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

This is sad.
By Robear on 12/7/2010 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 3
Please consider the following facts.

1) The cables leaked by a young US citizen, not by Wikileaks. Julian Assange is being held accountable for distributing information over the internet, which however immoral, is NOT illegal.

2) The cables could have been released as a whole, but Wikileaks HAS been reviewing and censoring the information.

3) A LOT of cables have been released. Which ones have you heard about? The ones damaging the US or the ones damaging Assange?

4) We believe in Freedom of Speech in the US. Does this not apply to people who are not US citizens? Is this not a universal right we should protect? Or does this only apply when the information doesn't hurt us?

5) The "rape" charges are because Assange's condom broke during sex and he allegedly didn't stop. One of the women has PUBLIC ties to US intelligence.

6) Assange went in for an INTERVIEW with BRITISH authorities. He did not negotiate a SURRENDER. When he went in for his INTERVIEW, he was handed to the Swedes against his will.

I read an article that stated it the best:

'The Wikileaks Cables are plump with evidence of US
doublespeak, proof that "conspiracy-minded" Middle
Easterners are, well, correct on most counts.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/wik...

But we don't hear about this. The US has successfully orchestrated a media diversion. You can listen to the media and become an emotional puppet like our very own Jason Mick, or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions about whether the actions of OUR GOVERNMENTS are LEGAL. Not JUSTIFIED, but LEGAL. Few of us are qualified to determine if these are JUSTIFIED. This is why we have a LEGAL SYSTEM with COURTS.

The actions taken against ASSANGE by our governments are not only immoral, but ILLEGAL. Nothing Assange has done is ILLEGAL.

The FACTS are out there. All you need to do is google a bit outside of the mainstream US media. Dig through the opinions and find the facts. They're THERE.

I hope that key gets distributed now.




RE: This is sad.
By Cerin218 on 12/7/2010 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
The HUFFPO? Seriously? Just going to that anti American site makes your whole post a joke.


RE: This is sad.
By Robear on 12/7/2010 8:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I got the story from a Google search. If I ignored every bias news report, I wouldn't be here, would I?

Feel free to dismiss any valid points I may have made based on a single hyperlink I included.


RE: This is sad.
By Cerin218 on 12/7/2010 5:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
He accepted STOLEN information. Which he then used in a terroristic fashion. Exactly how doesn't that make him a criminal?


RE: This is sad.
By Robear on 12/7/2010 8:37:58 PM , Rating: 3
By your definition, The New York Times is also a criminal organization. They report on classified material, as well as countless other news organizations.

Define "Used in a terrorist fashion" for me, or is anyone who opposes US interests now a terrorist?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Whatever motives behind the leak of the key US sites of strategic importance, it was not an act of terrorism, nor was it illegal. Have you read any of the other cables released, that actually DO indicate ILLEGAL activities performed by our government? No. You only hear about Assange. It's all noise.

The WORLD HATES the US, and not because they're jealous of our freedom. Why don't you try and guess why? When someone finally stands up to us, we swat him down with whatever illegal means are necessary.

I support our troops. They're taking orders. I don't support our government or in any way condone their illegal and immoral actions in the international community.


RE: This is sad.
By Targon on 12/8/2010 3:53:05 AM , Rating: 2
True reporting involves a healthy respect for what may or may not harm others. To get the information, and report that any inappropriate actions are going on is fine, but to disclose sensitive information is where the line should be drawn.

Only a terrorist or someone who supports terrorism would post the list of targeted terrorists. Aiding those who are in violation of the law is also a criminal act. So, if a government employee illegally shares information, then the person who receives that information is also bound by laws involving the disclosure of that information.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














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