The amazing multiplying website

Resistance is futile

Ben Poggemiller, staff

“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

I ask the question “Is this preachy?” Yes, but in any case, this is the quote that greets users, even cynical ones like me, when they visit Wikileaks.org. Or at least it was. Wikileaks is a transparency-driven site which aims to reveal corruption and encourage whistleblowers to come forward anonymously by posting sensitive documents. They are dedicated to a world where there are no secrets. A troubling consequence of their success, however, is that James Bond movies would be reduced to wild fantasies.

Wikileaks’ self-described mission is as follows: “Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations.”

It seems from this mission statement that university organizations are of minimal interest, so UMSU haters will need to find another outlet.

According to Wikipedia.com, Wikileaks utilizes a modified version of the MediaWiki software used on Wikipedia, but is independent from the WikiMedia foundation. The New York Times reported, much slower than Internet forums did, that on Feb.15 a permanent injunction was issued by Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Federal District Court in San Francisco declaring that Wikileaks.org domain should be disabled and prevented from being transferred to any other domain. This came about after Julius Baer Bank and Trust requested this action when Wikileaks posted documents allegedly exposing the bank’s illegal activities in the Cayman Islands. I am legally obligated to inform you that this is not Julius Baer, pharmacist and father of two who resides in Penance, New Jersey and had the unfortunate position of having “jinxed” a Vince Carter free throw at a Nets game last season.

One could argue that Wikileaks suffers from the same credibility issues as Wikipedia does and that secret or concealed information is even harder to verify. Wikileaks counters this argument by saying that the site “opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity.”

While this defence of credibility may or may not be true, Wikileaks.org is no more so due to this permanent injunction. But this order is hilariously flawed. Wikileaks has mirror sites registered all over the world, including Wikileaks.cx Wikileaks.be and Wikileaks.de. The site is still fully functional, meaning that the documents in question are still available on other versions of Wikileaks. These other versions are even easier to access because they actually require one less keystroke. Also, C and X are right beside each other and O, R, and G are nowhere near each other on the standard QWERTY keyboard.

Here is a playwright’s rendition of the situation:

Faceless Bank: Seriously, let’s shut these guys down.

Wikileaks: Seriously, don’t shut us down.

Judge: What’s a computer? [Bangs gavel]

[Exeunt.]

This is another example of the law lagging behind technology. Morals and politics aside, one does not have to agree or disagree with the ethical justification of Wikileaks to admit that there are no cut and dried laws anywhere concerning the Internet.

Another oversight of Julius Baer is what has come to be known as the Streisand Effect. In 2003, according to Forbes magazine, and countless other sources, Barbara Streisand sued an environmental activist who had taken photographs of her beach house for an environmental survey. (Insert your own Barbara Streisand joke here.) The case was thrown out along with any hope of keeping the situation contained. The website containing the photos received millions more hits, and the pictures were widely distributed throughout the world. The moral of the story is that once something is out, it’s out. Fighting it only creates interest in it.

It seems that Julius Baer Bank and Trust has not learned this lesson. The fact of the matter is that I had never even heard of their company until reading about this. I had never even heard of Wikileaks before reading about this and, demonstrating the Streisand Effect, I certainly never would have written an article about them until reading about this.

If I can gather the evidence, Wikileaks may even support my attack on monopolist zipper mogul YKK. Seriously, look at your zipper right now.