Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Judge Orders Wikileaks Web Site Shut

From today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19cnd-wiki.html?_r=1&8au&emc=au&oref=slogin

Whattaya think of this?

(Dag, either something is wrong with my computer or internet service, or these folks work fast.)

8 comments:

Tom said...

Wow. There's a ton of stuff here, and I just sort of browsed through it, so my observations might be off. With that precursor said, here's the other one: I think this is a HUGELY sticky subject. On the one hand, there is the concept of First Amendment rights. This is compounded by the fact that, to my limited understanding, regulation of the internet is not a domain of government bodies, federal or state. As I said, my knowledge in this area is effectively nil, so I could be wrong. (Thoughts of the FCC pop into my head, for example. Do you know more about this?) On the other hand, there are very serious concerns about breach of confidentiality, which is not only an ethical concern, but potentially legal. However, whether or not this can be or should be regulated by any government body is very much an issue. At the very least, if a person (such as the disgruntled former worker cited in the article)has signed a non-disclosure agreement or other legally binding document of confidentiality later breaches that contract by disclosing confidential information to ANYONE, he or she can and should be held accountable. This is with the understanding that he or she provided INFORMED consent with full knowledge of the necessity for confidentiality along with the potential consequences of disclosing said information. All in all, regarding this particular incident, I think this should be a matter for the courts to handle between the individual and the entity with whom he or she breached the contract. I'm not sure the judge has the right to shut down an internet site. Of course, I'm not a lawyer (thank GOD!...), nor am I a political scientist. But those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking to 'em unless I am otherwise swayed with more accurate information. In the immortal words of Stan Lee, "'Nuff said."

Leeschwa- MissDangerPants said...

K, good. I can tell you more later (it's after 11; I just got home from what was going to be an hour and a drink at the Buck with friends listening to Lampert Skratch and the Hog Skratcherz and became 3 hours and 3 beers), but for now, I'll just toss this question out: Would they have shut the site down so quickly had the people who run it been posting info that woulod have caused insurance companies to gasp and no longer provide coverage to people? (My guess, in this case, is that Leaky Worker did not have to sign any sort of non-disclosure agreement, but I can check on that, and will, especially if hounded to do so.)

Leeschwa- MissDangerPants said...

Um, yeah, that's Lampert Skratch and the Hogslapperz, and "would" is spelled w-o-u-l-d.

Tom said...

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by your question.

Leeschwa- MissDangerPants said...

OK, my suggestion was this: A bank cries that a disgruntled former employee has leaked confidential documents to someone who has posted them on Wikileak. The court says, "Shut down, Wikileak! You are doing a Bad Thing! This BANK does not like the information being put out there. It jeopardizes the BANK's business!" However, say that someone for whatever reason bumps into all sorts of health info on regular people that might make those regular people health insurance risks, info that would be otherwise confidential (say for mental health purposes, to inch into your domain?) This person hands the info over to someone who posts it on Wikileak; insurance companies have access to information they otherwise would not know, and decide to can (ditch, 86) insurance for all the people who they know now are risks. Some of these people cry foul and take their noise to court. Do you think that the court would say, "Shut down, Wikileak! You are doing a Bad Thing! These REGULAR PEOPLE do not like the information being put out there. It jeopardizes the REGULAR PEOPLE's health insurance!" (Make more sense? Please see today's post for more.) Thanks, as always, for your dedicated participation in the discussion process.

Tom said...

Okay. That makes a lot more sense. My final thoughts on this topic are that, if confidential information of ANY sort is posted online, the person who posted it should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. Whether or not that extends to the right to shut down a web site is beyond my ken.

robrohr said...

Some clarification on several points raised here. It must be stated up front, IANAL (I am not a lawyer). And in looking at that acronym, I can see why they prefer to be called attorneys.

Who runs the internet? The ICANN is the governing body that grants naming rights and delegates governmental authority to all the various gummints around this particular lump o' rock. ICANN is a branch of the FTC. The United States Federal Trade Commission. Yep that's right, skipper. We pwn the 1nt3rnetz0rz!!!1!1 Natch, other governments, or Mickey Mouse Operations, as they are known in the parlance, are none to pleased about this fact.

Shutting down the web site? There is precedent for ordering removal of offending confidential material, and of course, the original leaker who violates confidentiality agreements is subject to sanction, but shutting down an entire website is quite an overreach. The site was mirrored worldwide, so it resulted in being a remarkably ineffective form of overreach.

Leeschwa- MissDangerPants said...

Your edification, as always, is appreciated. That's why we will need you not only on the Cabinet, but possibly to head up the ICANN, teh FTC itself, and ah hell, maybe even the IANAL!