Comments on: Current Event: Wikileaks — a source of private and leaked information http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/Security/2008/03/02/current-event-wikileaks-a-source-of-private-and-leaked-information/ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:03:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: diademed http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/Security/2008/03/02/current-event-wikileaks-a-source-of-private-and-leaked-information/#comment-2890 diademed Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:56:48 +0000 http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/Security/2008/03/02/current-event-wikileaks-a-source-of-private-and-leaked-information/#comment-2890 It is rather surprising how swiftly the justice department reacted in this case in essentially dissolving the company's public facing presence (or trying to at the least) on baseless accusations. It seems more and more that we hear stories of outright fraudulent acts being committed in response to public disclosure, or the acts of a smaller party against a larger one. Whether they think they can 'get away with it' or just hide the real evidence under the rug, even as decisions that were obviously incorrect in hindsight are reversed, it should be asked just why are these judgements being handed out in the first place? The judge in this case stated that he stood by his earlier ruling in part because Wikileaks was a no-show at the initial ruling. As these cases move to a multinational standpoint (the domain registrant lives in Australia), it is beginning to seem like our previous systems begin to decay. It is no more reasonable to expect a foreign citizen to fly to California on a few days notice than it is for the judge to fly to Australia. It is rather surprising how swiftly the justice department reacted in this case in essentially dissolving the company’s public facing presence (or trying to at the least) on baseless accusations. It seems more and more that we hear stories of outright fraudulent acts being committed in response to public disclosure, or the acts of a smaller party against a larger one.

Whether they think they can ‘get away with it’ or just hide the real evidence under the rug, even as decisions that were obviously incorrect in hindsight are reversed, it should be asked just why are these judgements being handed out in the first place? The judge in this case stated that he stood by his earlier ruling in part because Wikileaks was a no-show at the initial ruling.

As these cases move to a multinational standpoint (the domain registrant lives in Australia), it is beginning to seem like our previous systems begin to decay. It is no more reasonable to expect a foreign citizen to fly to California on a few days notice than it is for the judge to fly to Australia.

]]>