Comments on: Wikileaks: What would you do? https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/ A blog from the staff at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:26:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bumpy Light https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-5028 Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:26:54 +0000 http://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-5028 A very well-written essay. 🙂

I’ve not been paying too much attention to this affair, but agree from what I’ve read that the judge seemed at least a bit clueless, and the people at the registrar perhaps purposefully disingenuous.

Naturally, for what it’s worth, when I first learned of it, the very first thing I did was read a few of the documents, hosted at a mirror. They were boring, no matter what may have been the legal implications for others. I didn’t even bother to keep copies. I’m sure though that copies will now be floating around in torrents and on other mirrors for years. Lawyers for big corporations never learn.

]]> By: Ben https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4441 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:53:26 +0000 http://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4441 Think this is bad, network solutions pulled a page down while it “investigated” whether or not it was in violation of its AUP.

see:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/03/networksolutions_precensors_an.html?nav=rss_blog

]]> By: jdw https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4222 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:16:50 +0000 http://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4222 As far as a “loophole,” if you believe your privacy is protected by some words on a web page that could be changed at any time for any reason to say completely the opposite, you are kidding yourself.

The only protection you have is that the people who wrote those words care about your privacy and will fight for it to the best of their ability.

Ultimately, a lot of our service comes down to trust, in both directions, that people are going to do the right thing. Web hosts have a dizzying array of opportunities to screw their customers. If you don’t feel you can trust yours to do the right thing, under pressure or otherwise, you should select one you’re more comfortable with.

On the amended order, it cures a lot of the defects and I’m glad it was done, but the domain remains inactive with the registrant’s contact informations exposed at the time I’m writing this, and it’s nearly a week since this all went down. So some nice-sounding words didn’t help that guy one bit.

-jdw

]]> By: Daran https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4220 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:28:11 +0000 http://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4220 Wikileaks offline, then backs off

But hours later the court amended the order, removing the requirement to disable the entire WikiLeaks domain but ordering that all JB documents be removed from all servers. This new order is a temporary restraining order, where the first order was a permanent injunction. Both orders were issued after an ex parte hearing, to which WikiLeaks says it received only hours notice.

]]> By: Daran https://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4218 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:49:50 +0000 http://blog.nearlyfreespeech.net/2008/02/21/wikileaks-what-would-you-do/#comment-4218 t think Dynadot looks like the hero in this, weighing in with what we would have done in their place could easily be taken as exactly the sort of criticism of competitors that we try to shy away from.</blockquote> You are reading more into my rhetorical question than I intended, which was to say, more or less "look at this, and comment, if you will". That I don't "think Dynadot looks like the hero in this" is true only if the negation is a logical one. It doesn't follow that I think Dynadot is the villain in this, though I do have concerns about the stipulation. <blockquote>In fact, an appeal may be what DynaDot is hoping for; if the order is overturned, Wikileaks gets their domain back but DynaDot is still off of whatever hook they thought they were on.</blockquote> We're not talking about a $100M domain here, and, wikileaks appears to have as many domains, registered in various countries and jurisdictions as it does hosting options. I don't think it is the loss of the domain which is the issue here, but the disclosure of their personal records, which irreparably damages them. Your <a href="https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/terms.php" rel="nofollow">TACOS</a> states "NearlyFreeSpeech.NET will handle Registration Information will in accordance with a published privacy policy ("Privacy Policy")". The Privacy Policy says "We will not disclose your personally identifiable information to any third party without your prior consent unless legally compelled to do so." "legally compelled" probably means "ordered by a court". The Wikileak case exposes a loophole: what's to stop you from stipulating to the court order? Saying that you've never done so in the past is beside the point. The loophole exists. And if you get sued over a member's website, there will be an incentive to use it. <blockquote>Similarly, if a court with jurisdiction over us orders your site shut down, we shut your site down.</blockquote> I would not expect anything else. Life tends to get very unpleasant for people who ignore court orders. ]]>

So, if I correctly surmise that the member who asked doesn’t think Dynadot looks like the hero in this, weighing in with what we would have done in their place could easily be taken as exactly the sort of criticism of competitors that we try to shy away from.

You are reading more into my rhetorical question than I intended, which was to say, more or less “look at this, and comment, if you will”. That I don’t “think Dynadot looks like the hero in this” is true only if the negation is a logical one. It doesn’t follow that I think Dynadot is the villain in this, though I do have concerns about the stipulation.

In fact, an appeal may be what DynaDot is hoping for; if the order is overturned, Wikileaks gets their domain back but DynaDot is still off of whatever hook they thought they were on.

We’re not talking about a $100M domain here, and, wikileaks appears to have as many domains, registered in various countries and jurisdictions as it does hosting options. I don’t think it is the loss of the domain which is the issue here, but the disclosure of their personal records, which irreparably damages them.

Your TACOS states “NearlyFreeSpeech.NET will handle Registration Information will in accordance with a published privacy policy (“Privacy Policy”)”. The Privacy Policy says “We will not disclose your personally identifiable information to any third party without your prior consent unless legally compelled to do so.” “legally compelled” probably means “ordered by a court”. The Wikileak case exposes a loophole: what’s to stop you from stipulating to the court order? Saying that you’ve never done so in the past is beside the point. The loophole exists. And if you get sued over a member’s website, there will be an incentive to use it.

Similarly, if a court with jurisdiction over us orders your site shut down, we shut your site down.

I would not expect anything else. Life tends to get very unpleasant for people who ignore court orders.

]]>