WikiLeaks changes domain name, moves to Switzerland

By on Dec 3, 2010 at 7:31 AM
News December 3, 2010

After being ousted by Amazon’s Web Services, the controversial site WikiLeaks has run into another snafu, this time with its DNS provider, EveryDns.net. Via a statement, EveryDns stated that due to “interference issues” that are affecting the service of others, the company has ceased resolving wikileaks.org; the service was provided to WikiLeaks for free. In response to the DNS shutdown, WikiLeaks tweeted the following message:

WIKILEAKS: Free speech has a number: http://88.80.13.160

In a subsequent tweet, the company then announced that it had moved to Switzerland; the site’s new domain name is now wikileaks.ch.

A very vocal opponent of the WikiLeaks cable publishings has been the Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman. The Senator has introduced legislation, dubbed the SHIELD (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) Act, that would make it illegal to publish information “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” or information relating to “a classified source or informant.” We have to wonder where Sen. Lieberman’s legislation was when CIA operative Valerie Plame was outed. No word on when the new legislation will hit the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, Amazon has released a statement stating that the reason for its removal of WikiLeaks’ data from its AWS servers was not a result of denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks or government pressure, but rather the fact that the site did not operate within Amazon’s terms of service.

Read [Tweet 1] Read [Tweet 2] Read [SHIELD Act]

Tags:
, , , , , ,
32 Comments

Related Articles

  • Debbie Barnes

    so much for freedom of speech

    • http://www.bgr.com Andrew Munchbach

      or the press

      • http://twitter.com/Zaggs Zaggs

        Neither freedom of the press or speech are absolute. For instance if you said something that lead directly to someone being killed (say like publishing the names of terrorist informants) neither freedom would save you from criminal or civil prosecution.

      • Anonymous

        While this is true, you could have mentioned that none of the Wikileaks… leaks has ever been conclusively proven to have caused anything of the kind. That’s not going to stop anyone from saying that lives will be threatened every time Wikileaks releases something, but I just thought I’d point out that this is just fearmongering until it has actually been proven to have, you know, actually happened.

      • Common Sense

        You must realize that the Wikileaks people are being responsible with this information. They are sifting through all of these documents and scrubbing them of any potentially threatening/unwanted personal information.

        Why do you think people come to Wikileaks with information? So they can be harmed or harm others?

        Of course not. Wikileaks has survived this far because they’ve behaved accordingly with responsibility and integrity.

      • Djblois

        Squabe,

        It is government confidential data – so it is ILLEGAL. And putting people in danger does not need to be proven by deaths. When you jump out of a plane – you are increasing your risk of death then if you are on a plane. Do we need you to die for that to be proven? So it is NOT fearmongering – IT is 100% fact.

      • Djblois

        Common Sense,

        And where do you get your information from? Do you have an inside source because that has been mentioned no where!!!!

      • Common Sense

        @ Djblois

        If you read Assange’s recent interviews, he tells the interviewers that they are carefully combing over all information.

        this makes sense. After all, why would they release these documents in very small increments? Why not blow the whole load at once? Apart from wanting to make each release significant, said information must be inspected and cleaned up first.

    • Djblois

      This is NOT a Freedom of speech or Freedom or press issue. It is illegal to get classified documents – so therefore publishing it is also illegal. So with your arguments, it would be okay for a news reporter to break into my house and steal my private memos as long as he/she release it because then it is freedom of speech or freedom of press. That is a false argument.

      • Noemail

        And when you use confidentiality and secrecy to hide information that SHOULD be public, that is also illegal. Our government too often thinks it can bury it’s actions behind closed doors. This isn’t just about military activity, but about the daily governing of our nation. As citizens and tax payers, we have the right to know what the heck our government is using its authority and our money for, and too often we do not. If wikileaks can help put an end to the rampant abuse of secrecy, then I support it.

      • Djblois

        Again, sorry if you are wrong but every government needs to protect its people and every government does things that it needs to do to survive in an anarchic system. You would do the same if you were in an anarchic system. If there was no police force or government to protect you – then you would lie, cheat, steal, etc to stay alive. All governments are the same way. It is the war of all against all. All governments have secrets and should be protected.

      • Djblois

        Oh and it is NOT illegal for a government to keep military secrets. Many things any government does is and should be secret. And sorry – I do not want you to tell the government what should and shouldn’t be secret because you would probably want everything to be out in the open, which would put millions of American lives on the line. You are a strong liberal aren’t you?

      • Common Sense

        In case you forgot (or very clearly ignored), Wikileaks did NOT steal this information. It was provided to them. Thus, Assange and WL did not steal or manipulate to obtain this information. Again, it was given to them.

        Being an organization dedicated to releasing all kinds of secrets and truths, it is their moral imperative to be responsible with the information they were given.

    • Anonymous

      Does anyone here realize this dude is NOT from America, freedom of speech doesn’t apply here… I agree people should say what they want but saying freedom of speech refers to the American constitution, which only applys to those who live under that constitution..

  • Anonymous

    LMAO Does Lieberman actually believe that SHIELD will have any effect? US laws apply to the US not the world. Even if Europe decides to respect SHIELD what if WikiLeaks moves to China, Iran or other countries that really don’t care? What is a US law going to do?

  • Donny

    Amazon didn’t need to BS here either. Even if they told the truth and said the CIA called and told then to take it down the majority of this country wouldn’t listen or care.

  • DTownTony

    I understand why people want to know everything that our government does, I know I do (even if it is mostly out of curiosity), but whats the rational on how its a good thing that all our governments documents (confidential and otherwise) are made public. Isn’t that a risk to national security? Is the public really entitled to know everything?

  • Chut Pata

    “A very vocal opponent of the WikiLeaks cable publishings has been the Independent Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman”. Why am I not surprised to see 1/2 of “Sore Loserman 2000″ being the vocal opponent of facts? The democrat who would vote a Republican instead of a black Democrat. LOSERMAN!!!

    • DTownTony

      maybe he just voted for the better candidate. The same people who complain about a lack of bi-partisan politics are usually the same people who make comments like yours.

      • mondeeezy

        The second he nominated Palin for VP, he (and everyone else) ceased to have an argument that he was a better candidate.

      • Djblois

        That is a fallacy. Weather you like Palin or not many people believe her to be a good candidate. So your argument does not hold merit. DTownTony should have said, “maybe he voted for who he believed was the better candidate” That is non-partisan

        Now I will give my view. I believe Obama is a terrible president and I believed it from the beginning. It has nothing to do with him being black, it has to do with him being a socialist.

  • DTest5477

    I want to see them crush these people. I’m all for freedoms but when these people need to be prosecuted.
    If they run then follow them, no mercy.

    • Sure

      I’m all for freedoms, but if someone else tries to use them, KILL THEM.

  • Anonymous

    This legislation is an over reaction and threatens legitimate whistle blowing.

    But whatever, this country is already screwed! You’re all idiots.

  • http://twitter.com/livingbasehead Shelton

    OMFG SHEILD are you serious this is AWESOME please make Nick Fury head of it. find someone named Nick Fury please!!! if they dont wear a eye patch poke out there left eye. Furthermore how is it no already Illegal to publish this information?

    • DTownTony

      you just put the “Awe” in “Awesome” with that post!

  • MustWarnOthers55

    It really amazes me how the fear mongering and talking points of major media outlets guide people towards fighting against their own interests.

    Here are the U.S Government confidentiality classifications:

    1 Top Secret
    2 Secret
    3 Confidential
    4 Restricted
    5 Unclassified

    Guess how many of the leaked cables were Top Secret? If you said “Zero” you are correct.

    There were more top secret leaks in the Nixon Watergate scandal. And guess what? That information was important for the press and the citizens of the United States to have. Would your argue that in hindsight, that information should have been kept “Top Secret”? That our Government should be able to illegally influence the direction of elections?

    How about wars? bribery? How about all of the conspiratorial acts that our government gets involved in?

    If our Government is conspirating in ways that is detrimental to US Citizens, US Military members, and other citizens around the country, I want to know about it.

    The root of what Julian Assange preaches (and I don’t regard him as a saint) is that sites like Wikileaks aim to make sites like Wikileaks irrelevant; In that the Government shouldn’t be hiding anything from its citizens unless it is of a direct benefit to those citizens.

    It’s painfully obvious that our government is shady, secretive and has a LOT of innocent blood on its hands.

    • Sheawhat

      While agree with most of what you said, I hate the fact that people really believe that him printing this is to get anything good accomplished. He is printing this stuff for the attention it is giving him. Yes our government is shady and i would bet all the tea in China that just about every other government in this world is shady as hell. Just like big business is shady, just like banks are shady, just like most people are shady. So I think alot of us should gently climb down from our moral high horses and call this exactly what it is.SELF PROMOTION. This guy is from Australia but has never seen anything shady going on in his country? Come On Man. All he wants is attention. I love how people are quick to be whistleblowers but rarely offer any solutions. Its like the guy that starts the fight with his mouth and finishes it with his feet (by Running). Love BGR and all the commentors…

  • Eric

    The reality here is that Wikileaks did not break any laws. The only US law that “may” have been violated is the Espionage Act. While there have been a few people successfully prosecuted under this act, every attempt in history to prosecute a media outlet under this act has failed.

    The most famous case of this was in the early 1970s when the Justice Department prosecuted Daniel Elsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and Washington Post. There was also an attempt to prosecute the New York Times and Washington Post, but those cases were quickly dismissed. And Elseberg was found NOT GUILTY because the Justice Department failed to show that his intent was to harm the country — something that is required under the Espionage Act. Instead, Elseberg claimed to be a whitleblower, and the content of the leaked Pentagon Papers supported his claim as much of the leaked information disclosed how the White House had lied to both the people and most importantly, had lied to Congress in order to get them to vote for war.

    If anyone is guilty of breaking this law, it is the army analyst Bradley Manning who is currently being held in custody but has yet to be charged with a crime. They could try to charge Julian Assange with violating the Espionage Act, but that would likely fail. And also, the Espionage Act says nothing about subsequent disclosures, meaning the any newspaper who has printed detailed information on these documents is just as guilty as Wikileaks. The fact that Wikileaks was the first media outlet to disclose these documents means nothing as far as the law goes. So if they charge Wikileaks with a crime, they would also have to charge the New York Times, Washington Post, and just about every other newspaper and website who has printed anything detailed about these documents. Fat chance they will do that.

  • john

    A few decades ago when men were men and not metrosexual femmes, this Assange fairy would have been found in Europe somewhere with a bullet in his head. And rightly so.

  • 1MansFreedomFighter

    This guy rocks. I can’t wait until he releasing the stuff on Wall Street in January.

  • me

    what does valerie plame or whatever the fuck her name is have to do with this?

blog comments powered by Disqus