Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591200)

Frist Psot!

Oh yeah, damn censorship. They will mod me down too I bet.

Re:Frist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591688)

Heh, I was right.

Um... ok (4, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591202)

Can someone please tell Mr Baer that anything he says will be used against him in the court of public opinion?

Sounds like his lawyers are getting nervous.

Re:Um... ok (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591302)

Hell no. I haven't ad this much fun since Iraq's information officers was claiming the were winning, as American tank where rolling right on in.

heh.

Re:Um... ok (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591418)

Or like that time when the American's in Iraq were claiming they were winning.

heh.

You fail. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591596)

Or like that time when the American's in Iraq were claiming they were winning.

Apparently your educational professionals have FAILED you by teaching INCORRECT grammar. Come back tomorrow, because today you COMPLETELY FAILED your humor and your english.

"If you want it to be possessive, it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S. Scalawag." - Strong Bad

Re:You fail. (1)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591708)

Actually I laughed, since it's too true.

PS: I do not remember being taught to use ALL CAPS in grammar to signify shouting..

Re:You fail. (3, Informative)

jesdynf (42915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592006)

Hmm. This claim is plausible, if improbable coming from a user ID under 50K.

However, because I'm just that kind of guy, I'll step in for you.

In modern times, the use of all capital letters in electronic messaging has come to signify emphasis, or a raised voice. As more and more internet communication is conducted on forums with internal markup, instead of the flat 7-bit ASCII NNTP favored, this convention's technical justification has begun to fade.

There is a strong reaction against using all-capital letters in a message for this reason; uppercase letters are more difficult to read than lower-case letters, and anyone willing to type in all upppercase is frequently unwilling to use punctuation or paragraphing, adding to the headache of potential viewers.

Use uppercase letters sparingly, like a strong seasoning, to give your words flavor and tone.

Re:Um... ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22592468)

Or like that time when the American's in Iraq were claiming they were winning.

When did Harry Reid start posting on /.?

Re:Um... ok (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591324)

Sounds like his lawyers are getting nervous.
Or the PR people. I'm sure even in their insulated world of high finance and 'creative' accounting [88.80.13.160] they got some backlash for their behavior over the matter.

Hahah. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591204)

More like wiki anal-leakage.

I read about this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591214)

There is a very interesting article on this site. [nimp.org] Very useful.

AC Issues Statement on Mudslums (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591222)

Ignorant, violent Mudslums are a menace to the world.

Other banks associated? (4, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591234)

Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?

it is used for tax evading and money laundering (2, Informative)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591282)

So, it is more like for private people than institutions.

Re:it is used for tax evading and money laundering (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591474)

As clients, yes.

However, they may have business partners in this country of some sort. If there are any folks whom I could boycott (as, obviously, not having money to hide I'm already de-facto boycotting the bank in question, and they don't really care) it'd be nice to know who they'd be.

Re:it is used for tax evading and money laundering (4, Informative)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592040)

Apparently they have a U.S. mutual fund unit. [forbes.com] Other than that, all I can find in regards to U.S. activity is an New York Address. [newyorkcity.com]

Re:Other banks associated? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591332)

Are there any US institutions that are associated with this bank that I should be considering boycotting?

Dude, this is a major Swiss private bank, with subsidiaries in other countries with bank secrecy laws and no taxes (like the Cayman Islands).

The bank specializes in wealthy clients, helping them avoid/evade taxation in their home countries.

They do not deal with little people like you (or me).

Re:Other banks associated? (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591742)

Does this bank pay interest?

If so, then they must be investing in something. That's who you boycott.

If you don't deposit money, they just make less money. If their investments fail to profit, they lose money.

Re:Other banks associated? (1)

dnwq (910646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591946)

Make sure you tell all the other investors of your boycott target too.

Re:Other banks associated? (2, Interesting)

bberens (965711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592522)

If they're like every other investment group it'll be corporate/municipal bonds and mutual funds. You're probably out of luck.

