backtop

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.

But 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
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
quote:
"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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki