Print 53 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Dec 9 at 7:20 PM

BP and Bank of America are Wikileaks next U.S. targets.  (Source: The Inquisitr)
Site's founder claims to have exclusive info from bank executive's hard drive

It must be hard for Wikileaks to come to come up with an appropriate second act.  The site aired close to 100,000 confidential documents from the U.S. military and 250,000 classified U.S. State Department diplomatic cables.  The move left the U.S. government scrambling to try to control the damage that leaks had on it.

Wikileaks must come up with an appropriate second act if it hopes to maintain its "Big Brother" global role.  Most of its leaks thus far have focused on targeting America.  It's already embarrassed the U.S. government.  So what could be better than gunning for the U.S. private sector?

The site reportedly is preparing to release a treasure trove of leaked information from a major U.S. bank.  Site founder Julian Assange aired the news in an interview with 
Forbes Magazine on Monday.  

Most believe that his target will be the much-maligned Bank of America.  Last year Mr. Assange in an interview with 
Computerworld reported having "several gigabytes" of data stolen off a Bank of America executive's hard drive.

Shares of Bank of America stock dropped on the New York Stock Exchange this week, as fears that the company could become the next target sunk in.

Another controversial Euro-American corporate giant also has reason to fear.  

BP p.l.c., an English company whose largest division is in the U.S., is reportedly also to be targeting by Mr. Assange's information attacks.  He claimed in the 
Forbes interview to have "lots" of secret BP data, and was merely trying to verify if it was all unique and unreleased.

One has to wonder, though, if the public may be somewhat apathetic to a BP leak after how much the company was lashed in the media following its notorious oil spill.  Nonetheless, the threat dropped BP shares down 2.5 percent on Monday, following the announcement (share prices have since risen back to around their previous trading levels).

Before its efforts to disparage the U.S. government's Middle Eastern war efforts, 
Wikileaks was best known for a leak of information from banking giant Julius Baer, which subsequently sued the site.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Brandon Hill on 12/2/2010 10:32:20 AM , Rating: 5
I doubt many Americans have much sympathy for Bank of America. Although I don't bank with them, I've heard nothing but horror stories from its customers.

By allometry on 12/2/2010 10:48:21 AM , Rating: 5
I was a BoA customer for over 20 years. They refused to refund a $10.00 charge for a service I never used or requested.

I left their bank.

This is such a simple example, however it outlines how abysmal BoA's customer service is. They don't care about their customers, big or small. Their credit service are terrible and from what I've heard, a mob squad.

As far as I'm concerned, I have a bowl of popcorn awaiting the news WikiLeaks exposes about BoA.

By mcnabney on 12/2/2010 11:18:16 AM , Rating: 3
Almost the exact same issue here.

I just don't know what more BoA could do to piss-off their customers. I half expected a flaming bag of dog feces on my door.

/much happier banking through USAA

By maverick85wd on 12/2/2010 12:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
USAA is great if! Too bad you have to be in the military to join, I'm certainly glad I did while I was in. BoA had a subsidiary called "Community Bank" for dealing with pounds while in England. It was a scam, a lot of people called it communist bank - they were ripping off soldiers and airmen shamefully. I wish I could say I'm surprised base leadership lets them get away with it, but I've found a lot of things in the military are a scam; they must get a kickback or something. I had a Lloyd's account while I was over there and found it to be 10x better.

By priusone on 12/2/2010 12:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Love USAA. My friend, who was with BofA, had an issue with Vonage, where even though he canceled, they kept charging him. BofA didn't want to credit his debit card for the false charges. The last straw for him was when someone paid him with a check from another bank and BofA charged him $10 to deposit the check into his OWN account.

It would be awesome if there were messages where the bank higher-ups were making fun of its customers, but I doubt that is the case. It will probably just be boring stuff.

By syphon on 12/2/2010 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny how I have heard so many horror stories from BoA however, I have to say I have not had any bad experience with them in my 8 years of banking with them. I have had fraud on my account that they refunded immediately. They have even removed overdraft fees when I was younger and over drafted like 5 times, they removed 4 of them and told me to be more careful the next time.

Now today was the first semi bad experience I had with them. I deposited money and the teller kept trying to push a new credit card on me even though I told her I have one with them already and I don't even use it. I then told her I do not use credit at all besides my mortgage and she still continued to push it on me. Had to say no about 6 times before she gave me my receipt and sent me on my way.

That is the only time I have had an issue and its not enough to make me leave. All my accounts have no fees on them so no complaints.

I do not believe they are a good company though...they have done some bad things that have come to light recently. If it was not such a pain to move all my accounts somewhere else, I would.

By razmanugget on 12/2/2010 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't laughed so hard in months. After my past BoA experiences, I can honestly picture a BoA rep pulling one of these.

By Rinadien on 12/2/2010 11:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
I actually had the exact opposite happen to me. They were charging for a service that I never used, happened for several months, and we discovered the charges by accident when we were making some changes to that account.

The rep double checked and verified that we were not using that service, and refunded almost 150 bucks over a year of usage... Overall, by the time the whole process was done, the lady refunded close to 200 bucks because of unnecessary bank charges, so I am quite happy with how that worked out.

Overall, I don't think there's a bank in this country that doesn't have the occasional bad customer service experience...


By mcnabney on 12/2/2010 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 5
Apparently you found the only honest person at BoA. They were probably fired at the end of the day.

By RamarC on 12/2/2010 12:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
$10? How about $1000?

I had been a BoA customer for 15+ years and about 8 years ago, BoA started charging me for overdrafts 3-4 times a month ($30 a pop) on our day-to-day account. I thought it was caused by my wife and I not knowing what the other person was doing.

One month I noticed in the monthly statement that the daily balance never went negative (meaning no overdrafts occurred that month). When I called BoA, they said the overdrafts were due to "holds" that released after a few days and the holds aren't shown on the statement. I even pointed out that an ATM withdrawal caused an overdraft even though it was within the available balance. After some bickering the rep refunded the fees.

So, I decided to go back over the past year's statements, and sure enough they'd been pulling this crap for more than 8 months. I also noticed that the one legitimate overdraft (a check for an auto repair) wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't charged me over $400 in phony overdrafts.

When I took my statements to the bank, the rep said there was nothing they could do because I only have 45 days to challenge any discrepancies.

So, I got 3 cashiers checks with everything from my 3 accounts and went to Wells Fargo. Viola! No more overdrafts. And their online banking showed all transactions immediately -- BoA always hid "today's" transactions so it was impossible to see what was pending).

BTW, one of the cashiers checks caused an OVERDRAFT!

By DCstewieG on 12/2/2010 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
You were being charged $100/month in fees and it took you 8 months to try to find out why? Wow.

By Solandri on 12/2/2010 3:31:44 PM , Rating: 4
That's actually a fairly common problem when 2 people share a checking account. Each person assumes its the other person causing the problem, they argue about it, and never bother to verify that it's not the bank causing it. Here's what you do to avoid it:

First, set up a joint savings/checking account. Deposits go into there. Any large purchases (talk with your spouse about what $ amount constitutes "large") are paid out of this account with a joint check.

Next, set up two other checking accounts - one for you, one for your spouse. Each of you gets a monthly "allowance" - money which you transfer from the main account into these accounts which you're free to spend any way you wish. That way you always know exactly how much is in your account, and your spouse always knows how much is in their account.

By RamarC on 12/2/2010 9:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually a fairly common problem when 2 people share a checking account. Each person assumes its the other person causing the problem, they argue about it, and never bother to verify that it's not the bank causing it.

Bingo! We'd get the overdraft notice in the mail and the tirades would start. At that time, the BoA online info was "preliminary and subject to change"... the statement was (supposedly) the gospel.

This only happened on our day-to-day account (groceries, entertainment, cash withdrawals, personal purchases shared between two people). Our primary money-market account (mortgage, car, regular bills, etc) never had the problem. A while after we moved to WF, we setup 2 PayPal debit accounts and started funding them every 3 months with an "allowance". Both of us had play money to do whatever we wanted -- no more arguments and it's been blissful for 5 years.