Want to know how to kill a bank? (4, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592524)

Transfer all your money to them, then take it out as cash. Actual physical paper and metal.

Because of the fractional reserve multiplier it has a currently 10 fold (in the USA, 30 fold in the UK and 50 fold in the EU) effect on their ability to generate further loans.

 

they make a good point: (5, Funny)

greenslashpurple (1236792) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591244)

"The posting of confidential bank records by anonymous sources significantly harms the privacy rights of all individuals." Especially individuals engaged in tax fraud.

Re:they make a good point: (5, Funny)

howdoesth (1132949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591624)

Isn't being engaged in tax fraud a prerequisite for having a bank account in the Cayman Islands?

Actually (5, Interesting)

wsanders (114993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591930)

I once worked at a place where a lot of people had security clearances. A coworker enjoyed scuba diving, and bought a condo in Grand Cayman. That security clearance whooshed away faster than a bottle of vodka in Britney Spear's glove compartment.

Eventually the coworker was reinstated, so there are bind fide reasons for transacting business in the Caymans. Scuba diving, nig game fishing, genocide, drug dealing, weapons smuggling, corporate espionage come to mind, in addition to plain old tax fraud.

Re:they make a good point: (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22592030)

Isn't being engaged in tax fraud a prerequisite for having a bank account in the Cayman Islands?

No, there are plenty of legitimate reasons. Say you live in Venezuela and run a business, like a grocery store, that you have worked a lifetime to build. El Presidente Hugo Chavez has threatened to seize your property because you refuse to sell groceries for less than what you pay your suppliers.

Should you keep your money in a Venezuelan bank so that the dictator of Venezuela can seize it on a whim? Or should you take a short flight to the Cayman Islands and open an account there?

Re:they make a good point: (4, Funny)

Trails (629752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592288)

Not that I'm a fan of his or anything, but Chavez was democratically elected. If all it took to be called a dictator was being a blowhard with some odd policies that haven't panned out so well, and foreigners wondering what the hell your country was smoking to have elected such a douche, then I know a certain schmuck in the white house who's a dictator.

Re:they make a good point: (5, Informative)

jtheisen (893138) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592290)

Which is exactly what happened a couple of weeks ago here in Europe: German tax offices bought (with the help of the BND, Germany's service for foreign intelligence) records from a leaker of a bank in Lichtenstein with information about who had foundations there - foundations that are almost always used in order to commit tax fraud. They bought it for 3 million Euro, but claimed to get much more than that back. The CEO of the German Post fell over that scandal. According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, many other countries, including the US, also bought that information. Naturally, Liechtenstein got quite a fit about this and accused the German goverment of "Hehlerei im großen Stil" (legal expression, to receive stolen goods as a criminal act).

Non-truths? (1)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591252)

Non-truths and half-statements?

What the hell is that??

If you're going to chide a company for putting out a shitty document, at least have the balls to use some real language when you do it.

Is it a lie? then call it a lie! "half truths" my ass.

And what's a "half-statement"??? An incomplete sentence? A run-on sentence?

Re:Non-truths? (5, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591304)

I think any reasonable person knows what a half-statement. It's a completely legitimate. Most English professors.

Re:Non-truths? (1)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591356)

Sorry, that should've been half-truths and non-statements. I should've taken Slashdot's advice and used the "Preview" button.

I apologize.

Re:Non-truths? (4, Insightful)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591376)

> If you're going to chide a company for putting out a shitty document, at least have the balls to use some real language when you do it.

> Is it a lie? then call it a lie! "half truths" my ass.

You mean like this?

And the statement "Julius Baer's sole objective has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website" means either that a) they're lying, b) they really did think that wiping WikiLeaks.org from the DNS records of the Net would only remove those 'inauthentic' documents they're so concerned about, or c) they're lying.

I'm betting on a and c. How about you?

Looks to me like the article accuses Bank Julius Baer of... lying.

