Is The Next WikiLeaks Dump All About Bank Of America?

Why should politics get all the fun? WikiLeaks has promised to release a trove of information about a “major” bank in 2011. And based on a comment WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made to Computer World in 2009, folks are speculating that the next massive dump will be 5 gigs of data from a Bank of America executive’s hard drive. The main question is how to present it. Well, slideshows and infographics and popup ads, obviously.

Is Bank Of America WikiLeaks’ Next Target? [Forbes]
Wikileaks plans to make the Web a leakier place [ComputerWorld]
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Wants To Spill Your Corporate Secrets [Forbes]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. OnePumpChump says:

    The only way I could be more erect over this is if it were Chase.

  2. W10002 says:

    Are they trying to help Bank of America win the Golden Poop for 2011?

  3. tws says:

    And again.. why is this on consumerist?

    • 5seconds says:

      Because inside documents from a major bank will no doubt be full of information directly regarding consumer issues (products, fees, customer service etc), both within BoA and the banking industry in general. Is that enough reason for you?

    • Sword_Chucks says:

      It is on consumerist because you clicked on it. And because of that it paid for Ben to eat lunch Then by commenting and reloading the page, you paid for his dinner too. And then I clicked on it, so I got breakfast, and since I’m commenting Im now covering lunch tomorrow. You may check the replies which then pays for dinner.

      Actually, it was posted so you can question it why it was posted.

      • Megalomania says:

        have you really not noticed that THERE ARE NO ADS on Consumerist, and that there’s a little graphic saying “WE DON’T TAKE ADS” at the bottom of EVERY post? The site is run by Consumer Reports and largely paid for by donations.

        Ben has absolutely no incentive to post fluff ‘for page loads’. The Consumerist is the only major blog I’ve read that is willing to forgo advertising revenue to pay more than lip service to impartiality. Maybe you could appreciate that as well, or at least notice it.

        • ryder02191 says:

          I don’t think you understand how business works. If there were “absolutely no incentive” for increase page views, then this site flat out wouldn’t exist, especially after the for-profit Gawker media dropped it (considering it performed horribly compared to their other blogs). Increased site views equates to increased promotion of Consumer Reports, which equates to increased revenue for CU. Just because an entity is “non-profit” doesn’t mean they don’t try to maximize their revenue as much as possible.

          • Megalomania says:

            As I said in both the context of the post and conversation, there is no incentive for them to post fluff, specifically fluff that draws the ire of commenters. They do not passively gain revenue by people looking at the site, they do it by having people appreciating the site and its message enough to be interested in the parent organization’s offering or to donate.

            If you want to make up straw man arguments to knock down, put them in someone else’s mouth.

        • diagoro says:

          I guess you didn’t see the Consumer Reports adds and links?????

      • FacebookAppMaker says:

        “It is on consumerist because you clicked on it”

        Oh god, it’s Schroeders websites…. It’s on the site, yet NOT on the site at the same time. HOLY FUCKING SHIT

    • snobum says:

      Yea, banks have nothing to do with consumers. Nope, nothing at all…..

    • Hoot says:

      I can see this for some articles they put on here but…

      if you have to ask about this one, you’re probably too dumb to read the site.

    • ldub says:

      Gee, economic reality too much for you?

    • HoJu says:

      Says the guy that works for BoA.

    • Griking says:

      This story is actually just a preview of a news post coming down the road.

    • ZIMMER! says:

      And we can tell what side you (think) your toast is buttered on.

  4. bigTrue says:

    The only bad thing about the last hubbub in the Wikileaks dump is the fact the info showing just how bad the Turkey genocide of Armenians is being swept under the rug amid all the talk about Iran’s nuke capabilities.

    But, yeah, there is nothing bad about WikiLeaks and hearing politicians say things like “This is an attack on the world!” is really funny. God forbid we have transparency in government, I know.

    • LabanDenter says:

      god forbid converstivations held in confidence between leaders actually stayed that way. Next up a wikki dump of all converstations you had with your dr. god forbid your hidding anything.

