick since the quote, documents or whatever could have been falsified or tampered with.
all it does is raise paranoia in already paranoid people who search for it, because none of it will ever be allowed in any court or hearing, and most likely will not have any journalism worth.




this isn't true.


In court you could depose or propound interogatories to another party asking if the document is accurate. If not, ask the differences. Or simply subpoena the actual document.

The federal rules of evidence do not require the original document, they only require sufficient proof of authenticity. You could establish this as in the above, by asking the party to whom the evidence is introduced against if it is correct. (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1007.

I think the website is a good thing. Of course it isn't defacto correct, what is? Even certified copies of court orders aren't unimpeachable, and I doubt you're arguing these be deemed untrustworthy.



Addditionally these documents could be used to show facts dispelling a claimed privledge, show the relevancy of another admissable document or line of inquiry, and other uses. The rules of evidence requiring authenticity do not pertain to matters such as these.




a document procured by illegitimate means is inadmissible in court (i presume). in this article it emphasizes the anonymous aspect of posting these things.
you cannot disprove a negative. if this document in question regarding the bank is in fact true and untampered, you cannot ask a business to produce it to verify it... there is no fucking way.
why cant we just start makign up shit about Disney and posting it on wikileak and sue disney over it and demand that they produce articles that verify the authenticity of our lies?

1) with an anonymous leak, you cannot verify if the documents were obtained legally.
2) there is no way to verify authenticity except through other authentic documents or the defendants admission.
3) any company worth a shit would either burn these documents, deny, deny, deny, or like coca cola, they can just hide anything under the secret recipe and claim it is a trade secret.

the only positive thing I can see coming from this is if the documents that are leaked in fact indict someone through means of checking bank accoutns and such.
if the document says something that can be corroborated by verifiable facts, then yes it would have a good impact.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #8043929 - 02/19/08 06:18 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
the only problem with anonymous underground "information" is its authenticity.




which means that there would be nothing for Bank Julius Baer to worry about
as I see it, having an injunction against the site or it's hosts lends credibility


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #8043955 - 02/19/08 06:23 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

a document procured by illegitimate means is inadmissible in court (i presume). in this article it emphasizes the anonymous aspect of posting these things.
you cannot disprove a negative. if this document in question regarding the bank is in fact true and untampered, you cannot ask a business to produce it to verify it... there is no fucking way.
why cant we just start makign up shit about Disney and posting it on wikileak and sue disney over it and demand that they produce articles that verify the authenticity of our lies?





In the United States there is no hard and fast rule against the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in civil cases, especially where the party introducing the evidence hasn't induced the illegal act.

Some places allow this, some don't. But either way, the information can still be used in court, even if its not admissable at trial, as I stated previously.

And why can't you ask a buisness to verify whether a document is accurate? IF it is relevant to the proceding and not privledged you certainly can. Now in these cases it would likely be claimed that the document details trade secrets, but that is a matter for the court... to decide, it doesn't mean you can't use the information, it just might mean you can't use the document in court.

Additionally, these documents could be used in ways not requiring direct admission into evidence.

As stated previously, if you were desiring to defend yourself against a suit against a company for defamation, a document online might allow you to discover a witness who could verify your accusation was truthful, thus permissive. Even if the document wasn't admissable in and of itself, it could still be of legal use.


Likewise to a prosecutor seeking indictment of a corporation. They could present the illegally obtained information to the grand jury to secure indictment. That the information isn't acutally admissable at trial doesn't matter... its still useful.


As for the disney question, you could do this, but if you do it in bad faith (as your proposing) the court could sanction you and dismiss the suit.

Furthermore, if the discovery sought is regarding privledged information, and that information isn't signifigantly probative or relevant to your cause of action, your discovery can be denied as to that point.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoaster
Baʿal
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8043967 - 02/19/08 06:26 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

dam government always trying to thwart our efforts to bring justice to those who are unethical
fuck censorship, they only want it to protect themselves


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: johnm214]
    #8044160 - 02/19/08 06:55 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

what lawyer in their right mind would want to indict a corporation when their indictment alone hangs on a document that cannot be used in the trial?
if you dont have a case without the document, and you cant use it in court, then why even get to that point?