Example (0, Redundant)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591424)

This half-statement is both a non-truth and

Re:Example (4, Funny)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591586)

a bag of walnuts!

Re:Non-truths? (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591458)

Erm, well, one of the things they say relates to the documents being "stolen and forged". Then, in the very same paragraph, they refer to the documents as "private" and "confidential".

Sorry, but, um, forged documents aren't private or confidential unless they contain some degree of accurate information, I suppose...but then they're not subject to banking laws because they're fake documents, right?

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

If JB lawyers really had the aim to stop the publication of the documents, they could have just sent WikiLeaks a C&D, who maybe would have even taken it down. But instead, they call up WikiLeaks asking them who their lawyer is and refuse to identify themselves. Who do these people think they are? The fscking Mafia? Wait, don't answer that ... :-D

Re:Non-truths? (5, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591798)

So, which is it, Julius Baer? Are these documents forgeries, or are they real documents and therefore subject to banking privacy laws? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Have you not heard of superposition? It's a matter of quantum legal entanglement.

Re:Non-truths? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592402)

Much like Dr. Laura claimed those nudie shots of that redhead 1. Were not her and 2. She owned the copyright on them.

Why she owned the copyright on some other female was never stated.

Personally, any time lawyers make contradictory claims, they and their clients should be shot.

Re:Non-truths? (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592278)

The fscking Mafia? Wait, don't answer that ... :-D

I think its fairly obvious who they are, MafiAA want to be's.

Re:Non-truths? (5, Insightful)

harryHenderson (729254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592302)

Not to defend the bank, but a set of documents CAN be both legitimate and forged at the same time. Some can be real and some can be false. The problem that the bank could be in (if they aren't totally lying) is that only demanding the take down of the real documents in the C&D will expose which records are real, and as such need to be kept confidential. The ONLY thing the bank could do in that case is to BOTH deny any of the documents are true and demand that they all be taken down.

Re:Non-truths? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22592384)

> Erm, well, one of the things they say relates to the documents being "stolen and forged". Then, in the very same paragraph, they refer to the documents as "private" and "confidential".

Yep, they're taking a page out of the same PR book used by the Cult of Scientology on OT III story. "The Xenu story is fake. But we're going to sue anyone who posts it for infringing our copyright!"

The upside is that it'll probably work as well for the bank as it did for the cult.

Re:Non-truths? (4, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591576)

Non-truths and half-statements?>br>
What the hell is that??
I think that any Brit will know that the correct term is being "economical with the truth"

Re:Non-truths? (1)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592012)

"I dislike the term 'lie, I prefer calling it 'counter-factual'."

Re:Non-truths? (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592208)

I prefer "synthetic factoid" or "man made fact".

My kids just accuse me of "making up facts again".

Re:Non-truths? (1)

lawn.ninja (1125909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592360)

Correct me if I'm wrong but a run-on sentence is a "sentence and a half."

Looks like my dreams have been canceled (3, Funny)

Dice (109560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591256)

Sigh.

I was hoping this story wouldn't get big. I was really hoping that I'd found a bank through which I could launder and stash various... shall we say... "unreported monies". Like a stack of $100 bills the size of a small room. Homeland Security can be really unforgiving about that sort of thing, you know?

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled (1)

Enlarged to Show Tex (911413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591336)

If you think DHS is bad about things like this, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the folks over at the Internal Revenue Service...

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled (4, Informative)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591568)

In the UK there used to an agency called "Customs and Excise". They - unlike the police - carried guns on operations, they didn't trust or liaise with the police, and they normally didn't need a search warrant to carry out raids. The government decided that they weren't powerful enough, and merged them with...
drumroll...
the Inland Revenue!

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled (5, Funny)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591354)

HELLO good sir i am an honest man from the UNITED STATES who has a BUSINESS proposition for you in good health and honesty for good christian man of good character such as yourself.

