backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by iiiears.. on Dec 12 at 3:08 PM


Wikileaks has lost its domain name and is now only reachable by direct IP. It has lost virtually all its primary sources of funding.

An hacker activist has helped make Wikileaks difficult to reach, even before the recent domain name takedown.  (Source: Vimeo)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in England on supposedly unrelated charges.  (Source: AP Photo)
Site's options continue to shrink

Wikileaks aired hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that were stolen from the U.S Military, and shared 250,000 stolen classified U.S. State Department cables with The New York Times and other news organizations worldwide. The website certainly irritated the governments of U.S., China, Britain and many other organizations worldwide.  They moved to cut off the site's funding, first convincing Amazon to throw it off its hosting platform, then working with Paypal to sever its primary source of funding.  

But when 
Wikileaks yesterday published a list of top targets to hurt U.S. national security, the site seemingly sealed its own fate.  Its Swiss bank account was closed, and Wikileaks reportedly lost the money in it (the bank contended that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange lied in the paperwork, saying he resided in Switzerland, which he does not).

Now the DNS Company, the web listing organization which provided 
Wikileaks with the right to use the domain name "wikileaks.org", has terminated its affiliation with the site.  That means that attempts to reach the site by domain name no longer succeed.

The site also lost another hosting service -- EveryDNS.net -- and has jumped to a mix of Swiss and French hosting at the present.  But France's government is already moving to ban the site from its nations servers.

Meanwhile the site is under a distributed denial of service attack from a "hacktivist" who goes by the moniker The Jester – or "th3 j35t3r".  On his Twitter feed, The Jester writes, "TANGO DOWN - for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops, 'other assets' & foreign relations."

An earlier attack exceeded a modest 2-4 Gbps, but a Tuesday attack was even more potent, reaching a mean 10 Gbps.

About the only way to get to Wikileaks these days is via a Google search, which comes up with its direct IP address, which is occasionally reachable, depending on the current volume of fake service requests.

Facing the possibility of his masterwork being taken offline and complete loss of funding,
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange surrendered to authorities in Britain on Swedish rape charges unrelated to the recent leaks.  He has warned his followers that if anything happens to him while he is imprisoned, that a secret key will be released which will unlock a distributed archived file containing all the site's unreleased secrets.

One of Mr. Assange's accusers in the Swedish sex crimes trial coincidentally has ties to the CIA.  Mr. Assange was denied bail, as he is to be extradited to Sweden for questioning on outstanding allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion.  When asked if he understood the ruling, he commented, "I understand that and I do not consent."

Apparently the matter was not left up to his determination.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I'm conflicted...
By Luticus on 12/7/2010 11:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between free speech/press and releasing information that could hurt a lot of people. They aren't giving their opinion on something, they aren't calling the president a jerk, they are releasing ideas on how to best hurt an entire group (country) of people. I don't think our rights are at stake on this one. I think this goes far above and beyond any right someone has. This is akin to someone going into your house and grabbing all your financial records and releasing them online, then trying to hide behind free speech. We wouldn't stand for that would we?

I'm ok with them exposing wrong doing, war crimes, and other dumb stuff like that, but what they are doing now is just hurtful and doesn't help anyone but those who would do wrong. This is a great example of "good concept, bad execution". The idea of a site where you can go to report wrong doing and blow whistles and such is great but when it become a medium to hurt people then it becomes something that i feel needs to be shut down.

Now as for Julian not being a citizen of the USA, I believe that everyone regardless of what nation they belong to or what part of this rock they were born on, deserves all the rights we enjoy here. People are no less human because they were born in a different hemisphere. It's not so much that i believe that our (America's) way is perfect or somehow better than that of other countries, i just simply believe that as someone who values and holds the right of free speech i should impart onto other people of the world the same respect and courtesy that i am given as a citizen of the US. The declaration of independence reads that "all men are created equal", not "all citizens of the United States". But that's just my take on it.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By MozeeToby on 12/7/2010 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
No one has ever been successfully prosecuted in the US for publishing leaked documents. Lots and lots of people have been convicted for performing the actual leak, but there has never been a case in which a journalist was convicted for publishing material he received from a source. The handful of cases where it went to trial, the case was quickly thrown out of court. Throwing journalists in jail for publishing information that they receive is a very slippery slope to start down. The courts have always realized this in the past, and it's quite likely that they would do the same in this case.

As for the 'rape' accusations, it is not any definition of rape that you would be familiar with, the sexual assault laws in Sweden are, shall we say, rather liberal in their interpretations; and even then there are conflicting reports even of what the women said. For one thing, one of them has openly stated to the media that she was not raped, that Assange is not violent, and that she never wanted to press charges. The other woman cooked him breakfast the next morning and left him alone in her apartment. Both women had friendly, public contact with him after the alleged rape occurred. Neither women reported anything until they found out about each other. That makes the man an asshole, no doubt, but it hardly makes him a rapist.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By BZDTemp on 12/8/10, Rating: -1
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki