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."
So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
...a lot of people recently said that Wikileaks has become an anti-US organization. We should probably wait and see what they actually release, but perhaps this news shows otherwise? Or is the fact that they are going to release data on US based corporations just going to be viewed as more evidence of an anti-US sentiment?
You should probably clarify that you meant anti-US government as they might actually be providing the citizens a lot more transparency than previously thought possible. When a US company is targeted, both the government and the people might be happy -- especially if it's tax evasion or violation of laws. Here's a good snippet when they run down which industries they might have dirt on:
Continuing then: The tech industry?
We have some material on spying by a major government on the tech industry. Industrial espionage.
U.S.? China?
The U.S. is one of the victims.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that everyone would like the offenders of industrial espionage to be dragged out in the open. Especially the United States government.
Anti-US, pro-US, who cares? This is going to get interesting and the knife is going to cut everybody.
I'm really going to break down laughing if Wikileaks hosts dirt on Amazon, their knew hosting provider with EC2 [technologyreview.com]!
Re:Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the US government with Cablegate. It's the Arab governments with their venomous anti-Iran private statements which come out looking the most like two-faced hypocrites.
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:Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
The US government has always worked closely with US corporations to perform espionage. The government gives the corporations data on their foreign competition, the corporations give the government spies cover.
Re:Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese government has always worked closely with CHinese corporations to perform espionage. The government gives the corporations data on their foreign competition, the corporations give the government spies cover.
The Russian government has always worked closely with Russian corporations to perform espionage. The government gives the corporations data on their foreign competition, the corporations give the government spies cover.
The German government has always worked closely with German corporations to perform espionage. The government gives the corporations data on their foreign competition, the corporations give the government spies cover.
shall i continue, or is the point made? Every country behaves like a schizophrenic child to each other. why are you so shocked by that?
Re:Anti-US Government, Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so the fact that the other children are doing it makes it okay? I see. Yes, please stop. You have made your point crystal clear.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, reality has a well established liberal bias.
Well, or you could point out how the US's drive for globalization and (what they call) "free trade" is basically destroying everybody's economy because it's largely predicated on utterly meaningless economic theory. It's a race to the bottom, and apparently nobody has figured this out.
It was the banking practices of US banks which directly caused the financial crisis, because they mixed up the imaginary, funny-money (bad US consumer debt) with the real money. And, when people discovered the funny-money had no value, the value of the real money tanked because it was now based on the funny money. The US essentially commoditized and exported bankruptcy.
That's right America, it's your fucking fault.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
American Exceptionalism is the sadly more and more common belief that America, by its very nature, can do no wrong. It is Manifest Destiny written on a global scale. When we kill, torture, rape and rob, it is okay because what we do is for the Highest Good, therefore, if we torture, it must be the right thing to do. When we spy on other countries and interfere in their internal affairs, it is for their own good. If we do it, it is right, just, good, and in fact, both necessary and Fated to Happen. We are God's chosen, his favorites, just look at the evidence: would he have made us the best, richest, most powerful nation on Earth if we weren't his special favorites? God Bless America, and no one else!
This is what a growing number of Americans seem to believe. Scream and yell all you want. We don't hear you because we don't have to listen. That is one of the perks of being powerful, you simply do not have to listen to or pay attention to most of your detractors because they are not living in the same world as you are.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a discussion of China or Russia. Why bring them into this? Would it even help at all if I said all militant nationalism is disgusting? I doubt it. Like a child screaming, "But Charly did it!" when caught in wrongdoing, you seek to deflect blame by calling attention to the failings of others.
How is America willing to honestly face its past? In what way, exactly, have we been honest, brave, forthright, and fair in facing our past of criminal genocide against entire native populations? Has anyone gotten forty acres and a mule? What have we redressed? I mean, you can come up with at least one example, right?
Now, please don't get me wrong. I love this country and I love my fellow citizens, and I think we have been a great nation, and can be again. But I am not a sad enabler of my beloved's worst habits and traits. I am a true patriot, willing to go out on a limb and point out the cold, hard, and ugly facts, for the benefit of my country. A false friend will tell you only what you want to hear. Someone who really cares about you will tell you the truth, even if it hurts.
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks, I've traveled outside the US, which helps to get some perspective.
Hell, just paying attention in high school civics class ought to be enough to come to the same conclusions -- unless you've got that new texan curriculum, then you probably do need to travel...