I am prepared to offer a BUSINESS deal to great advantage for you in monetary security terms for the storage of your FINANCIAL difficulties for very reasonable rate. Please to send to me your

name
date of birth
bank routing number
social security number
mother's name

and i will PROVIDE for YOU a small room for the storage of your MONETARY. For this service you may keep 10% of the AMOUNT GIVEN in good health as thanks for your ASSISTANCE.

In good health and honesty,
Fow Ern Ineteen, Esq.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591408)

Oh yeah, funniest thing I've read all day!

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled (2, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591606)

Homeland Security can be really unforgiving about that sort of thing, you know?
the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS. they've got what it takes to take what you've got, along with everything you'll ever have. the government takes receiving "their" money very very seriously.

Re:Looks like my dreams have been canceled (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592342)

"the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS."

No doubt. The IRS brought down Al Capone for christ sakes. No other law enforcement agency could come close to bringing him down.

Identify which are forged and which are not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591364)

They should identify which of the documents are forged documents and which ones are not and ask wikileaks to label them as forged documents, and remove only the non-forged documents.

Re:Identify which are forged and which are not (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591440)

Yes but I'm sure theres more than a couple people out there who have been watching this very closely and have most likely mirrored the content (if not the whole site) and would easily be able to identify and provide the 'non-forged' documents.

Do we have free speech in the USA? (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591374)

Seem like lawyers all own us and the system is unbalanced against the average person.

The lawyers OWN congress.

Re:Do we have free speech in the USA? (4, Insightful)

el borak (263323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591914)

The lawyers OWN congress.
The lawyers ARE congress.

Re:Do we have free speech in the USA? (1)

Bardez (915334) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592280)

Look at the former profession of many in congress... congress IS lawyers.

Kindly fuck off (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591378)

"The bank that got WikiLeaks.org erased from DNS finally hired a PR agency and issued a press release filled with half truths and non-statements."

Sounds like they got kdawson to write it.

Opinions, Opinions (4, Insightful)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591380)

Quote: "And the statement "Julius Baer's sole objective has always been limited to the removal of these private and legally protected documents from the website" means either that a) they're lying, b) they really did think that wiping WikiLeaks.org from the DNS records of the Net would only remove those 'inauthentic' documents they're so concerned about, or c) they're lying."

I'd interpret it as meaning they tried everything else and then had to resort to these means to get these documents offline. In a way, I can understand the Bank. If the documents are true, it's confidential information that shouldn't be published. If they're forged, it's obviously defamatory and shouldn't be published, either. I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards. WIkileaks is obviously doing good work, as with last years documents about african dictators. Not sure if this is among that good work,

Re:Opinions, Opinions (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591800)

I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards.
Isn't committing or abetting tax fraud already disregarding legal standards?

Re:Opinions, Opinions (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592446)

Alternatively, you're just protecting your money from theft by a power hungry set of self-styled leaders and the masses that empower them, said people defining their theft as not-theft because they hold the guns and are the biggest local group of people around.

Re:Opinions, Opinions (1)

Otto (17870) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591898)

If the documents are true, it's confidential information that shouldn't be published.
Says who, exactly?

Of course they don't want them published, they're evidence of wrongdoing, yesno? They very likely have no legal basis on which to get them removed. Trying to exercise prior restraint on publishing documents like these usually doesn't survive an appeal to the first amendment.

Re:Opinions, Opinions (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592046)

I'm not sure if exposing some tax fraud is a goal high enough to disregard legal standards.
Well this is the fundamental question of whistle-blowing. Nearly all whistle-blowing is illegal, since someone is violating a confidentiality agreement, breaking a contract, publishing private information, etc.

I don't know to what extent this has been legally codified, but the consensus has grown to be that whistle-blowing should be somehow allowed, or even encouraged and protected. This is why we consider it reasonable for a reporter to "not disclose a source" and why Wikileaks should be protected.

If the information can be shown to be false, then yes it should be removed. But unauthorized publication of data which unequivocally proves that some bigger crime has occurred has to be allowed and protected if we are going to fight big crimes. This protection has to extend to the original whistle-blower, and the reporting agents (journalists, wikileaks, etc.), even though they may be technically breaking certain laws (e.g. disclosure of private data).