By Shadowmaster625 on 12/3/2010 8:09:22 AM , Rating: 2
Some creative executive at Bank of America goes through their database specifically looking for accounts that are shared between more than one person. They figure they can shove in a few overdraft fees which will hopefully go unnoticed. If we dig hard enough, I am sure we will find a spreadsheet with a column labeled something like "probability they will not notice the bogus fee". The bank exec who does this walks away with a big fat bonus. When the scheme threatens to detonate the bank, in comes fresh government cash infusion. And viola! Another round of bonuses. This is just one of many bankster scams, very small in the grand scheme. The funny thing is people throw a hissy fit over a few hundred dollars in bogus fees, but they care not about being a$$raped to the tune of multiple thousands per person in the bigger scams these criminal insolvent institutions perpetrate.

By trisct on 12/2/2010 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was with them for 2 weeks a few years ago. I was going to transfer my accounts from Riggs Bank (a small local outfit) because of their dismal online banking software.

Started doing this with a couple of small transfers, but almost immediately ran into issues with their hold-overdraft problems. Transferring money via check from a bank across the street took over a week, and overdrafts resulted. Notably, this was the one and the only time I have EVER had overdraft problems in my life.

Closed account, went back to Riggs, which subsequently was purchased by PNC bank, solving my web-banking issues...
Stay away from BoA...

By Uncle on 12/2/2010 10:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
Not complaining on your rant ,but how does a bank this big, get this big if they treat their customers as you say.

By MeesterNid on 12/2/2010 11:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
It's a business...whether anybody feels sympathy or not for them is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether/how this impacts their client base and if they lose customers as a result.

By FITCamaro on 12/2/2010 8:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
Screwed up my parents home loan 3 times before my parents left them. This was after they bought Barnett Bank back in the 90s.

By The0ne on 12/3/2010 5:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
I hope this happens. Many of you will be surprise.

This is what they should be doing
By Dr of crap on 12/2/2010 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Rather than go after govt 'leaked' documents - they should go after companies that try and lie and cover up things that would be harmful to people.
This I am all for!

RE: This is what they should be doing
By Fanon on 12/2/2010 10:48:52 AM , Rating: 5
Because governments don't lie and cover up things that would be harmful to people?

RE: This is what they should be doing
By mcnabney on 12/2/2010 11:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
It is a tough call.

I wasn't all that pissed about Collateral Murder because of what it was and because of previous false statements.

However, the wholesale release of diplomatic communications can have serious and unintended consequences. The Pakistanis now know that their government negotiated with the US to secure their weapons-grade fissile material. If that information touches off a coupe/revolution and the Taliban take over the country and the nuclear weapons within - you can see the problem. Diplomacy is best kept in the dark. Now the truth behind publicly known actions or cover-ups I can understand a bit.

Also, did Assange admit in an interview that he was in possesion of stolen data? Pretty sure that is a felony in most countries.

RE: This is what they should be doing
By dreddly on 12/2/2010 12:12:33 PM , Rating: 5
Diplomacy is the last bastion of kings and has no place in contemporary liberal democracy or the current international system.

Unchecked power is anti-american and wikileaks is doing its part to push the remnants of imperial power out of the contemporary world.

Evil people will act without any impetus from us. Allowing government to have unchecked power leads to the potential abuse of 'classified' and 'secret' intelligence for political ends.

RE: This is what they should be doing
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: This is what they should be doing
By zxern on 12/2/2010 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
Was this ever a secret? Who didn't know this already?

RE: This is what they should be doing
By Klinky1984 on 12/2/2010 1:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
I am tired of this kind of reply to the WikiLeaks releases. "We already knew this... *yawn*. These agencies or persons had 'plausible deniability' on their side if questioned about their affairs. "Oh we would never do that, where is your proof?". Putting these things down "on paper" so to speak is important because it's proof/confirmation/the smoking gun that these things really are happening. Also if all of these documents are things we already know then I guess they're not damaging or in need of retaining their confidentiality, why keep something a secret that everyone already knows?

By Solandri on 12/2/2010 3:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
"We already knew this... *yawn*. These agencies or persons had 'plausible deniability' on their side if questioned about their affairs. "Oh we would never do that, where is your proof?". Putting these things down "on paper" so to speak is important because it's proof/confirmation/the smoking gun that these things really are happening.

Technically, there is no smoking gun. Nothing has been proven, no plausible deniability upset. All that's been revealed is that the U.S. and Spanish governments think that Russia is a mafia state. Which many of us could have guessed at, but which was diplomatically beneficial for those governments to deny.
I guess they're not damaging or in need of retaining their confidentiality, why keep something a secret that everyone already knows?

