Bank That Suppressed WikiLeaks Gives It Up 145
Is It Obvious writes "Bank Julius Baer has moved to withdraw suit against Wikileaks. We've discussed this story a few times, most recently when the judge lifted his injunction against WikiLeaks' registrar. The Baer story reflects an issue that will only grow worse over time: the gap between technology and the legal system's understanding of said technologies and their application to established legal principle. Given the rapid rate of technological change, is there a more practical way to interface emergent technology with our legal system while retaining civil rights over corporate rights?"
I wonder if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder if... (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:I wonder if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Short answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong approach (Score:2, Interesting)
There is no good answer in any system designed to cover so many eventualities.
Re:Sure we can. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the problem with the current Expert Witness system (which works vaguely like you suggest). You can get expert witnesses to say all sorts of stuff and people will believe them.
Re:I wonder if... (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly as the case progressed there where legal expenses. In the end, it turns out Baer had no case, at least to where they filed their legal action. So it was "frivolous", yes? Therefore they should pay the legal expenses.
IANAL.
Yeah, its pretty simple. (Score:4, Interesting)
The things that we citizens of the Internet (if there is such a thing), nearly universally, seem to agree on is that we want to be left alone from the "powerful". Spammers? Leave us alone. Advertisers? By and large, leave us alone. Eavesdropping, corporate or governmental, leave us alone.
We reserve the right to poke, prod, and change the world around us by using the Internet, but we do not appreciate, nor do we seem to stand for, the reverse to hold true.
Shouldn't the answer be obvious? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course that may not work since very often the venue for many cases involving technology and patents are selected simply for its lack of expertise and knowledge perhaps to win through bullshit misconceptions. (Consider the pactice of jury selection where they always choose people who have the least understanding of law or legal procedure.)
Yea, great.. until one day.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a lack of understanding on the part of these banks. They hire people like us all the time and are in many cases more versed with security and the realities of the Internet than 99% of us. It's a concern that, without adequate controls or cooperation from online presences and technologies, one day real damage will be done and there'll be nothing that can stop it.
They're not worried about injustices. Those are just their legal departments trying to build precedent for future legal actions. They're worried about real, actual damage when private, secret, or sensitive data is released through the same channels and nobody cooperates in removing it or halting its spread.
You idealistic types can gnash your teeth about the curtailing of your online freedoms, but what you're failing to grasp is the simple fact that Your Opinion Is Not Perfect. Your idea of what deserves to be free isn't the same as your neighbour's idea, and when pictures stolen from your webcam of you and your wife engaging in something that you think should be legal but isn't, are circulated to every major visitor-supported voyeur pornsite, you'll be sitting there thinking that maybe, just maybe, being forced to trust anonymous individuals on the Internet who are well beyond the reach of any punishment you can effect, isn't the utopia you thought it would be.
Re:I wonder if... (Score:3, Interesting)
The OP asked about legal expenses, and not damages. Are there financial damages for a non-profit site that doesn't engage in the trade of goods? The counter-argument would be that the lawsuit actually made Wikileaks more well-known! Furthermore, no court has actually agreed with Wikileaks. The plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuit; that doesn't mean they're wrong (even though we know they are). To show damages, I would think that Wikileaks would have to show up in court, with lawyers, and argue that they were harmed. It doesn't seem like it's worth the effort.
On another note, has anyone ever received money after their work was taken off a website due to a false DMCA claim? I'm not aware of it ever occurring.
IANAL.
Why cant law (Score:3, Interesting)
Swiss bank --- yet no news in Switzerland (Score:2, Interesting)
We are rather touchy about our banks and normally a leak of this magnitude would be considered top news. Yet, the topic was given no news coverage in Switzerland. After all, an internal document leaked which pointed towards illegal activities of the bank!
And before all the trolls have a party: no, this is not a normal business practice of a Swiss bank.
Disclaimer: Working for a Swiss bank, I am biased.
Foreign entities and American registrars (Score:3, Interesting)
This situation gives American courts jurisdiction over foreign entities who would otherwise be outside the American legal system. So, why hasn't someone in a place like Antigua set up a domain registration service for these TLDs? I realize that ultimately all roads lead back to Verisign (not a healthy thing either, in my opinion, but that's for another day). Still these cases have been directed against the registrars (eNom and Dynadot), not Verisign. I'm not up on all my ICANN politics and policies these days, so I'm asking for some help here. Is there some provision in how jurisdiction over com/net/org is set up so all the registrars must be in the US, or could there be off-shore registrars for these TLDs immune from American jurisprudence?
(Please don't reply just to say, "Let them register in their ISO domains." The visibility of