Go BJ Baer! (0, Flamebait)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591386)

I RTFA. It was lame. I don't see the half-truths or the lies, and of course BJB isn't going to affirm/deny the validity of the documents in question, as that would just disclose more info on their client's business.

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice, and Wikileaks was rude and evasive. So the nuclear option, pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them. This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication. What's the big deal? Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

Re:Go BJ Baer! (4, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591484)

So, if the New York Times publishes a report on tax evasion, one should bulldoze the city of New York?

Pulling the DNS is an option to be done *when all others have been exhausted*, and fact is, this was the first option the courts pulled, which is akin to my above statement. An initial order had to be for Wikilinks to pull the documents off of the site by a set date, and if they didn't, hold the executives in contempt. That is how the rule of law works.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591814)

An initial order had to be for Wikilinks to pull the documents off of the site by a set date, and if they didn't, hold the executives in contempt.

Yeah? And who would you serve that order on, since Wikileaks won't tell you who their lawyer is or how/where to serve them?

This was pretty predictable. If the defendant won't divulge who or where they are, you go to the defendant's ISP or domain provider.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

stony3k (709718) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592330)

Wikileaks lawyers were at the court, IIRC, but were asked to leave. So the court could easily have server the notice to them. Unfortunately, the bank's lawyers took advantage of the fact that few judges have much technical know-how to cause as much damage as they could. Probably just to send a message. Thankfully their strategy didn't work and has in fact backfired.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (4, Insightful)

z80kid (711852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591764)

I think the big deal (as pointed out in the article) is:

1. According to the correspondence shown by wikileaks, Bear's lawyers did not attempt to discuss what they wanted. They only tried to contact them to serve legal papers. You'd be evasive too.

2. Bear is asserting that the documents are 1) fake, and 2) violations of banking privacy law. One of those two is the truth and the other is a lie. If they are fake, then there is no violation of banking privacy, so #2 is a lie. If they are real, #1 is a lie.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591884)

3. The Cake is a lie.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591868)

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it

Wait, the judiciary has been privatized now? It no longer is a part of the government?

That's new to me. Even using the silly "censorship isn't done by private entities" definition, this is censorship: the government was asked to shut down Wikileaks, and it did just that: it ordered Wikileaks shut down.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

bishiraver (707931) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591892)

The funny thing is, though, pulling the DNS record for wikileaks.org is more akin to covering up a crate of teapots with a tarp to hide the address on the crate.

Sure, for some people it hides it. But anyone who walks up to the tarp and lifts it up can see the address (the analogy of course, referring to the fact that wikileaks is registered on several different international registrars).

I'm not discounting that it's a severe example of governmental prior restraint: simply pointing out the fact that JB believes it was a "nuclear" option when in fact, well..

IT'S A TARP.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (4, Insightful)

dubl-u (51156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591908)

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice [...] pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them.

That's bullshit. Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of a variety of notices, requests, and demands from lawyers, cops, and federal agents. Wikileaks was mildly jerky, but the lawyers were even more so. If they had a problem with particular documents and intended to sue in the US, they could have just said which documents and where they were planning to sue.

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication.

You did notice that it was shut down by a court, right? I know some think that courts are naturally occurring mineral formations, but I swear, this one is part of the federal government.

What's the big deal? Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or just clueless, but I'll run with the latter. If the documents were actually false, then BJB should just say, "yet more Internet" and ignore them. Obviously, the problem is that the documents are actually valid but put them in a bad light.

