French Hosting Company Asks Judge If It's Okay To Host Wikileaks
from the better-than-just-taking-them-down... dept
It seems like, as in the US with Senator Lieberman's desire for censorship, a French politician has also been looking to censor Wikileaks, which has been partially hosted by French firm OVH. However, rather than just folding, PrometheeFeu alerts us to the news that OVH notes that their job is to run infrastructure and they have no feelings one way or another about Wikileaks itself. However, due to all of the publicity and controversy, they're asking a judge if it's okay for them to do what they're doing (Google translation of the original French). They specifically state that they don't think it should be up to politicians (or the company itself) to decide but that a court of law should actually determine if it's legal. That certainly seems like a better solution than just taking it down...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, france, hosting, wikileaks
Companies: ovh
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liberty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Liberty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This entry was also hosted by EveryDNS, the same US company that had the original wikileaks.org. As I expect was the plan all along, it's quite clear now that a US company has effectively censored a Swiss address.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In French law, if you know something is illegal, while you're hosting it, you are to take it down.
You are also to take it down as soon as you are aware it is illegal.
I can't find the article about it, but it seems one of the reason it's doing so is because most of the wikileaks "leaks" are concerning American messages, and not French one. When they're French, it seems they're pretty meaningless and unharmful, thus the question of legality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Liberty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, in this case they are more afraid of the big bad government making their lives miserable rather than individual consumers making a stink about their lack of backbone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wikileaks As a Swiss Organization.
Swiss banking gives Switzerland a mildly antagonistic relationship to the governments of most countries. These governments want to collect taxes on Swiss bank accounts, and the Swiss are accustomed to saying no, and no, and no yet again. For every political dissident who takes up residence in Switzerland, there are a hundred tax evaders. The established attitudes about how to deal with foreign tax collectors are reflexively applied to foreign secret police or political police.
Switzerland forswears geographical expansionism, of course, but it is also disinclined to accept economic immigrants. When it has to use guest-workers, it keeps them at the greatest possible arm's length. Switzerland accepts limits on its industries, in ways that, say, Sweden does not, saying in effect that industries which need to have unusual numbers of guest workers, for example, automobile manufacturing, are not welcome in Switzerland.
Now, of course, there are some kinds of leaks that a Swiss organization cannot handle, such as the dealings of Swiss bankers. There is room for another organization, perhaps headquartered in Iceland. By analogy, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Institute For Justice complement each other. Each has different funding sources, and can take on cases which might tend to antagonize the other organization's backers.
Dot-Com, Dot-Net, and Dot-Org are American top-level domains, ultimately issued under the authority of the United States Department of Commerce, and you should not be using them as your primary contact point if you are uncomfortable about residing in the United States, and, if it comes to that, standing your trial in an American court, and carrying your case to the Supreme Court. If you are an essentially pan-European organization, committed to relying on European law and ignoring the dictates of Washington, you should use Dot-Eu. Certain organizations founded by international treaties can use Dot-Int. I believe that Dot-Biz and Dot-Info are controlled by the WIPO organization. There is nothing wrong with a Dot-CH domain, provided that your goals are consistent with the Swiss idea of neutrality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wikileaks As a Swiss Organization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]