Bank Julius Baer Drops Lawsuit Against Wikileaks

from the well-that-was-productive dept

The Swiss firm Bank Julius Baer learned all about the Streisand Effect last week, after somehow convincing a judge to force Wikileaks offline for hosting a document that they objected to (most likely because it alleged corruption and fraud on the part of the bank). However, in forcing the entire site offline, the whole thing got a lot more attention, raising free speech concerns, and the judge eventually put the site back online. While the bank claims that it never intended to have the whole site shut down, people pointed out that it certainly didn't rush to court to tell the judge to leave it up. Well, now that Wikileaks and the specific documents in question have been all over the news (as opposed to before, when almost no one knew they existed), Bank Julius Baer, tail between its legs, has dropped the lawsuit against Wikileaks. One more lesson for overly aggressive lawyers to think about the consequences of certain actions, rather than just launching lawsuits because they can.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

News You Could Do Without

by Mike Masnick

Thu, Feb 28th 2008 3:17pm

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.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Surprises

by Mike Masnick

Mon, Feb 18th 2008 1:11pm

Why Did A California Court Hide All Of WikiLeaks Over A Single Document?

from the seems-excessive dept

Over a year ago, we wrote about the Wikileaks project, designed to allow government and company officials to anonymously leak documents as a way of whistleblowing questionable activities. Apparently, it's been quite successful at times. However, in doing so, it's also building up a list of enemies, including one who has apparently convinced a California court to make the entire site disappear in the US. The Swiss banking group, Julius Baer, was upset by documents found on the site that they believe were posted by a former VP at the bank, alleging that the bank was involved in money laundering operations. Julius Baer's lawyers claim that having these documents public could influence ongoing litigation in Switzerland (one assumes having to do with money laundering). While it's understandable that the bank might not want those documents online, or that those documents might impact current litigation, that doesn't explain why the California court ordered the entire site offline, demanded that its registrar block the transfer of the domain, force the registrar to point all visitors to a blank page and also having the registrar hand over all information on IP addresses of people who accessed the wikileaks site. All of that seems rather excessive, and of questionable legality. After all, doesn't Section 230 of the CDA provide safe harbor for the service provider? I could see an order demanding the specific documents be taken down, but the rest of the order seems to go well beyond what's both reasonable and standard in cases of this nature. The folks behind Wikileaks are equally perplexed, noting that they were only given a few hours warning before the hearing, meaning they were unable to attend or send representation. All in all this seems rather excessive, especially compared to existing similar cases on record. Even odder about all of this is that since the court went after the registrar, not whoever is actually hosting the site, you can apparently still reach the actual site if you know the IP address.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Search Techdirt

And now, a word from our Sponsors..

15% off discount for Techdirt Readers

Popular Posts

Poll

Add Techdirt RSS To Your Reader

Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Older Stuff

Monday
12:18pm:	Label Exec Arrested For Not Using Twitter To Disperse Crowd At Mall To See Singer (53)
11:01am:	Spanish Court Dismisses Complaint From Nintendo Against Counterfiet DS Cartridges, Since They Add Functionality (12)
9:55am:	Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open (25)
8:44am:	What Kind Of Mickey Mouse (And Donald Duck) Lawsuits Are These? (23)
7:30am:	Prosecutors Ending Lawsuit Against Lori Drew (13)
6:06am:	Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users (70)
4:20am:	ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter (59)
2:10am:	School Can't Handle Critical Community Message Board; Sends Legal Nastygram (21)
Friday
7:39pm:	Liberian Laws Are A Secret Due To Copyright; Even The Gov't Doesn't Have Them (43)
6:56pm:	Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free (97)
6:10pm:	EFF Looks To Bust Bogus Podcasting Patent; Needs Prior Art (34)
5:28pm:	Google Blocking Set Top Boxes From Showing YouTube Unless They Pay Up? (64)
4:44pm:	Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses (43)
4:02pm:	If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning? (21)
3:05pm:	iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing (49)
2:14pm:	Norwegian Band Told It Can't Post Its Own Music To The Pirate Bay, Even Though It Wants To (24)
1:08pm:	If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement? (79)
12:00pm:	UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support (25)
10:57am:	NPR's Daniel Schorr Blames The Internet For Ft. Hood Shootings (37)
9:49am:	No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction' (28)
8:33am:	Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News (28)
7:15am:	Copyright Extension Moves To Japan (24)
5:46am:	Canadian Ebook Store Offers 'Free' Public Domain Ebooks -- Claims Copyright Says You Can Only Make 1 Copy (27)
4:01am:	There Are Lots Of Ways To Fund Journalism (14)
1:49am:	Winner Takes All, Long Tails And The Fractilization Of Culture (10)
Thursday
10:37pm:	The Lobbyists' Ability To Control The Message (29)
8:11pm:	In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs (27)
6:10pm:	Senate Exploring Med School Profs Putting Names On Ghostwritten Journal Articles In Favor Of Drugs (22)
4:52pm:	What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs? (56)
3:33pm:	Nordic Music Week: Optimism Galore And Found Songs (11)

Quick Links

Current Insight Community Cases

Bank Julius Baer Drops Lawsuit Against Wikileaks

from the well-that-was-productive dept

Julius Baer Defends Wikileaks Shut Down; Digs A Deeper Hole

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

Why Did A California Court Hide All Of WikiLeaks Over A Single Document?

from the seems-excessive dept

Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Monday

Friday

Thursday

More