We grant limited legal protection to information for reasons like "advancing the sciences and the useful arts" or running a legal business. Although it's a little amazing given our congressmen, those valid reasons to not include malfeasance, corruption, and skulduggery. In fact, just the opposite: whistleblowing is frequently protected by law because it helps us nab people up to things not in the public interest. Like, it appears, Bank Julius Baer and some of their clients.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (2, Informative)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592404)

Anyone who needs a refresher on the free-speech implications can find it here (although digg found it first, so the whole article is temporarily posted static on the main page):

Vying for Control of the Internet: is Wikileaks Unstoppable? [thelegality.com]

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592462)

They tried to serve Wikileaks with a notice [...] pulling the DNS was about all they had available to them.

That's bullshit. Over the years, I've been on the receiving end of a variety of notices, requests, and demands from lawyers, cops, and federal agents. Wikileaks was mildly jerky, but the lawyers were even more so. If they had a problem with particular documents and intended to sue in the US, they could have just said which documents and where they were planning to sue.

The lawyers started off by asking nicely (please, thank you, sincerely) for a service address. When they didn't get one, they reminded wikileaks of its obligation under the DMCA, and got more runaround. With that trail of emails, any judge is going to be sympathetic to BJB ("We tried to serve him, but he just climbed out the bathroom window and ran away, your honour!")

Wikileaks sums up by saying "Wikileaks received no further demands from BJB until the surprise ex-parte hearing." Well, when you refuse to provide a service address, any hearing involving you is going to be ex-parte, isn't it? If WL wanted to get SERVED with NOTICE, it knew what it needed to do. Apparently its legal strategy was to hope the plaintiff would go away.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591976)

I don't see the half-truths or the lies, and of course BJB isn't going to affirm/deny the validity of the documents in question, as that would just disclose more info on their client's business.

FTA: "Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material"...
and "The documents in question are protected and prohibited from unauthorized publication".

These exist as mutually exclusive concepts. If someone posted fake documents, those documents have no legal protection; if someone posted real documents, then they count as authentic. BJB has no authority, however, to "protect" privacy rights concerning records that don't exist except as works of 3rd party fiction.

Of course, the very fact that BJB had standing to file suit in the first place more-or-less makes the authenticity of the documents a slam-dunk. But either way, they've basically said "you stole our data, and made it all up to boot!", of which exactly half (at most) can count as the truth.

Re:Go BJ Baer! (1)

conlaw (983784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592148)

This isn't censorship, as the government isn't doing it. Nor ir it prior restraint on publication.

When you have a federal court ordering the takedown, it's the government doing it. It isn't a prior restraint on this particular document, but the takedown of the whole site is a prior restraint on additional documents that Wikileaks might have planned to publish.

Do the haters think people have the right to publish anything on the 'net, no matter how false or scurrilous, without any repercussions whatsoever??

If false or scurrilous documents are published on the 'net, then the remedy is a suit for the damages caused to the subject of the publication, not muzzling the site before it makes the publication.

inaccurate (2)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591392)

I'd hardly describe that press release as being filled with half truths. Only point that's really debatable is the dialogue part but there's nothing especially wrong with asking for dialogue between lawyers, especially given the potentially legally complex nature of the post.

Re:inaccurate (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591532)

"...hardly describe that press release as being filled with half truths."

As long as kdawson [slashdot.org] jr. gets a kickback, it doesn't really matter, now, does it?

Re:inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22592328)

the primary claim is that all the documents are

a) forged

and at the same time

b) copyright of the bank

these cannot both be true at the same time. That means it is exactly half true. They could claim some of them were forged and some of them were copyright but then they would have to specify which was which. Calling the document "half true" has a kind of precision which is almost totally inappropriate in a Slashdot article summary.

"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same time" (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591488)

actually, yes you can. the bank's efforts at defending itself are certainly vile, but this doesn't mean the leaker has virtuous motivations either. if you think it is impossible to leak and lie at the same time, you've never encountered a disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client before

it's sort of like some of the problems surrounding allegations of rape. most charges of rape are indeed cases about a real rape, that needs to be punished harshly. but a handful of charges of rape are made by women who's motivations are completely false. the horrible tragedy is that the real damage such women do is not to the man they want to hurt, but to the 100 other cases of genuine rape their false rape charges now put into doubt

so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client. not that the bank's actions are defensible in any way, regardless of the leaker's motivations, but if the motivations of the leaker aren't squeeky clean, on such a high profile affair, then this entire wikileaks first amendment situation gets poisoned in a way it would be viewed on the street in a way no one who cares about the first amendment wants to see happen

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591612)

> so let us hope this wikileaks case does not involve a maliciously intended disgruntled ex-employee or ex-client.