and of course you can ask a business to verify the validity, but beyond that you cannot subpoena documents taht dont exist, or whose existence isnt proven.
just because someone "obtains" a copy of a document, or even the hard original copy of a document, you cannot verify it without bringing the anonymous person into it.

now I agree that if the documents do indict someone, through alternatively verifiable means, that it would be admissible in court, but a stand alone document of dubious origins obtained anonymously is of zero use in court.
now, even if it is allowed, any lawyer worth a shit could have it discredited so easily.

and as for the earlier posted comment (not by you) regarding "if the company has nothing to hide then...."... isnt that the same logic they use to justify wiretapping and illegal surveillance?
im not defending these corporations, Im jsut saying that shit like this isnt really of any help to "fighting the cause" and in fact is more of a hindrance.
all a company has to do is see that this document got leaked and have a head start on damage control.

also, any lawyer that would take a case based on one of the anonymously posted documents would be insane... all it would take is one little typo, one miniscule little thing, to wreck an entire case.

the information is too fragile and theoretically unreliable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #8044249 - 02/19/08 07:14 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

and of course you can ask a business to verify the validity, but beyond that you cannot subpoena documents taht dont exist, or whose existence isnt proven.
just because someone "obtains" a copy of a document, or even the hard original copy of a document, you cannot verify it without bringing the anonymous person into it.




you can subpoena documents that don't exist, they just won't be produced.

As I posted earlier, you can admit the document to trial if the buisness or whomever admits its authenticity, other than that you must find independent corroboration.

And in a civil trial you can simply ask the party if the document is authentic, subject to a perjury charge and sanctions if they lie.

As for why you'd use a document to obtain an indictment, I don't know- that's a good point.

But prosecutors that aren't finished with their investigation pull shit like that all the time.. using illegal evidence and hearsay at the grand jury stage to allow them to procede and develop more evidence. They can always dismiss the case if it doesn't pan out.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: Coaster]
    #8046362 - 02/20/08 08:31 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Coaster said:
dam government always trying to thwart our efforts to bring justice to those who are unethical




Damn government? This was a case brought forth by a private entity and the decision was made by one judge. Not the government. Reality is much more complex than useless generalities.

Quote:


fuck censorship, they only want it to protect themselves




Once again, the case was put forth by a private institution, and, obviously, individuals and corporations have privacy rights, so it is only natural that the law would respect that. If someone broke into your home and stole the video of your mom getting slapped by some Albanian, released it on Youtube, and then you sued them in court, would doing so be censorship in the same sense you say fuck it? :strokebeard:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSoY
I am the LizardKing
 User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 774
Loc: Everywhere
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #8046423 - 02/20/08 09:08 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
If someone broke into your home and stole the video of your mom getting slapped by some Albanian




:rofl2:


--------------------

"The choiceless truth of who you are is revealed to be permanently here permeating everything. Not a thing and not separate from anything."--Gaganji
"Yesterday is but today's memory and tomorrow is today's dream."
"My karma ran over my dogma!"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: SoY]
    #8046568 - 02/20/08 10:07 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

that's how the ethnic cleansing starts


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8046668 - 02/20/08 10:34 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Well then they shouldn't go around slapping people's moms. :shrug:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Suit filed against Wiki that publishes classified materials. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #8046797 - 02/20/08 11:14 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

I've always advocated atrocities and genocide against people lacking color


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Suit filed against naming Bush as co-defendant PGF 565 7 06/22/02 09:16 AM
by nugsarenice
* P2P file sharing.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 5,193 119 07/10/03 07:14 AM
by Anonymous
* The September 11 X-Files wingnutx 1,483 9 08/17/03 01:34 AM
by BleaK
* "Long live file sharing, death to bland culture"
( 1 2 3 all )
Phluck 3,426 48 09/26/03 01:09 PM
by d33p
* lawyer files 'heresy' charges against Kerry DigitalDuality 1,036 9 09/23/04 12:25 PM
by DigitalDuality
* President to wear fight suit at all public functions Zahid 1,338 16 06/25/03 01:21 PM
by Rono
* Army files charge in combat tactic wingnutx 519 0 10/29/03 10:30 PM
by wingnutx
* Key Bush Military Service Files Destroyed daussaulit 1,100 16 07/12/04 07:55 AM
by EchoVortex

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,827 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 12 queries.