‘Despite the ruling, Wikileaks continues to host… Coincidentally, or not, the organization’s hosting center in Sweden was also struck by a denial-of-service attack, after which a fire erupted in the center as well. Attempts to reach Wikileaks to obtain more information were unsuccessful.’

both resolve to http://88.80.13.160/

I say this is such a cowardly, unlawful act by the Julius Baer group that we googlebomb them.

I linked the Wikileaks main page, the page about the court order, and the page of the original allegations using “Julius Baer Bank” as the link text.

Feel free to follow suit if you want to stick it to these numbnuts.

dmacdoesjapan.blogspot.com

http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks

(Thanks, BBC!)

“Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.”

Even though this prevents the wikileaks.org link from working, it doesn’t actually take down the site: everything is up and running at 88.80.13.160.

Thank you dude on Slashdot for pointing this out!

I used the above link, as mentioned mikewhy. It’s good to know that the nature of the medium makes it difficult to shut down sites for long.

I’m wondering how much fault Dynadot bears in this. It may have been expedient for them to not fight the injunction, but this is an extremely short term view. Do we really want a registrar who rolls over so easily? Would it be appropriate to make a call for everyone to move their domains away from Dynadot?

Removing the DNS entry does not take out just the website. You also lose email, and every other service/server that is accessed using that domain name. After all, how many organizations are willing to risk this happening to them. The first threat of a lawsuit from some disgruntled supplier / customer / competitor / etc, and Dynadot will shutdown all your Internet services.

As for blocking the transfer of the domain name to another registrar, I wonder if there is any recourse for the domain name owner. If the registrar refuses to allow transfer, what can we do. This is unrelated to the Wikileaks case, but how many of us shop around for cheap registrars? Your, up-to-now customer-friendly registrar, may one day be taken-over, and the new management may decide to raise prices, and at the same time refuse to allow transfers. Do we have any recourse then? Are registrars allowed to block transfers as-they-like, or is there a list of “approved” reasons supplied by ICANN?

create your own wikileaks mirror!

Hopefully, the Swiss bank gets counter sued and scrutinized for their actions. Not just here in the US and not just for their funny banking; but in their hounding of the bank official and his family in the Cayman Islands and back home in Switzerland. Of course, anyone with enough clout to launder trust fund money in the Cayman Islands as a business probably owns judges and elected officials in several countries.

Let’s bring back freenet. http://www.freenetproject.org. Write plugins for Firefox and IE rather than their confusing proxy server, so every link in a site like Wikileaks can just be “freenet:// “.

This result is unsurprising, given that Dynadot currently charges $8.99 per year for .org domains. The cost of defending a suit would far exceed what it could ever make off this one contract. The problem, however, is that if registrars cave so easily it encourages plaintiffs to bring frivolous suits against them. Why bother suing the operator of a site directly, when the registrar will disable the domain just to avoid trouble?

In case anyone is interested, a copy of the order granting the injunction was posted here:
https://s.p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/wikileak/2008/02/california_district_court_injunction_against_dynadot_the_wikileaksorg_domain_reg.html

http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks:Cover_Names

The reason the site wasn’t ordered to remove the documents is that the entire design of the site is meant to be uncensorable – it’s hosted in a number of countries, so that no court can have jurisdiction over all the servers.

What the court did find it had jurisdiction over was the domain registrar in California through which the name wikileaks.org was registered; the order to remove the name was directed at the registrar, not at wikileaks.

Incidentally

wikileaks.be (name under Belgian authority) -> 88.80.13.160 (IP address in Sweden)

wikileaks.de (name under German authority) -> 213.131.227.73 (IP address in Germany)

wikileaks.cx (name under Christmas Island authority) -> 88.80.13.160, the same IP as the .be site

and, until recently,
wikileaks.org (name under American authority) -> 88.80.13.160, the same IP again

So now I know about the creepy pedophile signet rings from the FBI (creeepy!) And a bunch of other interesting stuff.

Also, does media whoring work if you are anonymous? Surely the point of whoring to the media is drawing attention to yourself

#13 I just read some of your other posts, face it your just a contrarian. !)

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9883240-38.html?tag=newsmap

<NelsonMuntz>”HA-ha! We routed around your damage!</NelsonMuntz>

I don’t know, but do the US and Switzerland have extradition and other similar treaties in place?

Look at the incident the other way:
If a US person steals something from a US bank and puts it in Switzerland, is a little US bank capable of getting a Swiss government judge to get them to hand it back?

Anyway, like others I’ve quickly set up a sub domain (I don’t know why I didn’t think of it earlier!) at wikileaks redirect, and it works!