Why not? While I'm well aware of how selection can slant the truth, evidence is evidence. In fact, most whistleblowers are people that have been personally screwed over.

intent (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591918)

it is an important issue

it always is

we have cases of murder, and we have cases of manslaughter. both result in a dead body. but they are very different subject matter because of intent

intent is a large part of legal and moral opinion. it always matters. and it matters here in this case too, it really does. if you respond to me that it doesn't matter in your mind, then i only have to say that your mind is not functioning how most people's minds process the situation

Re:intent (2, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592144)

There is no legal defense to bank fraud. You cannot claim "self defense", and motives don't have an impact on the decision or the charge you're guilty of. There are no extenuating circumstances in a case such as this, therefor the motives of the accused or the ones doing the accusing are not a factor.

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591642)

What difference does the motives of the person who revealed the information make? Either the allegations are true and the bank is guilty, or they're false and the bank is innocent. The whole thing can be cleared up rather easily by providing proof that the "leaked" documents are fake. Either way the motives of the person are irrelevant. This isn't like a rape case because in a rape case the actions and motivations of both parties determine the legality of the situation (that is, who consented to what), where as in this case both parties are either guilty or innocent, and motivations don't factor in to it at all.

uh, what? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591862)

i'm talking about the public perception of the high profile case if the leaker turns out to be ill-intentioned. a fake allegation of rape casts a cloud on 100 other valid charges of rape in the mind of the public. that's unfortunate, but real. likewise, if the leaker turns out to be a saboteur instead, 100 other whistleblower cases have a pall cast over them

what you are talking about is a totally different comparison i didn't even make. try to pay attention before responding next time please

Re:uh, what? (2, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592028)

You don't get it. There is no way for this to be a "saboteur", because it requires complicity of both parties involved. Even if the source is a pissed off ex-employee, the company committing the tax evasion, and the bank facilitating it are both still guilty. It really doesn't factor in who the source was, and anyone who thinks it matters at all be they the "public" or anyone else is a moron. The only reason it matters in rape cases is because there's the potential for the one doing the accusing to have tricked the one being accused into the actions he or she took (that is, the "victim" wasn't really raped but instead consented to have sex, therefore the accused is innocent), which then raises the question in other cases of if the "victim" is really telling the truth. In this case it's a matter of documents and the only question is whether those documents are true or fakes. Both parties in this case are the accused, and the "victim" is the government. If the one making the accusations used to work for one of the accused it makes no difference to the case, and should make no difference to public perception.

Re:"You cant be a leaker and a liar at the same ti (1)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592044)

Rape, really? A little bit of a tangent, but okay.

FBI says 9 percent of rape accusations are unfounded. That's a not insignificant minority when you consider the "guilty until proven innocent" approach taken in rape cases, the lingering suspicion even after an acquittal, and the willingness of political entities to prosecute obviously false charges out of some kind of vindictiveness (witness the Duke case, and not just the prosecutor; look at all the concerned organizations that piled on).

All charges, rape or otherwise, should be in doubt. In case you forgot, that's the foundation of our court system. And you can be sympathetic to a victim, even interact with her on the assumption she's being truthful, without automatically assuming the suspect is guilty.

Who needs DNS? (1)

bizitch (546406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591496)

DNS is for the week ;)

Any one have the IP address from cache?

Re:Who needs DNS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22591746)

DNS is for the week ;)

Although I use it daily.

Re:Who needs DNS? (2, Informative)

BridgeBum (11413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591802)

Wikipedia has it. 88.80.13.160

Okay now . . . (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591600)

Julius Baer denies the authenticity of this material and wholly rejects the serious and defamatory allegations which it contains.

