EXCLUSIVE: WikiLeaks to move servers offshore, sources say

EXCLUSIVE: WikiLeaks to move servers offshore, sources say

www.foxnews.com

Julian Assange’s investors are in the process of purchasing a boat to move WikiLeaks’ servers offshore in an attempt to evade prosecution from U.S. law enforcement, FoxNews.com has learned.

Multiple sources within the hacker community with knowledge of day-to-day WikiLeaks activities say Assange’s financial backers have been working behind the scenes on the logistics of moving the servers to international waters.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is my first ever time starting a thread so be kind

I find this hard to believe. It would take a lot of money to move their servers to this platform and build up the necessary infrastructure. Also, as noted in the article...the US prosecutes real people, you don’t prosecute servers.

Apparently there was a server farm out there before but ship-to-shore communication is rather slow.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Matt93


I like this story and hope to tie it to the German Hacker group who are attempting to build their own satellites. While of course the two are not related on the surface, I merely scratch it by dropping this link.

Maybe the sea is where we fight oppression of those who boast their control over the land? Maybe not, maybe we mobilize on the sea to take the fight global, maybe the global struggle is a real struggle, not simply between opposing forces of power, but with those who have power and those who do not.

go to google news, search german hacker satellite, first result is infowars

Sigh, okay infowars, but Slashdot was right underneath. Slashdot, I trust slashdot above infowars, and Slashdot is where I first heard this news.

yro.slashdot.org...

While the forces that are fighting for freedom take to the sky and sea, they lack the power of those who went there first. Liberate Power first, then worry about the freedom to talk about secret things the government doesn't want opened up.

I agree with the idea of moving the servers into a boat because it's mobile, the truth should be free. Free to ride waves, be the wave that is ridden. Surfs up, Wikileaks knows what's up.

reply to post by Matt93


This should be amusing...

Maritime law.....


lol... Nothing like trying to argue that they are not subject to laws while at the same time trying to hide behind them...

So... They plan to house their servers aboard ship?

If they can afford to do that, there's a need to investigate their funding sources. "Wiki-anything" has a difficult time operating as-is... much less from a mobile server farm on the ocean.

Im sure if they hosted their servers aboard a ship....the US Navy would just torpedo it and claim the ship was old....or that it hit an iceberg

Originally posted by Matt93
Im sure if they hosted their servers aboard a ship....the US Navy would just torpedo it and claim the ship was old....or that it hit an iceberg

Wouldn't that act be justified when the target is dispensing classified US information to people / countries who aren't friendly towards the US?

or

We could just view a naval attack on the vessel as a violation of law, which would cancel out wikileaks violation of law.

reply to post by Matt93


There's nothing stopping our special ops from taking out their servers in the U.S., currently.

Thieves strike every day. Power surges happen. Some yahoo pilot crashes his Cessna every now and then.

But that would be the worst move for the U.S. to make. You don't raise public issue with a privately held entity and then break their #. That gives them credibility and power.

They have a very secure site already in Sweden. This kind of move however is not unheard of. It's been done before. Some people actually did the same with pirate radio. Also I wouldn't be surprised if such a move were to be done only to face US guns. Killing people who excercise freedom of speech isn't beyond US anymore.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I was under the impression from Julian Assange that Swedish law was archaic and meant to be ignored? Or is it only the case when its directed at him?

Interesting.

Seems to me that the people from Wikileaks are using the old strategy from Pirate Radio back in the 60's.

"Pirate radio" in the UK first became widespread in the early 1960s when pop music stations such as Radio Caroline and Radio London started to broadcast on medium wave to the UK from offshore ships or disused sea forts. At the time these stations were not illegal because they were broadcasting from international waters. The stations were set up by entrepreneurs and music enthusiasts to meet the growing demand for pop and rock music, which was not catered for by the legal BBC Radio services.

The first British pirate radio station was Radio Caroline, which started broadcasting from a ship off the Essex coast in 1964. By 1967 twenty-one pirate radio stations were broadcasting to an estimated daily audience of 10 to 15 million. The format of this wave of pirate radio was influenced by Radio Luxembourg and American radio stations. Many followed a top 40 format with casual DJs, making UK pirate radio the antithesis of BBC radio at the time.[4] Spurred on by the offshore stations, several landbased pirate stations took to the air on medium wave at weekends, such as Telstar 1 in 1965, and RFL in 1968.

Wiki- Pirate Radio

I am not so sure how this would work now. With satellite and radar what it is today, I feel this would be a much easier target. There are no witnesses in the middle of the ocean, unless you allow them.

reply to post by MrWendal


The problem with that, and maritime law they re trying to use, is UNCLOS III. It is the most current up to date international law when it comes to dealing with maritime law. It also ends loopholes that were used in the earlier freedom of the seas laws.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah the problem in Sweden is that their own system ignores their own laws. So it's kinda hard to know what to do. A man can only go as far as go there, give the interviews, offer full co-operation and still be in the wrong.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yeah the problem in Sweden is that their own system ignores their own laws. So it's kinda hard to know what to do. A man can only go as far as go there, give the interviews, offer full co-operation and still be in the wrong.

In what way is Sweden ignoring their own laws? Not to side track the thread or anything so if you dont want to answer you dont have to.

There's no law that would stop them from interviewing him in Uk. So that part. Also he has already been to sweden to give of his testimony too so he has been more than co-operational.

reply to post by PsykoOps


We've discussed the interviewing in England issue and the legal decision made by the Swedish legal system that does not allow it. As far as being interviewed Assange has suggested days he was available that did not work for the government investigators.

We aren't going to agree on that point so lets bury that issue for now and look at the other. Do you think moving the servers out of Sweden are valid in terms of legalities being discussed by Assange?

Do you think moving offshore will enhance or reduce wikileaks options?

You guys don't have a very good memory.....

Remember HARP?? Now the nasty PTB will just fire up the HARP, shooting (what exactly, I do not know) down into the earth. causing an earth quake, creating a tsunami, overturning the ship. Game over!!

Then the light beings come down on reptilian horses (with a pit stop in hollow earth) they grab some gnomes, and fly to area 51, where Elvis greets them with something better than Nutella.

Im kidding, everybody knows there is nothing better than Nutella.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MrWendal

 

The problem with that, and maritime law they re trying to use, is UNCLOS III. It is the most current up to date international law when it comes to dealing with maritime law. It also ends loopholes that were used in the earlier freedom of the seas laws.

edit on 31-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I have no intention of discussing the merits, the law, or weather or not this is a good idea. I was simply making an observation and comparison.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MrWendal

 

The problem with that, and maritime law they re trying to use, is UNCLOS III. It is the most current up to date international law when it comes to dealing with maritime law. It also ends loopholes that were used in the earlier freedom of the seas laws.

edit on 31-1-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I have no intention of discussing the merits, the law, or weather or not this is a good idea. I was simply making an observation and comparison.

And I was pointing out your comparison doesn't take into account new international laws in that area. I dunno, Assange just seems to keep reinforcing the view that he is more and more detached from reality.

Is wikileaks actually in violation of any laws?