[OPF List] US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain

Trey Tasker TTasker at McGriff.com
Sun Dec 5 11:46:38 HST 2010


Well, now we are getting somewhere, as it is now clear that your standard is only as high as "any newspaper".  Is that really how you want to make your case?  It behooves all of us to distinguish between fact, implication, inference, opinion, suspicion, and truth.  I share your suspicions, but I am not so willing to jump to a conclusion.
 
Gary: "I challenge you to go to the sight and find anything that substantiates what you are claiming (parroting the government)."
 
The only claim that I made was a rebuttal that neither the US govt nor free speech were involved according to the article.  How is a discussion of the content of the article deemed as "parroting the government"?  If you keep twisting words in this way, then we will have to dub you "Reality".  You then add to your absense of logic by suggesting in your tag line that anyone, who does not think as you do, is not thinking at all.  HORSE SHIT! 
 
You further confound any reasonable path of logic or debate and suggest that I should prove that you are wrong before you have even provided one shread of fact to suggest that your assertion is right.  Why don't you support your first post with some facts and then we will have something to discuss?  Or if you want to assess hypotheticals and theories, we can do that too, but I have no desire to do work to disprove something that you stated as fact but conjured from some information or opinion not supported by the article.  If you know the government is involved, then please produce the proof.
 
I never said that the story is false.  I said the title is misleading because it implies that the US govt removed the domain name.  The statements in the article concern the decision of the private company, referred as a US registrar, not "The US Registrar".  If you read it differently, then please point to the wording that makes it clear that the government did anything to remove the site.  Below is the article text.
 
ARTICLE TEXT BEGINS HERE
 

US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain

Registrar EveryDNS.net Ousts WikiLeaks, Citing DDoS Attacks

by Jason Ditz, December 03, 2010 

 

As of 11:00 PM EST Friday December 3, the following Domains/IPs resolve to WikiLeaks. Your mileage may vary, try other URLs or IPs if the first doesn't work.

 

http://wikileaks.de

http://wikileaks.fi

http://wikileaks.nl

http://wikileaks.eu

http://wikileaks.pl

http://wikileaks.ch

http://jasonditz.com

 

http://213.251.145.96/

http://88.80.13.160/

 

WikiLeaks.org was rendered unusable this morning and the site's alternative domain name, WikiLeaks.ch, was also downed in the afternoon (though later resolved), following a move by EveryDNS.net to remove the domains from its service.

 

The downings have made the site somewhat difficult to access during the day, but an updated list of known, working domain names and IP addresses will be kept at the top of this article to provide access to the site's information as it faces a growing backlash. IP addresses do not rely on any third party domain name service and should be considered the most reliable, albeit less convenient ways to get to the site.

 

EveryDNS.net is a free DNS service provider based in New Hampshire, and insisted its decision to remove WikiLeaks' domains was strictly due to their inability to safely handle the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against the site without risking all the other domains they manage. They insisted they don't have any political problems with WikiLeaks.

 

This is in stark contrast to Amazon.com's decision to remove the site's content in the wake of a threat by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I - CT), as Amazon insisted that they were easily able to cope with the DDoS and simply decided that WikiLeaks puts people at risk.

 

ARTICLE TEXT ENDS HERE
  
Gary: "I find it interesting that a country that espouses Freedom of Speech will resort to such tactics."
 
Where in the article does it say anything about the country taking action or the limitation of free speech?  The article discusses the decisions of a private company who had every right to remove the domain, if they choose.  If you are referring to Lieberman, then you are discussing a threat, not an action.  I agree that Lieberman is walking a fine line between security and freedom of speech.  He is in dangerous territory, but there is no statement here that support any actions were taken by the govt.
 
The article also cites the first WikiLeaks DNS provider's decision is "in stark contrast" to Amazon who offered a different explanation.
 

________________________________

From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com on behalf of Gary Hunt
Sent: Sun 12/5/2010 1:02 PM
To: 'Outpost Of Freedom'
Subject: Re: [OPF List] US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain



The title is not misleading any more than any newspaper title. It is not the story, and, it is not false. The US Registrar DID yank the WikiLeaks domain from the name server.

Now, if you expected the title to satisfy your curiosity, it would have to be a pretty complex sentence, let along just a title.

As far as freedom of speech, perhaps not, though that might cast the issue into the realm of Freedom of the Press. We do, after all, live in a rather gray area regarding what is speech and what is press. 

Some believe that corporations have the right to Free Speech. This would lend one to believe that any entity had such a right. However, free speech might be understood not only to speak, but, also, to hear what is being said. After all, what is speech if the hearing of it is denied? To deny that "ear" to hear with, by doing what is within their (the government) sphere of influence is an attempt by that government to deny free speech.

So, if not Free Speech, is it Free Press? If so, who is the government to deny it by denying access (or, doing what is within their power to deny such access)? After all, aren't they supposed to protect both?

I think that the link that you provide makes what I have said painfully clear. What has been done by the government requires that the person wishing to read what was said has to resort to what might be deemed a modern day form of acquiring smuggled goods (going through not conventional channels to obtain the information), 

For a final thought, let's look at the information that is being made difficult to obtain. The government has said it could cost lives. that seems to be the greatest and most often expressed concern, so we will limit it to that concern.  So, the government said it. The government also says that you must pay your taxes and Healthcare is good for you. Have you looked into any of these? Or, have you accepted what the government has said? 

I challenge you to go to the sight and find anything that substantiates what you are claiming (parroting the government). 

As a result of this WikiLeaks discussion, I have, for the first time that I can recall, opted to use the quote of another as a regular feature of my signature -- in the hope that it will make at least some think that all that the government says may not be true.

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom <http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/> 

 

The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

John Kenneth Galbraith <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/11267.html> 

 

From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] On Behalf Of Trey Tasker
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 9:33 AM
To: Outpost Of Freedom
Subject: Re: [OPF List] US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain

 

Dusty:

 

It appears that a private company dropped the site.  The title of the article is misleading.  It means that a company in the US dropped the site, not that the US government had a role.  There is nothing in the story that suggests that the government was involved in the decision.

 

Gary's commentary reflects his opinion, and there are no facts in the story that support the theory of the government's involvement in restricting free speech.

 

Since the owner of the domain name can do as they please with their property, removing the site is not a free speech issue any more than it would for Moose to kick out a member of our group.  They provider is small company that is managing their risk carefully by stepping out of this fracas.

 

Here is a TUP post that provides more details...

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheUnrepentantPatriots/message/23846 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheUnrepentantPatriots/message/23846> 

 

Regards,

Trey

 

 

 

________________________________

From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com on behalf of Dusty
Sent: Sun 12/5/2010 10:58 AM
To: 'Outpost Of Freedom'
Subject: Re: [OPF List] US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain

G'day all;

 

________________________________

From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] On Behalf Of Gary Hunt
Sent: Saturday, 04 December, 2010 11:36
To: 'Outpost Of Freedom'
Subject: [OPF List] US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain

 


US Registrar Yanks WikiLeaks Domain <http://news.antiwar.com/2010/12/03/wikileaks-registrar-problems-leave-site-difficult-to-reach/> 


Well, that title is somewhat misleading.  A "registrar" is simply a business entity that formally reserves a domain name, called the 'Canonical name' and links it to a shared pool of IP numbers.  It is that IP number that is the actual address of that named site.  This number is called a 'dotted-quad' and looks something like this:  '123.234.345.456'.  The IP number for the server this list is hosted on is:  64.128.10.55.  This is done because it's easier for a human to remember 'OneAmericanPatriot.com' than it is to remember 64.128.10.55.  For this privilege they take your money, and then distribute a registration message to all of the DNS's (Domain Name Servers) at the next higher level of propagation all around the world.  There are many, many registrars...nor are they all in the US.


I find it interesting that a country that espouses Freedom of Speech will resort to such tactics.

It's probably just me being clueless, but since when did a common domain name registrar become a functioning arm of the US government?  The real question is, I think, did they do this either in concert with or under duress from said government?  If yes, then they are feckless rat-bastards as well as probably cowards working in their own behalf for their own continued survival (although it's hard to fault them for that should that be the case).  And no, I wouldn't put it past the bastards in DC to have strong-armed them to do that.  If you think it's bad now, wait until the feds (under the guise of the FCC) assume un-appropriated control over the web later this month.  Enjoy what little is left of your freedoms while you can...

Now, some will say, "well, he is releasing secret information that might cost lives". There is, however, doubtful support of that contention.

Very little, if any, of that info was unknown to the general public at large-except possibly in this country where folks are more interested in "American Idol" or the voting in "Dancing With The Stars".  OTOH; how many folks have to die before you'd consider it a poorly considered choice?

Understand, however, that if there is a problem in that area, it is not Americans having access to that information who will pose threats to those who might be at risk. Obviously, it is foreigners who have access that pose that risk. 

Sadly, too true.

So, the rest of the world can read WikiLeaks, since it is only the US Registrar blocking the domain. Consequently, it is only Americans who are denied the information. 

Incorrect!  Anyone can get to WikiLeaks via their IP address.  On top of which many of the DNS servers continue to list their IP addy like mine does.

Is it, perhaps, more likely that the government doesn't want US to know what they are up to?

Certainly possible.  But, if they wanted that to be the case they sure chose a poor way to do it.  It would have been far better if they'd not given the keys to the digital kingdom to that little faggot, Pvt. Manning.  If you think things are bad now, wait until they remove 'Don't ask, don't tell' and they turn the rest of our closet faeries loose on the world.

Gary

P.S. If you want to go to WikiLeaks, the IP number will get you there without the domain lookup (word address).

Yep.  I'd go there myself and download those pages while they're still available.  But I don't have even a fraction of the bandwidth needed to do that...so I'm not going to be able to view them myself...<big sigh!>

 

L8r all,

Dusty
-- "Truth is seen as treason in this empire built on an endless sea of lies!" 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 19491 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20101205/8372f1ca/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the OPF mailing list