      • yagisencho says:

        Oh…one of these things is NOT like the other…one of these things DOESN’T BELONG.

        What does doctor-client privilege have to do with the backroom (and often illegal) dealings of publicly-elected officials? Nothing at all.

        • LabanDenter says:

          in both cases both parties expected privacy, and to have franky and honest coverstation, that privacy is sometimes required.

          • Damocles57 says:

            “But your Honor, I object! My clients expected privacy when they discussed the contract killing of the victim. It is wrong that the police used electronic devices to learn of this. And it is wrong that the recording of my clients, in their own words, are exposed for everyone to hear. This will ruin their reputations and be a very bad example for the Whole World!”

            Should criminals have an expectation of privacy?. It is ironic that some of the elected officials who get to define “criminal” are themselves exposed as criminals.

            • Jayrandom says:

              Yes, criminals should be (and are) given the benefits of privacy. To quote A Man for All Seasons:

              William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
              Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
              William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
              Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

              It’s never hard to extend rights to people and groups that you agree with; the important thing is that you’re able to extend those rights to the people and groups you absolutely despise. Unless you think everything that is said and done for an organization should be a matter of public record, the leaking of confidential information should be seen as a bad thing.

          • dadelus says:

            If they don’t want the conversations public, then they shouldn’t have made a transcript of the conversation.

            If they don’t want something in an email made public, then it shouldn’t be put in an email

          • jamar0303 says:

            Privacy… as in keeping the voting public in the dark? You’ll probably say “don’t put words in my mouth” and I’ll say that’s nothing more than connecting dots. When government does things behind closed doors, that’s one more thing the public doesn’t know about what the government’s doing. And an ill-informed public can not make a fully informed decision about who to vote for.And people wonder why we’re in this little mess.

            • ryder02191 says:

              The general public is far too stupid to truly understand and grasp the things the government does, especially when reports are taken out of context. You’re talking about citizens of a nation who will basically believe anything without any semblance of justification. There is plenty of information out there that the mob-mind will get its panties in a twist over for no good reason, and frankly an easily-influenced group of people with information it can’t handle is infinitely more of a threat than a closed-door meeting or two.

              • RvLeshrac says:

                So you see nothing wrong with, say, kidnapping an innocent citizen of a sovereign nation, then threatening that nation with economic sanctions and military intervention should they attempt to arrest the men involved in the kidnapping? Because it looks like that happened in Germany. And there would be no proof of it, were it not for the release of the cables.

                THAT is why we need open and accountable government. People talk about “socialism,” but what’s more reminiscent of the USSR than making people disappear?

              • Skankingmike says:

                Then if say you were were personally effected by one of these “back room deals” that you are too stupid to understand. Would it matter?

                I think the part you said about too stupid to understand.. would apply to you.

                The government is a social contract and secrecy is not something most people want. And I could care less about our ability to conduct our police state. Maybe this will quell that part of our policies.

          • SuperSnackTime says:

            There is no way you actually believe that your analogy is legit. Think it through and try again.

        • Beaufoux says:

          Publically elected?

          99 percent of the info is from appointed officials or career bureaucrats. What exactly was illegal? Your argument is invalid.

          In fact, I’d say doctor/client confidentially (DCC) info is less important than backroom diplomacy (BD). DCC protects the client from the doctor’s big mouth. The doctor couldn’t care less if the info was out. But BD info is private to both sides.

      • bigTrue says:

        If you honestly think that analogy is correct, there is no help for you.

        If “regular” citizens can’t have the conversations here and expect privacy from law enforcement, why should out governments? Along the same lines, I feel that police officers who are found guilty of any crime should have 3-4 times the penalty. When you are in a position of power you should be held more accountable, not less, since there are many more who are affected by your actions.

        Honesty and openness is a good thing, even if it makes people uncomfortable. In the end, we’re all better off knowing truth.

  5. fs2k2isfun says:

    I’d rather they hit the TSA hard.