Because you and I have the freedom to ignore/boycott everything Russian if we choose. The U.S. and Spanish governments don't have that luxury, and frequently have to feign ignorance to sweet talk Russia into doing things for the better interests of the international community.

I'm a very frank and honest person. I've frequently been told that I'm too honest. If there's one thing this honesty has taught me, it's that sometimes the charade of ignorance helps achieve results much more quickly. This is especially the case when I'm acting as intermediary between two parties who despise each other. Sweden maintains an embassy in Iran and relays government communiques between the U.S. and Iran. If Sweden's diplomats' honest opinions on the content of those communiques became public, do you think Iran or the U.S. would really want to continue using Sweden as an intermediary?

Usually, having some communication, even if it's shrouded in the charade of diplomacy and etiquette, is preferable to having no communication because both sides being completely honest and breaking off talks because they can't stand each other. There's a huge grey area between war and peace, and releasing classified diplomatic documents just shrinks the size of that grey area.

RE: This is what they should be doing
By mindless1 on 12/5/2010 7:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
Tired of this kind of reply? Then get some sleep and stop guessing they're not damaging, since someone in authority who had more information on the content of the documents which weren't made public, had decided they needed to remain confidential at least for the time being.

The notion that mere words on paper is proof of wrongdoing is alarming and goes against common sense, but such words can alter relationships between leaders, effect military strategies, and ultimately end up harming innocent people.

Realize that there is a chain of command. You can point the finger at one person or a few but ultimately you go up the chain until you get stuck at someone who has deniability and those under that person were essentially just following established policy.

Remember, these supposed "secrets" weren't all that secret, quite a lot of people had access to the information, just not average civilians who had no ability to understand the information without the context of having the relevant background through an appropriate job or access to supplimental relevant information that was withheld.

In other words, there was not and is not a pressing need or benefit to (these things were already "down on paper" so to speak) reveal to the general public every last detail of governmental or military actions... and you are a great example of why, that mere words on paper you consider proof/confirmation/the smoking gun. You don't seem to even consider the motivations of the author of such writings nor even if some might be complete fabrications dispensed to suit some agenda.

RE: This is what they should be doing
By Klinky1984 on 12/6/2010 5:00:01 PM , Rating: 1
...again if everyone already knew that was in these documents, what is the problem? That is my point. People are saying they're damaging, but then people are also saying there is "nothing new" in them.

Take one or the other.

By mindless1 on 12/9/2010 7:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Seldom are things black and white, more often shades of gray.

You don't have to take one or the other, both can be true. For example, an IRS agent can be reasonably certain you are cheating on your taxes, but you are ok until he has proof of it.

Are the cables proof? No, but some people will make the leap of assuming they are once they accumulate a certain amount of info and certainly each additional piece of info does make anyone more and more comfortable with the leap towards considering something true... instead of just vague assumptions.

RE: This is what they should be doing
By The Raven on 12/2/2010 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 1
I was pissed about Colateral Murder and still am. I don't know who trumped that up the way they did but I don't think that was necessarily a Wikileaks sponsored site. The source material was from Wikileaks but if Assange himself made that site and put the spin on it as it were, he did keep it separate from his 'business' from what I saw.

Its kind of like when Olberman used to talk about sports without sounding like a flaming liberal nutjob.
The Pakistanis now know that their government negotiated with the US to secure their weapons-grade fissile material.

Would you be ok if it was the other way around?
The Americans now know that their government negotiated with the Pakistanis to secure their weapons-grade fissile material.

I'd rather know what the hell is going on.

By The Raven on 12/3/2010 10:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
Ok so I need to edit my post.
The CM site is clearly a wikileaks thing. But I still stand by my premise that I would rather know what is going on.

I listen to Fox, CBS, MSNBC and whoever knowing that they are biased and vulnerable to human error. Do I turn them all off? No. I make my own decisions based on the information provided by them all. Is Fox or MSNBC perfect? No. Do I wish either would go away? Certainly not. There is a reason that we have a freedom of the press here. Let's not stifle it because a certain outlet makes us look bad. Did we end up banning Al Jazeera and force them to move their site to another country? I guess they are a terrorist organization because they make people mad with the facts and opinions that they come up with. That sounds like any news organization that I can think of, with the exception of NPR's "everything is fine, move along, there is nothing to see" stance that they take in an effort to be unbiased, which is a bias in and of itself.

RE: This is what they should be doing
By v9s on 12/3/2010 9:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, you've got your facts wrong.
The nuclear material that the US wanted to extract out of Pakistan was not weapons grade enriched uranium and is from the research reactor (PARR-1) supplied by US under full IAEA safeguards. PARR-1 was converted to 20% MEU instead of 93% HEU in the early 1990s, and the old HEU rods were stored.
These old HEU rods were the subject of discussion with the Americans.
This uranium has nothing to do with our weapons program.

As for your comment on the Taliban taking over, Pak's military installations are protected by the Pak Army. Militants, in particular the TTP (Taliban), have taken a severe pounding over the last 2 and a half years. Perhaps you should read up on the extensive military operations conducted by the Pak Army that were taken in the northern tribal areas of Pak (Swat, South Waziristan, Bajaur, Orakzai, and Kurram). Only some small pockets remain which will be cleaned up soon (after winding down the flood relief ops conducted by the army).

Pakistanis hate the taliban even more than you can imagine since we're directly affected by them.

By snyper256 on 12/3/2010 2:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
The internet needs more people like you setting people straight on random things that they don't understand.

Who to side with on this one?
By MrTeal on 12/2/2010 10:50:19 AM , Rating: 2
On one hand, Jason really trumps up these articles with sensational rhetoric, adding things implying that a BoA hard drive was stolen when Assange gave no indication that that was the case. From the linked interview...
"At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive's hard drives," he said. "Now how do we present that? It's a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it."

On the other hand, what the hell is Wikileaks trying to achieve here? The entire premise of a site that facilitates whistleblowers coming forward to protect the public interest is commendable, but that's not what I see happening. Wikileaks doesn't have people coming forward and providing evidence of US forces torturing or murdering people, illegally starting wars; and I'll bet that the BoA and BP stuff won't show them intentionally perpetrating the financial crisis or the conditions that lead to the Deepwater Horizon spill. This isn't Deep Throat or The Insider. All Wikileaks is doing is getting as much secret information as possible and spewing it onto the internet.

If Assange were to show that Coca-Cola was cutting corners and producing a drink with dangerous levels of some chemical, that would be a valid leak. Acquiring the secret formula and releasing it just because you can just makes you a douche, not a hero. DT doesn't need to go overboard here to make Wikileaks look bad, they do a good enough job of that all on their own.

RE: Who to side with on this one?
By sviola on 12/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Who to side with on this one?
By The Raven on 12/2/2010 3:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
I really doubt that he is passing up criticism of the Russian gov't or anyone else. I think it is our culture of free speech and free thought and whistleblower safety that produces all of this.

I mean the US gov't itself can't get all the info they want out of Iran for example; how do you expect one of their citizens to do it?

And he is an English speaker and deals with English speaking countries. Among those America is the one pushing policies. I don't hear much controversy out of New Zealand for example. Of course they get info from non-English sources as well but I'm just trying to explain the probability that Wikileaks is not targeting the US in particular. It is not driven by some diversity panel so I don't expect equal coverage.

By foolsgambit11 on 12/2/2010 11:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
And if they are targeting America, there may be good reasons for it. For instance, targeting China would have little impact, since the governmental system minimizes the impact of popular opinion (as well as censors information, so it's doubtful whether the public would hear much about the leak). The fact that Western democracies are sensitive to public opinion is what makes Wikileaks' strategy effective. Additionally, since people are affected by U.S. policy around the world (more so than other countries, given America's power), I think they have a right to speak up about abuses of that power, or take action to try to rein in that power if they feel that's in their best interest.

That being said, the U.S. is certainly within its rights to take legal action against people entrusted with sensitive or classified information who leak it to foreign nationals. But America's right to protect that information shouldn't give it power to go after people who aren't governed by its laws, and have no obligation to protect its secrets.

RE: Who to side with on this one?
By theapparition on 12/2/2010 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 1
On one hand, Jason really trumps up these articles with sensational rhetoric, adding things implying that a BoA hard drive was stolen when Assange gave no indication that that was the case.

Right, I suppose the executive just gave them the HD information. Even if that were true, that is still theft. Company proprietary information is deemed property and the executive could be charged with theft, and Wikileaks in posession of stolen property.

But I agree with you in principal. Wikileaks has lost its way. Perhaps at one time they served a purpose, but now, just like any other rabid organization trying to break the story.

RE: Who to side with on this one?
By MrTeal on 12/2/2010 2:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, I would still bet good money that the information is stolen. However, Jason has no proof other than idle speculation and past behavior that this is the case, and it's a fairly serious accusation. It could conceivably leave DT open to libel charges if they can't back it up.

By theapparition on 12/3/2010 10:44:19 AM , Rating: 1
I hear you, but there is no way the information that Wikileaks claims to posess is by any legal means. Company proprietary infomation is company property. I'm sure the companys have requested that info back, but have no actionable recourse other than limited legal action in a foreign country.

No way that Wikileaks would sue DT, or anyone else, in US court. First to be supoeaned would be Julian himself, and if he sets foot in an extradition country he's toast.

RE: Who to side with on this one?
By The Raven on 12/2/2010 3:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
just like any other rabid organization trying to break the story.

Yeah, they are making money hand over fist in ad revenue.

no consequences
By mattclary on 12/2/2010 10:41:27 AM , Rating: 4
He could release data indicating payoff, bribes, etc... and it would get no traction. The people who care, have no ability to make anything happen, the ones who do, were on the receiving end of the hypothetical bribes or stood to benefit from whatever nefarious activity will be revealed. And it's not like the press will dig much to uncover any dirt.

RE: no consequences
By sviola on 12/2/2010 11:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
Actually there alreay are consequences: stocks have gone down after he said he would post secret information from both companies. If this become the usual, he might be able to manipulate the market to his liking.

RE: no consequences
By Rasterman on 12/3/2010 7:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
very unlikely, if he manipulates the market that is fine, but if he does so and takes financial advantage of it, that is a federal crime and the feds would surely love to take him down on it, im sure right now they are going through his past with a fine toothed comb looking for anything to take him out.

useful information?
By dgingeri on 12/2/2010 11:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
This is the first actually useful information I've heard of them releasing.

All those government docs they released just embarrassed a lot of people and didn't really do anything on anyone's standing with the world.

However, exposing corrupt businesses would be a good thing.

I want to see documents released on Citibank, showing them plotting to fleece people for all they can through fees for being late on a payment to another company. Better bet: for a certain credit company that buys tens of thousands of accounts from other companies just to extort as much as they can. The company that did this to me was named "My Card Services" (making them almost impossible to track down on the internet) and have changed names at least 4 times in the last 10 years.

RE: useful information?
By Targon on 12/3/2010 12:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
So if all your personal information were stolen and posted to the public, including all your bank account and credit card information, that would be fine? Finding evidence of illegal activity and then posting that evidence is fine, but just posting any and every bit of information gathered is where I see there being a problem.

By Ammohunt on 12/2/2010 3:08:47 PM , Rating: 3
Really getting tired of hearing about Assange and wikileaks i am ready for the article headline that reads "Julian Assange has disapeared" With hopes he does hard labor in a prison somewhere in the arctic circle.

RE: Tired
By marvdmartian on 12/2/2010 4:11:50 PM , Rating: 1
Personally, I'd rather see a Youtube vid, where we get to see a .50 caliber sniper bullet punch through his little weasel face.

....but that's just me.....

DailyTECH not DailyNEWS
By five40 on 12/2/2010 2:27:17 PM , Rating: 3
How is this tech news? Because wikileaks is on the internet that means this is tech news? Right, wrong, agree, disagree, who cares, this isn't tech news is it?

Sounds like they could use
By evergreenpr on 12/2/2010 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
Reputation Roulette - It's about the spin
Every day there are major events that seem to spin out of control- and now and here we will grade the spin, and see who has the action.

By overlandpark4me on 12/3/2010 11:21:45 PM , Rating: 1
To open accounts for illegals. Do a little research and you will find that they are nothing but money launderers to Mexico. Fees, fees, fees, people. They can do what ever they want, but when it's local legal Americans, somehow they forget to return phone calls, charge you for shit you don't use, and foreclose on houses that don't have liens on them. Bank of Ameri..., oops Mexico, they're craptastic.

By Homerboy on 12/2/10, Rating: 0
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki