US Bank scrambles to counter WikiLeaks release

 

Buys domains, scours systems.

The Bank of America has reportedly snaffled up over 300 domain names that include references to its top brass as it bunkers down for a potentially embarrassing release by WikiLeaks.

The bank in December bought domains for its CEO Brian Moynihan, followed by the words "suck" and "blows", according to Domain Name Wire.

It also bought similar domains for its chief financial officer, Charles Noski, and several high profile board members.

The domain name strategy was just one element of a broader response the bank is undertaking as it prepares for the release.

WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange flagged in an interview with Forbes in late November that he would expose the "ecosystem of corruption" at an unnamed bank.

The Bank of America has established a team of 15 to 20 executives from its IT department, finance and communications teams and hired consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton as part of its attempt to discover what WikiLeaks may release about it, according to the New York Times.

The review reportedly includes scouring thousands of documents, accounting for every reported missing computer and searching its systems for possible leakage points or compromises.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


US Bank scrambles to counter WikiLeaks release
"@kartsie & fphhotchips: Simply on the principle of sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. When international gabfests like the UN appoint some of the most despotic and corrupt countries to ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 9
brownbear
Jan 4, 2011 8:49 AM
Now all we need is for the WikiLeaks revelation to be about a different American Bank.
The Bank of America are obviously guilty of something so they may as well confess now. At least they can then claim to be the first to reveal the perfidy.
anonymous
Jan 4, 2011 10:54 AM

Disclosures by WikiLeaks would be even more interesting if they included secret information from any of the really corrupt regimes around the world.

It's easy to look brave when spilling the beans on western democracies, but some secret info on the world's dictators would be far more relevant. And dangerous for the WikiLeaks guru.
kartsie
Jan 4, 2011 2:14 PM
@anonymous:

Maybe that's where the leaks they received came from? If the USA puts Manning in harsh pre-trial solitary confinement, imagine what North Korea would do to their own citizens who leak embarrassing information about the government.

Besides, I don't see how exposing something bad about non-democratic states can be more relevant or useful. These states will keep on going as if nothing happened--heck, I don't even think the current leaks will change anything in the USA.
anonymous
Jan 4, 2011 6:00 PM

@kartsie, if it's a good thing to release secret info about the western democracies, how much better must it be to expose secret info about the most corrupt countries and their dictator gangs?

Or is exposure only a virtue when it applies to the West?
Ezy2Confuze
Jan 4, 2011 6:07 PM
I just hope there's heaps of inter bank correspondance proving collusion and insider trading with peoples names attached. After what happened with some of these big wigs making millions off the US Govt. bail outs, I don't trust any of them anymore and they get everything they deserve ten fold as far as I am concrened.
kartsie
Jan 5, 2011 4:51 AM
@anonymous: Exposing a corrupt/lying/evil government is more useful when the target is a (semi-) democratic state, because there is more hope for change.

In any case, all of that is off-topic. The article talks about exposing a rotten bank, not a government.
anonymous
Jan 5, 2011 7:22 PM

Well, what do you know, kartsie - when you get a response to your post, you then decide that it is OT.

More seriously, if it's good to expose Western bankers (and it is), how much better would it be to see evidence about the most corrupt regimes. Hope that doesn't make your preferences seem threatened, or something.
;-)
fphhotchips
Jan 6, 2011 10:20 AM
Anonymous:

What would be the point of exposing a known corrupt regime? They know they're corrupt, we know they're corrupt, and they know we know they're corrupt already. Nothing would change. It's when we expose a regime that we didn't know was corrupt, or expose a previously unexpected extent of corruption that we make progress. Usually, in western democratic countries, we assume that the system of democracy will keep our politicians reasonably honest. That isn't always the case, as Wikileaks has shown. It's about complacency-busting.
anonymous
Jan 6, 2011 2:13 PM

@kartsie & fphhotchips: Simply on the principle of sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

When international gabfests like the UN appoint some of the most despotic and corrupt countries to human-rights and freedom-of-information committees, it might be useful to have some evidence of their tyranny.

We all think they are corrupt, but they still furiously deny it, and do nasty things to any whistleblowers. Which brings us back to the brave St Julian.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 511

Vote