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you count reservations as a reparation, you and I have nothing to discuss. Good day sir.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in southern California where gambling is illegal, unless you live on an Indian reservation. This is a gigantic boon to Indians and they make tens of millions of dollars thru their special treatment though the law. Can you explain to me how this fits with "All men are created equal". Why is it that the government has said in so many situations that "All men are created equal unless you are in this group then we need to prop you up by stealing money from other people.". Why the hell do you think you or anyone else gets to decide how much of my hard earned money goes to repay someone who has never been wronged in their life? Explain why if I was born with certain color skin in one part of California I can open a Casino, while with another color skin I cannot. I just don't think they inherently deserve money I have earned because of the color of their skin. If you can show me how the government has harmed an individual you may have an argument, but people who have never suffered deserve no reparation.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Have reparations for violations of treaties with the Native nations gone through while I wasn't looking? Have we removed the official monuments to the pro-slavery terrorist organization, the "Confederacy", which once enjoyed support in the South -- and which a shocking number of contemporary Americans still support? Have we compensated the Americans of Japanese heritage who were rounded up into concentration camps during WWII?
Yes, you'll find America museum exhibits that tell you how bad those things were and expressing sorrow. You'll also find Japanese museum exhibits that tell you how bad Japanese imperialism was, and I'm sure you'll find similar exhibits in other nations. So on what basis do you make your claim? It sounds like more American "exceptionalism".
Americans nationalism sucks. Chinese nationalism sucks. Russian nationalism sucks.
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? Have reparations for violations of treaties with the Native nations gone through while I wasn't looking?
The act dealing with natives died the moment the US went it's own way from Britain. The 'United States' were under no obligation or requirement to uphold any treaties. Really if the natives have a bone to pick, they should be going after Britain.
See in Canada, when we became our own country the act was still in effect as such; it's Canada problems in dealing with them, within our own sovereign borders.
I suppose it doesn't need to be said or does it? Welcome to how the world works. Treaties and documents die when new nations are formed, or split from their parent.
Also, you should learn some history on the confederacy. You'd be less ignorant then.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
News flash for the uninformed people of other countries, the only people calling this anti-American are either politically affiliated or are such a small minority that it doesn't even represent 1% of the US population.
Most concerned American citizens want to know more about what their government is doing and saying because we are sick of politicians subverting our rights for corporate gains and their own gains.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Stimpy: Remeber the royal anthem of the kilted yaksmen!
Our country reeks of trees
Our yaks are really large
And they smell like rotting beef
carcasses...
And we have to clean-up
after them
And our saddle sores are
the best.
We proudly wear women's
clothing.
And searing sand blows up
our skirts.
Ren & Stimpy: And buzzards,
they soar overhead.
And poisonous snakes will devour
us whole.
And our bones will bleach in
the sun.
Stimpy: That's it
Ren & Stimpy: And we will
probably go to ****.
And that is our great reward
For being the - uh - roy-yal
Canadian kilted yaksmen
Stimpy: Come on everybody
Our country reeks of trees
Our yaks are really large
And they smell like rotting
beef carcasses
And we have to clean-up
after them
And our saddle sores are
the best
We proudly wear women's
clothing
And searing sand blows up
our skirts
And buzzards, they soar
overhead
And poisonous snakes will devour
us whole
And our bones will bleach in the sun
And we will probably go to ****
And that is our great reward
For being the - uh - roy-yal
Canadian kilted yaksmen
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget the Romans. I mean, what have they ever done for us?
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the average individual in America today have more power to control his destiny than his counterparts in other first world nations? To me, it seems the average individual in America is struggling just to get by, has no health care, is poorly educated compared to the rest of the world, has fewer real functional rights, and less opportunity to succeed.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Flamebait? This is a great example of what I mean. Even suggesting that we are less than the best nation that is now, was, and ever could be is met with outright hostility and suppression.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a distorted view of American history.
The U.S. rose to power because people of European decent used superior military technology to commit genocide against the natives of land that was both highly fertile and well-forested. (Wood was the oil of the time. [miller-mccune.com]) After forming their own nation, those people continued to use slavery and theft to power their economy's expansion up until they were well industrialized. (Via, it ought to be noted, numerous patent violations [wikipedia.org].)
