Wikileaks: Judge Reverses His Order Disabling Web Site
Hi All http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01wiki.html?ref=us "In reversing himself at a hearing here on Friday, Judge White acknowledged that the bank’s request posed serious First Amendment questions and might constitute unjustified prior restraint. He also appeared visibly frustrated that technology might have outrun the law and that, as a result, the court might not be able to rein in information once it had been disclosed online. ... ... William J. Briggs II, a lawyer representing the bank, said the decision “abdicated federal judicial authority to the Internet.”" The recent court ruling regarding Wikileaks should be the grounds of a case study since it does have far reaching implications. Regards Derek
Derek and all my friends, I believe the Judge in reversing his earlier decision, did the proper thing. Shutting down the Whole wikileaks web site was certainly overkill and not reflective necessarily of Wikileaks. However there are 4th amendment considerations regarding the Bank's privacy and security considerations to it's customers. Seems to be this was an insider leak that Wikileaks published. At a minimum, Wikileaks should have exercised discretion. The bank should have had better customer account security. The next move is however the Banks and the damaged or potentially damaged customers pii data and account data that was breached and than leaked to Wikileaks whom published that data. I also agree with Derek here in that this case will or *May* be a good case study on several levels, including which offshore bank one decides to do business with and an in-depth knowledge of their online access security as well as account data security. If I were a customer of this bank, I would be precipitously closing out my accounts with this bank, and if it was my data that was breached, than leaked and published, I would be seeking legal action accordingly and with vigor. This case also points up why when I am ask as to whom I bank with offhand, I refuse to disclose unless whomever is inquiring signs a non-disclosure agreement and files same with the appropriate federal district court and sends me a *Registered* copy of that filing accordingly. Derek Smythe wrote:
Hi All
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/01wiki.html?ref=us
"In reversing himself at a hearing here on Friday, Judge White acknowledged that the bankâs request posed serious First Amendment questions and might constitute unjustified prior restraint. He also appeared visibly frustrated that technology might have outrun the law and that, as a result, the court might not be able to rein in information once it had been disclosed online. ... ... William J. Briggs II, a lawyer representing the bank, said the decision âabdicated federal judicial authority to the Internet.â"
The recent court ruling regarding Wikileaks should be the grounds of a case study since it does have far reaching implications.
Regards
Derek
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
participants (2)
-
Derek Smythe -
Jeffrey A. Williams