WikiLeaks Will Unveil Major Bank Scandal 1018
Atmanman writes "When WikiLeaks announced it was releasing 251,287 US diplomatic cables, we all thought we knew what was meant by its earlier ominous words that, 'The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined.' It now appears the organization is sitting on a treasure trove of information so big that it has stopped taking submissions. Among data to be released are tens of thousands of documents from a major US banking firm and material from pharmaceutical companies, finance firms and energy companies."
Next year (Score:5, Informative)
The blurb makes it sound like this is an imminent release. According to the interview this information won't be released until "early next year".
Interview with Assange about banks... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but maybe not as high impactI mean, it could take down a bank or two.
Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.
Is it a U.S. bank?
Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.
One that still exists?
Yes, a big U.S. bank.
The biggest U.S. bank?
No comment.
When will it happen?
Early next year. I won’t say more.
What do you want to be the result of this release?
[Pauses] I’m not sure.
It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume. Usually when you get leaks at this level, it’s about one particular case or one particular violation.
For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails. Why were these so valuable? When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.
This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos that cames out, and that’s tremendously valuable. Like the Iraq War Logs, yes there were mass casualty incidents that were very newsworthy, but the great value is seeing the full spectrum of the war.
You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Informative)
Well kinda depends (Score:3, Informative)
If it ends up that the new leaks target all kinds of banks and companies, then no. If they are all conveniently US banks and companies, then I'd say that lends some credence to the anti-US idea. I mean after all in terms of corporate leaks you have one of three situations:
1) Only the US companies are so incompetent as to allow any information to leak. Any non-US company is an expert at information security, as good or better than a national intelligence agency, and thus has no leaks at all. Ok well that is hard to the point of impossible believe.
2) Only US companies do anything bad. All other companies in the world are perfectly moral and righteous, they don't do anything they would be worried about the public seeing. We know that isn't the case, as a great very public example look at the French banker who got nailed for billions in unauthorized trading.
3) Wikileaks only care about or chooses to publish secrets for US entities, not foreign. This is likely.
So like I said, it'll all come down to what is released. If it is from all over the place, then that is a good sign they probably aren't motivated by anti-US feelings, the US leak was just because they happened to get that information. If everything released just happens to be about US entities, well then I'd say that is a reasonable indication that yes, they DO have an anti-US agenda.
We'll just have to see.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There we go wikileaks... (Score:2, Informative)
Wikileaks publishes what it can get, as long as it is original.
It has no agenda. If your government comes off badly, that only says that they have been bad, and that someone found it necessary to tell them about it.
Re:Well kinda depends (Score:5, Informative)
4) No, they aren't.
http://www.doughroller.net/banking/largest-banks-in-the-world/ [doughroller.net]
Re:Shorting Op. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, but having someone steal something and then give it to you doesn't make it "public domain" or "public information", it just makes you an accomplice to the theft.
If it is information about massive fraud and criminal enterprise against the public (and let's face it, that's exactly what it is going to be), it makes you an accomplice to a fucking hero.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Interpol doesn't create "arrest warrants". They handle international police cooperation in the enforcement of law. Sweeden or Australia may have a warrant out for him, and they are working with Interpol to have a "Red Notice" filed. The notice may be recognized as merit for arrest in some countries, but it's a bit of a crap shoot.
There was a lot of misinformation spread about Interpol a few months ago. They don't have judges, they don't have cops, they don't detain people. They just facilitate communication and interaction between police forces from different countries.
-Rick
Big disclosure: China fed up with N. Korea leaders (Score:4, Informative)
The most significant disclosure so far is that China's leadership is fed up with North Korea acting like a "spoiled child". Previously, China was considered to be a supporter of North Korea. Now, confirming the info from Wikileaks, Chinese officials are admitting that China's leadership is fed up with the drama. [guardian.co.uk] This leak was a win for both the US and China. It gets the word out that China isn't going to back any stupid actions by Kim Jong-il. without China's leadership having to say so publicly. This helps calm the situation down. That one item outweighs any harm Wikileaks may possibly have done.)
