Print 85 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Feb 6 at 8:47 AM

In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes", Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said he loved watching banks "squirm" about rumors of his latest upcoming leak.  (Source: CBS)

Questions about Mr. Assange's motives (he has called himself an anarchist in the past) went unasked, as did the question of whether Wikileaks might be profiting off the stock shifts its leaks cause.  (Source: CBS)
Assange claims U.S. is utterly incapable of removing his site from the web

In an interview [video] with the CBS show 60 Minutes, the founder-and-chief of the controversial secrets site Wikileaks discusses the recent backlash against his site, following the release of U.S. Military and State Department secrets.  He states, "The U.S. does not have the technology to take the site down . ... Just the way our technology is constructed, the way the Internet is constructed."

He adds, "We've had attacks on particular domain names. Little pieces of infrastructure knocked out. But we now have some 2,000 fully independent in every way websites, where we're publishing around the world. It is -- I mean, it's not possible to do."

Assange is referring to the fact that his site lost its central domain name, most of its official hosting, and its donations accounts.  Volunteers, who host mirrors of the webpage, now sustain the site.  Attempting to access Wikileaks or searching for it in Google results in visitors being redirected to one of these mirrored sites.

While the issue of what Wikileaks has done is hot in the minds of many, much of the 60 Minutes interview focuses on the site's threats that it will release damning information implicating a major U.S. bank in wrongdoing.

In an October 2009 interview with the International Data Group's publication ComputerWorld, Mr. Assange claimed to possess a hard drive with a wealth of information from the Bank of America.  

In an interview with top business periodical Forbes, which took place in late November, Wikileaks' Assange claimed to be preparing a "megaleak", which would likely lead to a major U.S. financial institution (presumably Bank of America) being investigated and potentially charged by international authorities.

During the 60 Minutes special, interest was high on the topic, but the interviewer's attempt to extract more info from Mr. Assange was largely rebuffed.  He states, "I won't make any comment in relation to that upcoming publication."

But he did express that he gains pleasure from the ill effects on the financial world his news is causing.  He states, "I think it's great. We have all these banks squirming, thinking maybe it's them."

The interview did not touch on a significant point in that regard -- the question of whether any Wikileaks members -- including Mr. Assange -- had profited off the stock shifts triggered by the organization's new releases.

Some have suggested that Mr. Assange and Wikileaks may be using its new releases to profit on the stock market.  Using certain mechanisms the site could selectively release news, dropping a commercial entity's stock price, making money off the drop.  Indeed, the Bank of America's share price dropped 3 percent in late 2010 on speculation that it was in Wikileaks crosshairs.  The actual release could drop stock further.  It would be relatively easy for someone affiliated with the site or its members to exploit the financial repercussions of the site's actions.

Wikileaks is a relatively loosely organized and regulated operation, with less than a dozen full time staff members, by almost all accounts.  The site publishes no details of its operating procedures or finances.

Unfortunately, that question, like many others (Mr. Assange's self-labeling as an "anarchist" in the 1990s) went unasked in the 60 Minutes interview.

Update: Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2011:

Some seemed to imply that we were making up allegations that Wikileaks was manipulating the stock market to profit itself or its financiers.  This is absolutely not the case.  Those capable of a quick Google search should be able to find a number of stories on this topic, such as:
"Wikileaks is harmful now, but could become even more destructive" -- Kansas City Star

Which writes:

Shares in Bank of America dropped 3 percent Tuesday. Although they recovered Wednesday, banking analyst Dick Bove said on CNBC that this may represent a new means of stock-market manipulation, by which the unknown funders of Wikileaks could profit by cratering shares in targeted companies.

Also some challenged whether Assange was ever really an anarchist.  Well he said he was, at least at one time, back in the 90s.  In the book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier by Suelette Dreyfus, which Mr. Assange edited, researched, and contributed text to, an autobiographical passage by Assange describes:

As he quietly backed out of the system, wiping away his footprints as he tip-toed away, Mendax [Assange] thought about what he had seen. He was deeply disturbed that any hacker would work for the US military.

Hackers, he thought, should be anarchists, not hawks. 

He may well have changed his views since his teenage years in Australia in the 1980s, but it is well documented that at least at one time he expressed anarchistic views.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: It's all about him, at this point
By michael67 on 2/1/2011 12:11:04 PM , Rating: -1
Before I begin, I do not hate Americans, i even have a lot of friends there from my work in the Oil & Gas, but i hate the ignorance and indifference to and of American Foreign policy's by Americans, but some how disagreeing whit people here often is seen as hating the US, but sorry they are not the same, if i hated the US i would not even bother to explain all of this

There is also a difference between collateral damage(civilians killed when targeting an enemy), and terrorists who intentionally target civilians. Collateral damage is not something you want to announce to the world, but it IS expected in combat. The problem is that when civilians are killed, it tends to bring more people into the fighting, so it is best to keep that sort of thing quiet since killing the people over there is NOT the goal.

What if you under false pretense in a country, and occupying a country against there will, for there oil, IMHO every person that gets killed is a victim of American policy, and in a sense murdered by that policy
Muslims see it that way and if the roles would be reversed you would see it also that way.

Do you REALLY want to go into the whole war in Afghanistan? The US was fully justified in going in over there, which is why there was so much support around the world. Many can question why the US forces are still there, but the initial war over there after 9/11 WAS justified.

First let me say I did not agree the actions taken on 9/11 by the terrorist, but I do understand them and to a degree even would have condone the attack on pentagon, CIA and even the white house, just because of the history of damage US foreign policy has done to the middle east.

I give some examples, but could give dozens more and all well documented.

During the fifties Iran had a real Pro western leader that wanted Iran modeled after European/US model
During his term he wanted to renegotiate(1) the contracts that Iran had whit British petroleum (BP) that ware made up before WOII to get a fair prize.
Brittany saw that this would cost them billions of pounds and went to the US because they ware still devastated after cost of WOII.
British MI6 and CIA set up plan under a "false flag"(2) Called "Operation AJAX"(3)
This plan was to get the Shah in power as a puppet of the west.(4)
This was done by terrorist bomb attacks and in the name of a non-terrorist group wanted separation from Iran.
And by supporting the troops loyal to the Shah.
And Ooo yeah silent detail, leader of that small coup by the CIA was no one else then Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War commander) and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy)

A good example would be portraited in the movie about the Afghanistan occupation by the USSR "Charlie Wilson's War"(5), that secret war costed billions of dollars, but the moment that the Soviets ware out of the country not even a other dollar was send for rebuilding the country, my conclusion would have bin if i was a Afghan i would think:
"ok tnx for the help getting writ of the Soviet basters, but clearly you also don’t give a shit about us, you just used us to hurt them, so F.. you to"
What a good will could have the US have bought whit 100 million for helping rebuilding the country, but after spending billions to kick the soviets out, the Reagan administration was not even willing to give 1 million for reconstruction of schools

Also some other detail, The Soviets wanted to pull out of Afghanistan, so Mikael Gorbatsjov ringed the White house, asking for help whit a controlled withdrawn of there troop's, as he feared Afghanistan would be a time bomb waiting to go of.
Reagan replied that they had no interest in it, but whit in the walls of the White house was a atmosphere of "yeah we did it we kicked some commy bastard's ass", on hindsight Gorbatsjov was not that wrong.

RE: It's all about him, at this point
By Targon on 2/1/2011 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
Afghanistan is fairly useless outside of it's proximity to the Middle East, so really, there is no reason why the USA would want to be there. Iraq is a war that was started by obviously false information given by George W. Bush. No matter if a war was warranted for OTHER reasons, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and since going into Iraq was set up as if there WAS a connection to 9/11, that is why so many are against it(now that people know the facts).

If there were documents that showed that George W. was using bad or obviously falsified information to justify invading Iraq and THOSE were leaked, THEN I can clearly see a lot of support, because it would help get US forces out of there. In this example, leaked information would help reduce violence.

One thing that you do not seem to have noticed is that the USA has not gotten ANY oil out of any of the countries in the Middle East over the past several wars, including Kuwait. There may be people making money off these wars, but the USA is not taking any oil, and that is another reason why all of these wars do NOTHING positive for the USA. Going to war to grab oil at least makes SOME logical sense, even if it isn't a proper way to do things. Going to war just so a certain Vice President could get more profits for his friends is clearly wrong, and is something that should have been punished by now.

On a final note(for this post at least), attacking the White House, Pentagon, or other military/government targets can be seen as a "valid" attack by those at war with the USA. The World Trade Center/Twin Towers on the other hand is a clearly civilian building. A terrorist attack, by definition, is one where CIVILIANS are the target. Collateral damage, as I said, is a part of war, but when you intentionally target civilians, that is what makes someone a terrorist, and once someone is a terrorist, they deserve to lose all protections of all kinds, including those under the Geneva Conventions. Basically, I endorse a slow and painful death for anyone terrorist, and feel that cruel and unusual punishments are DESERVED for those who target civilians.

Again, those who are trying to push out an occupying force, insurgents and such have at least a valid claim, but if they are targeting civilians who just happen to be in the region and who are not a part of what is going on over there, that is when they enter that realm of being terrorists. Also, the crap where people are kidnapped and then decapitated, since it goes against the Geneva Conventions is also not acceptable, so harsh treatment for THOSE types is called for as well.

RE: It's all about him, at this point
By michael67 on 2/1/11, Rating: -1
By pakigang on 2/2/2011 1:15:00 AM , Rating: 2
Before taliban got hold of afgan, the afgan produced 60% of the drug, but as soon as taliban contrlled in almost 86% of afganistan that production was reduced to 2-3%. This was unbearable to the "BID POWERS" & the drama of 9/11 happens. This is just one of the reason why Afganistan was attacked & taliban discredited.

By michael67 on 2/6/2011 8:47:44 AM , Rating: 1
And as usually you cant say anything bad about the USA because you step on those bleeding patriotic hart's.

Instead of going in to a discussion, they do the thing they are best at, put fingers in ears, close eyes, and hum load!

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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