  6. Angus99 says:

    I heard the bank thing is a smokescreen and it’s really Ticketmaster.

  7. jason in boston says:

    My guess is BofA but I want it to be Goldman Sachs so badly.

    • Bohemian says:

      How about both? That would be peachy. The data dump on BoA I really have no problem with because they are a private company and everyone knows they are guilty as sin of a ton of wrongdoing but nobody with the authority will do anything about it. If enough information about BoA hits the light of day the authorities would have to act.
      I would rather see Wikileaks do more of this than hassling the state department.

    • mac-phisto says:

      i agree – that would definitely be the juiciest. i could see BoA being pretty interesting, though. i have my suspicions that merrill still has a lot of influence in that relationship.

  8. CrankyOwl says:

    Wonder what the statute of limitations is on banks doing bad stuff? I quit working for Bank of America 10 years ago so I’m probably safe ;-)

  9. JoeTheDragon says:

    They need to do a dump on comcast

    • pokinsmot says:

      Then there are people who have comcast and would try to read wikileaks…. With comcast’s trackrecord, I think you know what would happen. Their traffic priority would be ranked so low that it would just comcastically drop connections.

  10. zantafio says:

    I hope we will have finally some hard evidences that the Mafia is involved…

  11. zantafio says:

    Next dump: Fox News? Oh yes pleeeease!…

    • MamaBug says:

      omg omg please please ppplllleeeeaaassseeee!!!!

    • IR1 says:

      Stop watching it then… it wont bother you if you don’t watch it. Turn on MSNBC along with the 5 other people who want to watch Socialist drivel.

      • deejmer says:

        I don’t watch it, and it still bothers the shit out of me. Fox has brainwashed a large chunk of our nation and any propaganda machine like it should be destroyed.

        To be clear, I watch NO 24-news channels, but anyone with a LOGICAL brain knows that Faux News is the largest propaganda machine since Germany in WWII and is ruining our country.

        Anyone who believes that Glenn Beck, Palin, more tax cuts and drilling are the answers to our country’s problems deserve what they are asking for. I however, don’t deserve living in a financially and ecologically bankrupt society with everyone only looking out for their narrow self interests.

      • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

        There you go again. “Left-leaning/progressive” != “OMG SOCIALIST”. If you’ve ever actually watched MSNBC during the day you’d find that most of the daytime commentators are pretty centrist, even right-leaning (Pat Robertson is one of their commentators.)

  12. Consumeristing says:

    A “major” bank. Isn’t the Fed a bank?

  13. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    How would Consumers’ Union respond to a release of their internal correspondence & emails?

    • ryder02191 says:

      Yeah, I don’t know that I can get on board with the release of a private entity’s corporate files. You want to expose the government, fine (though it’s still certainly sleezy in its own regard). This seems flat out wrong.

      • Mecharine says:

        Why is it wrong? Its not like its any worse than some of the things the Banks did.

      • humphrmi says:

        If businesses claim to do business with the upmost integrity then their internal correspondence should not worry anyone. Yes, you don’t want your competitors reading about what kind of prices you get from your (possibly common) suppliers. Yes, you don’t want internal product development exposed to your competitors. But I don’t think that sort of stuff is what Wikileaks is talking about releasing. I think what they’re planning to release (and I am by no means knowledgeable of any of this, just common sense / educated guess) is a lot of emails about the thoughts of their analysts on the cratering of the world economy, mortgage meltdown, and subsequent mergers and forced takeovers that whatever bank was involved in.

        • ryder02191 says:

          I’m indeed just about as knowledgeable as you on their intentions here (sure, I could research…but I won’t), but I just have a hard time believing that there are 5 gigs of “bad” data out there that are completely devoid of any trade secrets, proprietary information, etc.

          Looking at my work mail files, the sum of the thousands of emails I’ve sent/received over the last 3.5 years is less than 5 GB in size (with a large portion of that being what the company would probably consider “guarded info”). Exposing wrong-doings and ethical violations is fine and dandy, but I’m almost positive that some personal/secret/etc. data is going to get through. It’s BOA’s right to protect that information, and I hope they pursue all means to do so.

          • Unclaoshi says:

            Adding in non email documents it could easily get above 5 gig, granted most of it is probably just internal policy letters and stuff like that.

      • c_c says:

        Yea, like poor poor Enron. What’s up with exposing private companies that are committing illegal & unethical activities?!? Their internal dealings should have been kept secret, I’m sure everything would still be peachy with them!

  14. VashTS says:

    Wikileaks=Democracy/Freedom/Amendment/Justice/ in Action. Hence the government and media are against it. Aren’t they the same entity,

  15. pokinsmot says:

    Isn’t this considered somewhat malicious? If the leak contains information of wrong-doing (which it probably does), what would happen to their stock price? Pull your investments out of any bank before this comes out. There is a chance it isn’t BoA.

    • SJ says:

      MY GOD! Why won’t you think of the child- … stock holders!

    • failurate says:

      You could do more research and quit investing in companies that tend toward evil.

    • diesel54 says:

      I’m invested in BoA and even if the leaks are about them I plan to stay invested. If everyone took your advice the market would implode. Any dip they take will likely be corrected within a week of the news.

  16. Sheogorath says:

    Without freedom of information, all other freedom is irrelevant.

    Mr. Assange, whatever his ego problems, is fighting the good fight. I wouldn’t call him a ‘hero’ but his work helps the American public.

  17. EverCynicalTHX says:

    I disagree with their military and defense leaks but would LOVE to see a few fat cat banks like BOA or Chase have their internal memos leaked, even better if we get the names of some politicians colluding and proof of how they raked American taxpayers over the coals.

  18. dragonfire81 says:

    So just because a corporate is public, that means we should be able to see every little thing that goes on inside it, even things that were NEVER meant for public eyes?

    Let me ask you this: What if wikileaks posted a bunch of private emails you sent to your wife and other friends so the whole world could read them? You’d be pissed and rightfully so. Why? Because some things are meant to be KEPT PRIVATE.

    It’s so stupid that we should live in a world where every little thing we say or do or write could potentially end up in the public eye.

    • EverCynicalTHX says:

      ..and yet we have Facebook….

    • denros says:

      Not saying this isn’t worth debating, but that particular analogy is invalid. Corporations do not have the same legal rights as individuals in the U.S. Even public figures.

      • Beaufoux says:

        Negative – corporations do have many legal rights and protections as individuals. Though, this isn’t a debate on Corporate Personhood.

        Still, the analogy is partly valid. It’s all fun and games until you’re affected by someone airing information you believed to be private. Say you are working for bank XYZ and send a personal email to your girl/boyfriend via your corporate email account. Fair game for public domain, all the while shouting “freedom of information!”?

        • Brunette Bookworm says:

          Actually, yes, if I used company email to send personal emails I don’t expect privacy. Most companies specifically state your emails are not private. I’d have to log out and log back in to see the exact text of the message but, in essence, you have no expectation of privacy on most company networks. It’s not YOUR computer, its theirs. And yes, I think if a company is publicly traded (or who takes a taxpayer bailout) it should have to disclose lots of things to the public.

    • Brontide says:

      You might actually want to read about wikileaks.

      “When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and *write a news piece about it describing its significance to society*. We then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the original source material themselves.

      As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving a harm minimisation procedure. We do not censor our news, but from time to time *we may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people. *”

  19. Dont lump me into your 99%! says:

    My business account is at BOA…..I know they are not that nice, but they have all the features I need as a business, and thats important.

  20. cbutler says:

    Nobody thought that it could be UBS yet? Colored me surprised Consumerists.

  21. stevied says:

    A single bullet would solve a lot of problems.

  22. Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

    Lets all hope it is…and better yet…lets hope that something will be down by our government officials when the information comes out. I’m sure the government and talking heads will try to sway our attention of the content by saying how evil and bad this person is for releasing this information.