(Here's the best analysis of the Korean situation I've seen in print. [reuters.com])
Re:This is just getting shameless (Score:3, Informative)
he's doing it to ensure Wikileaks continues to be a presence.
I could be wrong though, maybe he is doing this for publicity. What we deem of his actions and what his rationale turns out to be are two different things.
Re:Doing their job. (Score:5, Informative)
Amen brother!
Furthermore, this is what Obama PROMISED : "a more transparent government".
Instead what we got was a more secretive government. So someone has to do the job if they are not going to.
But yeah, "the media" are a bunch of spineless corporate mouthpieces. Every "anchor" is a former MTV V-Jay, with only entertainment experience and no journalism credentials. And no one is left to do actual, hard-hitting reporting. Walter Cronkite must be so ashamed of what has happened to "the news".
Re:good, mess with the corporations (Score:1, Informative)
Learn to use the Shift key. It makes your rant much more legible.
Re:Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
In recent news from the same front the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee says WikiLeaks should be officially designated as a terrorist organization.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html [cnet.com]
If this goes through, whatever you do, please don't preach to the rest of the world about freedom.
Re:Who watches the watchmen? (Score:3, Informative)
Finally, one last personal nitpick. What the hell does "wiki" have to do with anything? I think he threw that term in there to gain additional trust and ride the coattails of Wikipedia. There is nothing "wiki" about wikileaks in any way whatsoever.
When I think of "wiki" I think of the idea of user contributed knowledge, and that's what wikileaks is all about. The users are everyday people from industries and governments all over the world. They contribute the special knowledge they have about their industry/government.
Re:So... (Score:2, Informative)
I was torn on this whole Wikileaks issue but I must say that this post / essay [wordpress.com] (it's long, but read the first paragraph from Assange at least) really got me thinking...
Re:Well kinda depends (Score:3, Informative)
If it ends up that the new leaks target all kinds of banks and companies, then no. If they are all conveniently US banks and companies, then I'd say that lends some credence to the anti-US idea.
Wikileaks already released information about foreign banks that was politically explosive: the Julius Baer tax evasion and money laundering docs [bbc.co.uk], and the Northern Rock memo [wikileaks.info]. The Julius Baer documents led to wikileaks.org being censored [wikipedia.org] by the U.S. judicial system. Details of the Northern Rock memo were completely censored in the British press by the British judicial system.
So, if Wikieaks really is just an anti-U.S. operation, then why would they release documents on Swiss and British banks? And why do people who complain that Wikileaks is only releasing U.S. info ignore the cases where they released information from non-U.S. entities?
Re:No Russian or Chinese revelations (Score:3, Informative)
Its interesting that there never seem to be any internal Russian or Chinese revelations.
Actually, it seems there are some Russian secrets:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11208_moscowsbidtoblowupwikileaksrussiansplaybydifferentrules [yahoo.com]
Re:That ought to be good (Score:3, Informative)
Those figures are wrong, Bank of America only has $2.77 trillion in assets (according to WP), not $2.3 quadrillion. It should say the figures are in thousands of dollars, or drop the figures by three decimal places.
Re:Well kinda depends (Score:3, Informative)
3) Wikileaks only care about or chooses to publish secrets for US entities, not foreign. This is likely.
That's based on the entirely absurd predicate that all leaked information ends up at wikileaks. Maybe the people with the info don't want to give it to wikileaks, maybe they would prefer to sell it on the black market to someone who can use it for direct financial benefit (blackmail, market manipulation, etc).
All you need to do is look at a list of wikileaks highlights [wikimedia.org] to see it's not true:
Somalian assassination order
Swiss Bank Julius Baer
British National Party membership list
British University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
Australian internet censorship list
Peruvian Petrogate scandal
Trafigura toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast
Kaupthing Bank of Iceland
British Joint Services Protocol
Love Parade stampede in Duisburg, Germany
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)