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 "", 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 -- -- 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 Solandri on 12/7/2010 2:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
I think wikileaks is a good thing. There's too much fake in this world. The airbrushed magazine covers, the knockoff baby formula - it's all too much. So much that nations that are supposed to be more than allies can't be honest with each other. Worst of all, nations can't even be honest with themselves. The US government isn't even actually 'The US' anymore, or Jon Stewart's march wouldn't have gained any traction. World needs some more honesty.

This, of course, assumes that everything published on Wikileaks is honest truth (including no deception by omissions).

Spotting fakes and deception is a difficult skill all of us have to learn as we go through life. There's just no easy way to do it, no magic website which shovels out pure, unfiltered truth. I'm very careful about my personal info, but even I get taken in by the occasional fraud (got an eBay phishing scam email coincidentally just after I won the bid on an eBay item).

I think a site like Wikileaks can be useful to have in the grand scheme of things. But only as a potential threat to those who would improperly hide secrets. Something to make them think there's less chance that they could get away with it. Not as a reliable source of leaked information. I'm under no illusion that Wikileaks is somehow immune to the same forces of corruption which make us question the honesty of governments and other organizations.

For one, I'd like to see them apply their principles to themselves. Make available who their members are, how they operate, how they decide what to release and what not to release, the number of leaks they get by industry/government/country and how many of them they publish or decide not to publish, where their funding comes from (hey, everyone complains about researchers getting funding from corporations causing bias, what's good for the goose is good for the gander), etc.

RE: I'm conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The idea of a group in the world that brings out corruption is one thing. One who's mission it is to expose national secrets is another.

There are definitely things in the world that it's better if the public doesn't know. One good example I heard was fighting terrorism in Pakistan. Pakistan might want to go after a certain group but be unable to. So they might want the US to go do it for them but still take credit. This was the kind of thing released in the leaked cables. It makes Pakistan look bad as well as shows our covert actions.

The fact that the world isn't perfect and involves a lot of backroom dealing on the international scene should be no surprise to anyone. And by and large the world doesn't need to know about it. The only dealings I want to know about are things like talks between the US and the UN to essentially undermine US sovereignty. Or talks withing my own government on domestic issues that affect what products I can buy, how much I'll be taxed, etc. What deal we make with another country to do something or buy something is none of my business. I can see the result in the end and if I don't like it I can vote my opinion to try and change who's doing that negotiating or dealing.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki