backtop


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 12:15:02 PM , Rating: -1
Part II could not post in one post for some unknown reason 0_o

Iraq part I:
Other one, i was watching the news the day before invasion of Kuwait and Gulf war I, and there came a White house spokes person on the news, basically saying "we don't want Iraq invading Kuwait" the the question was ask, "but what if Iraq dose it anyway?", to my amazement the answer was, "we do not have a mutual defense pact", basically saying "we wont like it, but we will not stop you!"
Me thinking WTF, that's the last thing i would say if i did not want Kuwait invaded, tho later it became more clear why they wanted Iraq to invade Kuwait.

So why did they want the war?, I think it was to get a permanent base in Saudi Arabia to "Defend US interest in the middle east", i could be wrong, but all Muslims believe it.

Iraq part II
They just lied there asses of claiming there ware WMDs in Iraq, how many ware there found?
Why did they go to war again whit Iraq, just because junior wanted to show daddy he could finish what daddy started.
And make billions in oil contracts for tricky Dick's old company Halliburton

Israel
The US supporting Israel in occupying the Palestinians also pisses of a lot of people, Palestinians live in the same conditions as Jews ware live them self in the geto camps, before they ware send to the consecration camps.
They have become almost just as bad as the Nazi’s them self, only thing missing is a compulsory yellow moon instead of a Jews star

And if you don’t believe the US should stop supporting Israel watch this:
http://www.occupation101.com/
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3759278/Occupation...

And there are dozens more examples ware the US involvement was soul focus on the self interest of the US, whit out consideration of others and what those actions would cost those people.

And that are just the big ones, do a Google on "false flag" and you can find well documented manipulation of the media and foreign policy, but strangely not know by Americans even do its done for there benefits, and then Americans wonder why everyone hates them.

American News
I for one really hate FOX News, not because they lie, no because the distorter the truth, whit selected truths, I would say watch a hit topic on FOX and then watch it on the BBC, and notice that the information you are getting suddenly got a totally different perspective.
(same go's for CNN but till a lesser degree)
As I don't know any TV News channels that are left ore right oriented here in Europe, tho the more cheesy channels have more stuplified news, compared to the state sponsored but independent news like the BBC

I for one, very often i also watch Aljazeera on the same subject as it gives me a different point of view from the western media, even if it is just to at least understand it.

But that the thing these days no one wants to see ore even listen to other peoples positions ore views, how strange that the world is suds a mess these dais

Wonder of any of you that against Assange would be so nice to answer the 9 questions raised in this video "Some Questions To Consider"(6) Ron Paul Defends WikiLeaks "Killing The Messenger For Bad News"
(6) http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1581541&...

Man if i was a American Rep ore Dem, this Ron Paul would get my vote for President, but he properly would never be able to win it, because he is asking to many of the right questions!

And btw do people actually know why, Osama bin Laden attack the US?
Because he wanted the US troops out of Saudi Arabia, as he and many Muslims see Saudi Arabia as a holy country.

For me Saudi Arabia, Vatican are just peaces of land same as the temple mountain is just a rock to me, but i do understand that to some they have a bigger meaning and are holly ground that needs to be defended and even die for if needed, I am just not one of them but that dose not mean i should not disrespect those opinions.

And i wonder how western countries would react if Saudi troops ware stationed in the Vatican?, and yes that analogy holds stand if you reverse roles.

American foreign policy makers think the rest of the world is stupid, you know what the rest of the world thinks?
"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!"


By michael67 on 2/1/2011 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
Love the edit button!

Used wrong link at (6) should be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By ninjaquick on 2/1/2011 6:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you can't argue the side of butchers and murderers. So give it up. Killing 3000 innocent civilians in one terrorist attack is not justifiable, ever. I scoff at you saying the BBC is neutral. BBC is as biased as the rest of them. The BBC owns broadcast media in the UK, they are just as biased as the rest of them.
If Saudi troops were stationed in the Vatican we would probably pray and hope the occupiers leave before shedding more blood. The Pope would ask that noone do anything of violence. that is the difference man, an extremist christian will give up their life to let an infidel live...


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By YashBudini on 2/5/2011 12:42:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Killing 3000 innocent civilians in one terrorist attack is not justifiable, ever.

How many civilians has GWB killed?


By YashBudini on 2/5/2011 11:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
It seems you need some help.

How about more than 3000?


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki