Julius Baer Defends Wikileaks Shut Down; Digs A Deeper Hole

from the backed-into-a-corner... dept

The "Wikileaks" shutdown situation continues. The Associated Press covered the story late yesterday, noting how Julius Baer's lawyers were apparently unfamiliar with the concept of the Streisand Effect, and how the attempt to get Wikileaks taken offline would only get it -- and the content the company was trying to hide -- a lot more attention. Today, Julius Baer has finally made a statement on the matter, claiming a variety of contradictory things. It says that it didn't want the entire site taken offline, but hasn't asked the court to reverse its order shutting down the site. As Slashdot points out, the bank also seems to be claiming that the controversial documents in question need to be taken offline both because they're forged and also because they reveal confidential info. While it is possible that a forged document would also have some legitimate confidential info, it does seem like a strange defense to bring up both of these things. At the very least, it certainly seems like the bank keeps digging itself a deeper and deeper hole. If it really was afraid that having this content out there would make things worse in its ongoing legal battles, things seem a lot worse now as many more people are aware of the documents.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Innocent Bystander, Feb 28th, 2008 @ 3:30pm

    pleading in the alternative

    > forged and also because they reveal confidential info.

    That's admissible.

    I think that it's called "pleading in the alternative" which may be best explained with an example: I never had the pot. I never broke the pot, and besides, it was broken when I got it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2008 @ 3:37pm

      Re: pleading in the alternative

      Is that like "I am unaware of any such activity and if I were aware of it, I would be unable to disclose my involvement in it."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    publius, Feb 28th, 2008 @ 3:49pm

    Curious?

    Also undermining the injunction is that the site is available on mirror sites hosted outside the US. Not only are the documents accessible, taking down the site has only made folks curious as to what could cause such a decision (at least it made me curious). Dare I call it the Rubbernecking effect?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    publius, Feb 28th, 2008 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Curious?

    You are right, I concede. I just hate the thought of crediting anything to that woman, even something as ignoble as the Barbara Streisand effect

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    exzer, Feb 28th, 2008 @ 6:05pm

    I am absolutely selling my stock.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 28th, 2008 @ 6:17pm

    Innocent

    To quote Bart Simpson:
    "I didn't do it.
    Nobody saw me do it.
    You can't prove I did it,
    and I promise I'll never do it again!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    T.J., Feb 28th, 2008 @ 8:50pm

    Man, they are really pulling a Comcast here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This