While the powers of Europe tore each other up in the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, WWI, and WWII, Americans kept stealing land from Indians (and later, from Hawaiians, Filipinos, and other people with fewer guns) and exploiting people of African ancestry and building a strong industrial base. American experienced booms after WWI and WWII by exporting goods to war-ravaged Europe; as the British Empire declined, the U.S. was set to step into the vacuum for a few decades. (I suspect, though, that in the histories a thousand years from now, the U.S. will be a footnote to the British Empire the way Constantinople is a footnote to Rome.) The U.S. then dissipated itself on the "Cold War", running up enormous debt in a dick-size competition with the U.S.S.R.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of the all-American idea of constitutional representative democracy, and proud that the bootprints on Luna are American. And we are the country that taught the world to rock-and-roll, thank you very much. But this "American exceptionalism" nonsense is an ahistorical, anti-intelelctual embarrassment.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
American Exceptionalism is the sadly more and more common belief that America, by its very nature, can do no wrong.
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
I fail to see a meaningful distinction between your definition and the OPs.
Mainly because such a belief inevitably leads to exactly the same consequences - ruthless arrogance.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it is useless to continue this discussion. If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.
Mainly because such a belief inevitably leads to exactly the same consequences - ruthless arrogance.
Yes, it is clear that there is no common ground, nay, not even a common language, with which we can converse.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then it is useless to continue this discussion. If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.
Oh I see a semantic difference, I just don't see one in practice. When one believes that their actions and the outcomes thereof are always "better" than what anyone else could have done then one would have to actually be perfect in order to avoid the trap of abusing that authority for self interest or even just laziness.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
The problem is that 'better' is a function of behaviour.
'We can do bad things because we're good people' is not a coherent argument, because you're only good people to the extent that you don't do bad things.
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Are we better than other countries? Does this then give us a moral mandate to make the world a better place?
I would argue that sure, the USA probably is better than other countries, and yes, that probably does give you a moral mandate the make the world a better place. Power leading to responsibility, etc, etc.
It's only the means - coercive violence - by which the USA attempts to make the world a better place that I have problems with. Basically I think coercion is counterproductive and a waste of everyone's time. It doesn't change anyone's minds except the user - it makes them nastier people. So a country is good to the extent that they don't do evil stuff, and by evil I mean coercive.
But sure, as long as the USA's not doing evil stuff, go USA. You've done some good things which you should be proud of. Building the Internet for one.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've really stopped thinking.
He is simply saying the the US should lead other countries to make them better, but don't do it with violent actions.
His logic is fine. Your reaction is overblown and stupid. You're not stupid please stop acting that way.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who said we can do no right? That is ludicrous, no one said it. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I am an American, and that I love our country, that I am a patriot, and that we as a nation can be truly great once more?
God damn all knee jerk defensive excuses. America, please, fucking sit down, shut up, and take a little constructive criticism without being a whining baby about it. Face up to your imperfections like an adult. Learn to say "I'm sorry" and "I'll do better next time."
You know who latches on to the idea that America is the greatest nation? Tiny little frightened people with no self esteem. People who do things, people who are secure, people who know what and who they are DO NOT NEED to feel that their country is the bestest everest.
I mean, seriously, who gives a fuck if it is or isn't the best country ever? How does that impact you? If it is a suck-ass country, does that make you a suck-ass person? If it is an awesome country, does that mean you are awesome? How immature, who bases their self esteem on what they think of their country?
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaining that Wikileaks is anti-US is really an ad hominem argument. Just because they may be anti-US, doesn't mean what they have revealed it any less legitimate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I can't wait to see how major financial, energy and pharma companies have been shafting the general public, because apart from "Big Tobacco" and the media cartels I can't think of any more deceitful and greedy corporate scumbags out there. My only concern, and a seriously major one at that, is tha
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, the majority of the communications are the legitimate, legal business of the U.S. governments pursuit of peaceful relations. Releasing these documents threatens alliances and negotiations, in the same way that blabbing all your friends' secrets hurts your relationships. People won't talk with our diplomats if they can't do so confidentially. How, exactly, does undermining the legitimate, peaceful diplomacy of the U.S. and other western powers make the world a better place?
And consider that the release of these communications could ruin a lot of careers- not because of unethical activity, just because someone doing their job said something privately that shouldn't be said publicly.