So if the material was not authentic, then why all the fuss? Apparently, all is not as they claim.

Re:Okay now . . . (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592050)

They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true.

Re:Okay now . . . (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592378)

They didn't say the material is not authentic. Just that they deny that it is authentic. Slight, subtle difference. Assuming it is authentic, the first is a direct lie whereas the second is an honest statement referring to a second statement that may or may not be true.
You seem to be working at some level of thought beyond me, as I can't follow this logic. Merriam Webster defines Deny as, among other things "1: to declare untrue " and "5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of". If you declare something to be untrue, you by definition are saying that it's false, I.E. not authentic in the case of documents. Now, if you refuse to comment on the authenticity of something, that's a different matter, but that's not the same as denying something is authentic.

Anyone see the irony here? (3, Interesting)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591756)

According to wikipedia,

On February 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction against Dynadot forcing it to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name

Whereas what wikileak did was to release the illegal activities of asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion.

So U.S. District Court, where is the justice?

Liar and a leaker... (5, Insightful)

Mike1024 (184871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591810)

From the article

You can't be a leaker and a liar at the same time. In fact, it's really unclear what Baer claims is legit (but stolen) and what it claims is false or forged.
It would be possible to have both stolen true information and fabricated false information in the same document - or to have a mix of authentic documents and forged documents. Hence "stolen and forged bank records" could be true.

Also, it makes sense for a company not to comment on the authenticity of leaked documents - and the bank could argue that wikileaks should remove the documents if they are fake (assuming wikileaks purports to be a factual site); and should remove them if they are illegal; and therefore should remove the documents without the bank specifying if they are authentic or not.

That said, hosting fictional information probably isn't a crime (unless you could work slander or libel into it); and hosting private/secret documents against the rights holders' wishes is kind of wikileaks' raison d'etre.

Just my $0.02

Re:Liar and a leaker... (2, Funny)

cube135 (1231528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592322)

Leaked material, by definition, need to be authentic documents. If they're not, it's not leaked material-it's falsified trash.

I have some (very limitted) sympathy with JB (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591848)

It's quite right that private banking information should remain private. It's also quite correct that JB should take great pains to avoid confirming that the data is genuine. As such, whether the data is legitimate or forged, they should behave in exactly the same way.

And that's about it for my sympathy. JB could have asked wikileaks to take down specific pages (wikileaks most likely would not have done but it's a matter of courtesy). They could have specified a jurisdiction for their demands, or given a reason that they could not specify a jurisdiction. By demanding the wiping of the DNS records, they have advertised the existence of the leak and even made the mainstream press in at least one country.

Freenet (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591906)

Are the relevant documents on Freenet yet? If so, what's the link?

If not, is there a convenient mirror package somewhere? I'd be happy to post it, but I'd rather not deal with converting the hyperlinks and removing the Wikileaks formatting from the html -- I'd rather have just the documents themselves. Wikileaks doesn't seem to have such available, or if they do I haven't found it.

DNS is for the weak .... (1)

bizitch (546406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22591912)

start -> run -> notepad c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

Make host file look like

127.0.0.1 localhost
88.80.13.60 wikileaks.org

Problem solved ...

Re:DNS is for the weak .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22592358)

WTF?

start -> run -> notepad c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts


That didn't work on my Ubuntu system or my Mac or my test FreeBSD 7.0 system. Please help.

News coverage (5, Insightful)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 6 years ago | (#22592232)

Did anyone see the Associated Press coverage? link [yahoo.com] .

"An effort at damage control has snowballed into a public relations disaster for a Swiss bank seeking to crack down on a renegade Web site for posting classified information about some of its wealthy clients."

Apparently, company information is "classified information", and WikiLeaks is a "renegade" website. I guess it is compared to the Associated Press. Here's a high school example of propaganda. Perhaps it was written by a high school student.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>