"A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7250916.stm
It's interesting that this site can be taken down, whereas sites that exploit children and show pornographic images aren't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What's most pernicious about this is the judge's attempt to thwart the use of mirrors to keep the website itself alive, ordering the host server to delete any links to the domain name itself. I wonder how much this is an example of middle-aged technophobic judges not understanding the nature of the internet. I vaguely remember an episode I read in the Observer newspaper about a decade ago in which a British judge ordered a whistleblowing website taken down under Britain's draconian libel laws, so the whistleblowers in question copied their criticisms of their target to mirrors in the USA and Australia, which are outside British judical remit. It seems the American judge is trying to preempt this. Perhaps he's a friend of big business and despises whistleblowers per se?
Of course, the real (albeit somewhat rhetorical) question to ask is, why is there a need for whistleblowers in the first place?
Post a Comment