If Wikileaks wants to expose corruption and abuse of power, great. Why release everything else? There's a role for confidentiality. Would you want Wikileaks releasing your personal and business emails, financial information, and medical records just because someone, somewhere, might find evidence that you've been up to no good?
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
Re:Well kinda depends (Score:4, Insightful)
4) the US is the 800lb economic gorilla holding a major portion of the large banks of the world.
5) this is a huge leak from a few or single source in the banking industry and just happened to be in the US... much like the recent US intelligence leaks are most likely from a single source.
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:Well kinda depends (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW, the most recent leaks, the State cables, were pretty embarassing to other nations and, surprisingly, flattering to US diplomats.
Yemeni President joking about whisky, in a Muslim nation? Boned.
Saudi King saying the West should bomb Iran? Uh-oh.
so they have an anti-us agenda. (Score:5, Insightful)
i dont remember any divine communique, any natural law, any galactic decree that says being 'anti-us' is something bad ? apparently, noone but americans got the memo.
its ok being anti-china, its ok being anti-iran, its ok being anti-whatever, but, somehow, 'anti american' is a no-no eh ?
what amazing level of self-centeredness.
world doesnt revolve around u.s., note that.
in addition, it was the wall street which scammed ENTIRE planet, in a fraud that was unparalleled in history. so much that they sold water vapor to governments, banks, major global corporations, and poisoned the credit supply of the world SO bad that, there is no end to it in sight. because noone can tell poisoned assets from valid ones.
of course its going to be about a u.s. bank. geez.
AND,
wikileaks puts out ALL kinds of shit. its you americans' fault that you ALWAYS check it when there is something involving u.s., and see the front page about u.s. then go about bullshitting how they are anti-us. here, for your convenience, the link to where wikileaks indexes the shit it spurts out. i dont see 'us, us, us' written all over it. it wouldnt be a problem even if it was.
http://mirror.infoboj.eu/ [infoboj.eu]
Re:Well kinda depends (Score:5, Interesting)
well then I'd say that is a reasonable indication that yes, they DO have an anti-US agenda.
Speaking first as a patriotic American, frankly, my first priority is to fix corruption here in the US. If WikiLeaks was publishing stuff from all nations, I would be primarily interested in the stuff about the US. Because I am a patriot. Because corruption reduces GDP. Because I want America to excel in GDP growth. (regarding the GDP-focus; my hobby-to-the-brink-of-religion is economic research)
Speaking as a pragmatic globalist, consider the correlation to monopolies. Small monopolies that have little power are not very hazardous. Large monopolies with lots of power are more hazardous. Anti-trust law focuses on the large monopolies because they have the greatest negative impact. That is rational. Similarly, the US has the most power on the global stage. I think that's a fine thing, being an American -- politically incorrect though it may be, it's good to be the king. However, being in that position means that any corruption or foul play on our part is subject to greater scrutiny. Just like big monopolies, that is a rational thing. Corruption in the US has a much bigger effect on the world than, for example, corruption in France. It only makes sense to focus on the most potent hazard, which is a combination of amount of corruption and ability to influence events. Our ability to influence is so massively outsized that it takes less corruption to make us a greater hazard.
Take your pick: Patriotic American me is happy with all the US-oriented WikiLeaks stuff because it is my house and I have a duty to help keep it clean. Pragmatic Globalist me understands that my country has a greater obligation to end corruption because we have more influence on world events.
Is WikiLeaks biased against the US? I don't care, as long as they keep publishing the US stuff -- that is the stuff that is most important to me. Frankly, Americans who feel otherwise strike me as unpatriotic.
Who watches the watchmen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what concerns me. We have large numbers of anonymous individuals sending information off to some guy who they assume is some sort of hero or on a moral high ground. In actuality we don't know what Assange's intentions or internal agenda is. It would be trivial for Assange to filter information and only display leaks that would damage the country of his choice. Not just at a government level, but at a corporate / economic level. It is impossible to monitor Wikileak's integrity or transparency. Do you think if Mr. Whistleblower's documents regarding Country X are not posted that Mr. Whistleblower is going to go to the established media and complain about that?
Somehow Wikileaks has assumed a level of authority and trust that it has not earned nor that is remotely justified via its internal policies and structure. I have read numerous articles about Assange, and how he wants to be in control of everything and basically tells his "volunteers" to f*** off if they question him or disagree with what he does. He holds all the keys to the kingdom.
Quotes of Assange's like this, from the interview linked in this story, concern me further:
All I can say is it’s clear there were unethical practices, but it’s too early to suggest there’s criminality. We have to be careful about applying criminal labels to people until we’re very sure.
Who is Assange to judge and / or label corporations or individuals? Isn't his role in life to throw static files on a server so other people can download them? Shouldn't the information speak for itself and be analyzed be individuals that know far more than him and his organization? I don't think Assange is the unwilling, unwitting sacrificial lamb that has been thrust into this horrible role. There seems to be an ego to stoke, or at least that is my opinion.
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.
Re:Who watches the watchmen? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is impossible to monitor Wikileak's integrity or transparency. Do you think if Mr. Whistleblower's documents regarding Country X are not posted that Mr. Whistleblower is going to go to the established media and complain about that?
If it's bad for Wikileaks to operate without transparency, it's also bad for the US government and corporations to operate without transparency. Wikileaks is a partial solution to the latter problem. The former problem is quite easily solved. If you have information that Wikileaks won't publish, there's no shortage of ways of getting data on the internet anonymously.
Who is Assange to judge and / or label corporations or individuals?
He's a man with a conscience. It's the responsibility of all men with consciences to use them. That means calling out those who do wrong.
Now I'd agree that Assange is on an ego-trip, but who in international politics is not?
Re:Who watches the watchmen? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously that bastard could care less about all the bankers who will lose their livelihoods as a result of this information being made public. He's nothing but a traitor to the free market--and probably a communist, socialist, fascist, muslim, Nazi, child molesting rapist too!
I hear he wasn't even born in the U.S.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks isn't anti-US at all.
Sure, most of the stuff released there puts the US in a bad light. But you know what? Wikileaks didn't actually do any of those things. They just let the world know about it. You think we'd be a better nation if nobody knew about any of this stuff?
Not me my friend.
I'm glad the untouchable people who harm the country I love just might get called to task for the things they've done. The end result will be a stronger (and hopefully more accountable) America.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
you are mistaken. Wikileaks could easily filter information to further any agenda it sees fit. Assange has shown that he is NOT impartial and strongly opposes many of the Us governments policies. Which is part of the concern many people here have with them currently.
By taking sides you introduce the oppurtunity for your opponents to label you as having an agenda. And frankly they might be right. Look up some of my old posts, I had concerns about this months ago. Long before the media started spouting off about W-L.
I dont know if W-L is a problem, but Assange has hurt their credibility.
I almost take it as an insult: do you think I'm so stupid that I cannot decide by myself what opinion should I have, based on the authentic documents? Point to me to another set of authentic documents and I'll be happy to read them (as happy as I'm reading those posted by the Wikileaks).
(also, do you take me of so stupid to accept your "You are mistaken" sentence without any appeal to my own judgement?)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't do foreign policy without secret cables flying around. You can't fight wars without intelligence.
You can't have government accountability with state secrets. I'd rather have the government accountability.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The comments from Assange make it clear that WikiLeaks is not just acting as a repository, but rather clearly targeting organizations (governmental, commercial, etc.)
This makes no sense. Assange is targeting "organizations"? Governments and commercial organizations? Of course he has leaked some information about organizations. So what?
Or are you alleging that Assange is running some kind of targeted intelligence gathering operation? That he is actually out there, hacking the banks personally, or has recruited others to do so on his behalf? It seems a bit far-fetched; it's more likely that he is just leaking stuff that people send him, in which case the "targeting" is out of his hands.
Or are or you alleging that Assange is just a front for some intelligence organization? Hmm: Pakistani General accuses Wikileaks of being part of CIA/Mossad psyops [farsnews.com]. Maybe. John Young of Cryptome also accused Wikileaks of being a CIA front. And some Chinese officials have apparently said the same. But if it is a CIA front, does that mean that opposing Wikileaks is unpatriotic?
See how deep the rabbit hole goes....
Go, Julian, go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More than would if it wasn't exposed at all.
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe its like the whole fry a frog theory. By releasing so much information all at once, we're likely to get more enraged and do something, but the steady release of information is likely to just warm us up to it and likely to get Wikileaks closed for good before it gets ot the more juicy stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a quote from the article which sums it up nicely:
Q: What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists?
A: WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers.
Let’s say you want to run a good company. It’s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they’re not screwing other people over.
Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that’s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That’s the worst of all possible outcomes.
The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don’t have to cut your milk powder. There’s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation.
It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That’s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:5, Funny)
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.
Re:Go, Julian, go! (Score:5, Funny)
It's a TARP?
There we go wikileaks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There we go wikileaks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. I didn't find the leaks all the surprising.
I want to know the dirt on the banks and to a lesser extent big pharma.
I know they are ripping me off 6 ways from Sunday, but the details should sure be interesting. I have a feeling there is going to be some really angry people soon, and they won't be directed at Wikileaks... (which might be the whole point really now...)
So in short (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So in short (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikileaks is embarassing [sic] everyone who deserves it (in the U.S.)
From the article it doesn't appear they are after the US in particular, that's just where a lot of their information is coming from.
Q: Continuing then: The tech industry?
A: We have some material on spying by a major government on the tech industry. Industrial espionage.
Q: U.S.? China?
A: The U.S. is one of the victims.
Haha (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's why senior administration officials are calling for Assange's head. Because he made it all up.
It's really pathetic when people consider the truth to be political. I think it's far more likely that you're upset that your worldview has turned out to be a lie.
Re:So in short (Score:4, Interesting)
Then let all who stand accused offer up their own info to refute? I'll not hold my breath. Falsified info is easier to spot than you think, and truth is much stranger than fiction. Forced transparency is better than nothing, when you're living in the dark, like most of us suckers. Let the leaking continue!
Will this silence all those people saying... (Score:3, Insightful)
That wikileaks is exclusively an an ant-US govornment organization and that they no longer do "real whistle-blowing"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will, "stimulate investigations" (Score:4, Interesting)
"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"
While one may not like all the steps taken by Assange, one should give credit for the understatement that the new documents will "stimulate investigations".
The best part will be the GOP's response (Score:3, Interesting)
If the documents are sufficient, I wonder how they will continue to spin corrupt financial industry practices as the fault of Obama without actually doing anything useful to stop them. 9/11 spared them from Enron, and if lightning strikes twice...
Read all about it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Life will go on unchanged. They will still get their buy-out.
Carry on.
Re:Read all about it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Life will go on unchanged. They will still get their buy-out.
Exactly. After the obscenity that was the mortgage scandal, did anything change? Nope, and the greedy bastards responsible even got a shitload of free money from The Taxpayers...
Seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we still going to ask them to stop doing what they are doing ?
However with big banks and big pharm involved, I am more concerned about the well being of the individuals who run wikileaks, then if only governments were involved.
Absolutely. Governments world wide are just pawns for these sociopaths, they really don't care if governments take the blame. But when you start going after them directly, expect to wind up dead or in prison.
That ought to be good (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope this is about Goldman Sachs!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Messing with Government of USA is one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
corporations have ready access to the US government...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone with the phone number of Xe [nytimes.com] and a slush fund has ready access to those things.
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Assange is as well-protected as he seems to be. He may already have the US Gov't after him, but if it's banks and pharmaceutical companies too, things are only going to get worse.
I really hope some of this stuff makes people stop saying "We hate wikileaks" and start saying "hey thanks for letting us know we were all getting fucked."
The general public needs to be reminded that censorship isn't the answer. It seems to be the only thing they want nowadays.
-Taylor
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
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
good, mess with the corporations (Score:5, Interesting)
messing with governments gets mixed up in equivalency and nationalism and generates more heat than anything actually useful. iran is already saying wikileaks is an american plot
http://www.presstv.ir/details/153259.html [presstv.ir]
something that hurts the usa should be a subject of celebration in the iranian government, right? no. because people are so mixed up in their prejudices, any reveal of what a government did or said can always be conveniently reexplained with some creative thinking such that your prejudices are never really examined. whether pro-usa, or anti-usa, your opinion of the usa is completely unaffected by wikileaks, as iranian spin shows
wikileaks clearly shows that the great satan is not the one who hates them and wants their destruction: all their neighboring countries secretly push the usa to topple iran, while those countries say nothing publicly. that's what wikileaks shows. this challenges the narrative of the great satan plotting your downfall, and so proof that the great satan is not a great satan. therefore, wikileaks must be explained away with plots and conspiracies, where julian assange is actually an agent of the CIA. it would be hilarious, if maintaining the prejudicial narrative weren't such a deadly serious effort by those who love, or hate, the usa, for prejudicial reasons. so it's a complete wash: wikileaks has zero effect on the usa's standing in the world, or in the minds of committed pro-usa or anti-usa partisans.
however, the corporations, they need unmasking. a lot of people in the usa have this phony narrative of their poor neighbors and their government being the enemy of their prosperity. the real enemy of their prosperity: corporations. there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but corporatism is not capitalism. corporatism is buying off the government to permanently warp the markplace against the smaller players and to entrench your dominant position in it. the government is not the enemy, corporations are. the greatest enemy capitalism has ever known, in fact, is not communism, but corporatism, in all of economic history, the big players have always warped the markplace in their direction. yet so many fools believe this phony narrative of the government and poor people being the enemy of capitalism, and large corporations heroes, or at worst, harmless victims on the sidelines, of evil government regulations (that are written by those same corporations)
so hopefully, a reveal of how corporations are your real enemy, not your government, might open some foolish eyes, for once, i hope
Re:good, mess with the corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
It's similar to what the US Republicans did with Obama. They hate the guy so much that even when he was offering them exactly what they wanted in terms of legislation, they were compelled to reject it simply because he had suggested it and he was the enemy, to be opposed at all costs.
When you oppose someone or something that strongly the human mind is capable of amazing cognitive dissonance; no matter how illogical the reasoning or how hypocritical your position, you can find a way to explain how all of your problems are somehow their fault and that nothing you've done could have in any way contributed to it.
Doing their job. (Score:5, Insightful)
But since the media is in bed with government and industry, this is what it takes.
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".
Revolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is still the best ideal that I believe we have. I am talking worldwide, not just in the US. What is the valid alternative? Alternatives that I often discuss with my friends are alternatives that establish different democratic hierarchies and especially voting restrictions. However, this ideal that I often propose to them is just not feasible for many reasons (mainly: Human non determination, Human misuse of resources, implicit discrimination and violation of human rights). What is our alternative? Where do we go from here? I'm sure many disagree, but it seems to many that most (notice not
For starters, WikiLeaks seems to be going there. Freedom is a must have. Transparency is essential. Not everywhere, as some things must be made secret, but the fear of being discovered -- much like is happening now -- can force people to "behave". This is a true revolution if it gets spread and if it really gets worldwide. We must use this to our well being, we must show people that Freedom is essential and that a Democracy without proper freedom and ethically correct behavior isn't good. That IS the next step -- a Free, Ethically Correct Democracy. Unfortunately, that is the exact ideal that we can't reach, because even losers vote -- and losers can't vote decently. Plus, even if we didn't allow losers to vote, who is to say they didn't stop being losers? Plus, who isn't to say that "non losers" can't be bought or vote wrongly? Who isn't to say that the politicians that "ethically correct people" elect change their position and become "evil"?
The World keeps going forward, but we're walking backwards -- and we don't seem to be willing to go forward...just check the possible comments and troll ratings I'll get instead of a logical and healthy debate.
um... YES. (Score:5, Insightful)
YES YES YES. YES. OH GOD YES. OH YEA. FUCK YEA. Please, release this data soon. I want this so bad. Hell, considering how incredibly evil the bank and corporate system in America is on a public level, I am terrified and excited and horny to find out how evil they have actually been being this entire time.
Not to be morbid, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Attacking the U.S. government was dangerous enough, but with the amount of collective money behind the banks, pharma and energy, I sure wouldn't want to be anyone associated with WikiLeaks right now. A ten-million dollar per head contract for these people would be chump change for the companies involved.
We'll see... (Score:3, Insightful)
So far a lot of the stuff I've seen leaked hasn't been particularly shocking. A lot of it covers things people have already known or at least strongly suspected but for whatever reason hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. These leaks simply drag those details out into the light of day to be openly acknowledged and discussed. It seems to me like the media and government officials are making a bigger deal of this than the general public. On the other hand, I also believe that it's entirely possible to cross the line and start causing some real harm, even if it hasn't happened yet.
I don't have a particular good impression of Assange; I get the impression he has too big an ego for his own good. I also have questions about about bias. I think Wikileaks can provide a valuable service, but only if it operates as an equal opportunity offender. There's a real problem if members of the organization can't see beyond personal biases, if they show reluctance in releasing information damaging to their particular worldview, for example. Or worse, they decide they have it in for a particular entity, in this case, the United States. Of it may be a problem that the US isn't nearly as good at securing it's sensitive information as, let's say, China.
I'm placing bets on the bank in question being Bank of America. They're quite despicable, but then that's already well-known which again raises my point of Wikileaks releasing information that's generally common knowledge.
We dont need to know everything (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the key parts of diplomacy requires diplomats to be able to give uncensored advice to political leaders that may offend the public or other leaders.
In the long run this may reduce the quality of advice our leaders get which could have tragic consequences. Its the reason why executive
priveledge exists. The most honest president the US has ever had, Grover Cleveland, fought tooth and nail for leaders being able to receive honest
and confidential advice.
A leak is only good think if it serves a legitimate public interest, not merely curiousity. If your intention is merely to cause
embarassment for embarassments sake then youre not a whistleblower.
'no privacy' goes both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
All I can say it "It's about F'ing time." Go Wikileaks Go!
For years, we have had to put up with our privacy and our rights being stolen. Now we even have to appear naked to fly. Our privacy is always under attack, and yet we are told "it's for our own good" either by the governments that assault us, or the corporations that rip us off and sell our personal data to each other.
FINALLY the time has come that governments and corporations are under the same microscope as the average joe. The internet has become the great equalizer. And notice how governments and corporations bristle at the mere thought that *their* privacy is being invaded, while they continue to casually rape us.
Yes, when it's the governments/corporations that have their privacy assailed, "ohhh the guy is a terrorist" "Assage must be imprisoned" "DDoS isn't good enough for him, hanging's too good for him!", etc..., meanwhile, few are DDoS'ing the RIAA, TransUnion, Equifax, et al.
THIS IS OUR REVOLUTION. And it's about time. Grab your pitchforks. Heads must roll.
your post (Score:3, Insightful)
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])
Ought to be interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
This should pose as a wakeup call to everyone - you clearly cannot trust governments, banks, pharamceutical companies or really anyone else. Everyone must be assumed to be untrustworthy until proven otherwise.
And the proof is often 50 years after they are dead. So the message is Trust Nobody.
The second thing is that if the government, banks and other corporations are evil and corrupt maybe we should do something about it? Boycotts are pointless but bombs, arson and executions might get somewhere. The idea would be that if you cannot trust the people with the power and money then they need to be eliminated. Maybe we can find some trustworthy people - or maybe things just need to be restructured in such a fashion so that nobody is required to be trusted any longer.
This is probably another under-30/over-30 sort of battle, but this time there might actually be enough motivation to cause a worldwide revolt against anyone with more than a couple of nickles to rub together. The current US President has presented one possible dividing line between good and evil - $250,000 - but there may a more realistic one that is much, much lower. Sadly for Mr. Obama, it would appear that he is clearly in the evil camp with earnings well above $250,000.
So? Are you ready for the revolution? Are you prepared to dedicate your life (or what is left of it) to eliminating oppression in the world by untrustworthy government and corporations? It sounds like Mr. Assange is clearly going down that road.
Oh good. Let's shoot the messenger. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the final analysis, Assange only reports what is. If the politicians of the world can't handle that, the problem is with the politicians , not Mr. Assange.
Re:Wikileaks seems to be playing the PR angle a lo (Score:5, Interesting)
Devil's Advocate to be sure, but considering the goal of this is transparancy, it would mean a lot more if the bank would come clean itself, rather than wait for a third party who claims to have them already beaten.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are joking, right? Because if not, holy shit humanity sucks and all because of you.
You see, they are releasing data that shows banks have been fucking people over in more ways than the ways they have been doing it publicly. It is like unveiling evidence that shows a serial killer also happens to rape children, eat puppies while they are still alive and kicks kittens for fun, along with baby seal clubbing.
Banks own 60% of the property and wealth in the US. They have been publicly leveraging that massive
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What people need to learn is that wikileaks is not the enemy of the United States, it is the enemy of humanity.
That remark is so far over the top, so ludicrous, and so simple-minded that one can
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
"comes out before wikileaks is no more"
I think we can all safely assume that Mr. Assange has a dead man's switch of some sort and the mass of stuff he collected will be sent to the BBC and NYTimes if he somehow "disappears"