Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks

from the barn-door-back-there dept

Mon, Dec 20th 2010 7:28am — Mike Masnick

This is pretty amusing. Back at the end of November, Wikileaks had indicated that its next leak involved a very large US bank that was apparently doing some bad things -- and many people zeroed in on Bank of America as the target. And then, just a few weeks later, Bank of America announces (late on a Friday night, in an attempt to hide it) that it will join Paypal, Visa and Mastercard in trying to block all payments to Wikileaks.

Of course, I don't quite see how Bank of America does that. Is Bank of America really saying that it can block you from spending your money the way you want to? About the only thing it can really do is stop direct wire transfers, but I'd imagine not too many people are doing that. As for systems like Flattr, which is currently a way of supporting Wikileaks financially, I really don't see how any of the above firms can block people from using Flattr to support Wikileaks. All anyone knows with Flatter is that they're supporting Flattr, so you can use Visa or MasterCard via Paypal to pay Flattr, and then Flattr Wikileaks, and those financial firms won't know the difference.

It seems like all these financial firms are really doing is highlighting how they, too, don't quite understand the nature of a distributed internet, and a distributed payment infrastructure -- even if they think they power it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blocks, payment, wikileaks
Companies: bank of america, wikileaks

100 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:08am

They are pulling a Streisand!
They also show a clear ignorance to the rule of the Streisand effect. By acting this way, there are more and more headlines that BoA may become the next target of Wikileaks. Which is precisely what they don't want.

Just look at this site, if BoA had not decided to block the direct transfers to Wikileaks (and I too don't see how they can do that), there wouldn't be the headline "Bank Of America -- Thought to be Wikileaks' Next Target..."

If these financial institutions were smarter (hah!), they'd have continued financial transactions with Wikileaks. And the story of the upcoming banking leaks wouldn't have had this much pre-release press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:56am
  
  Re: They are pulling a Streisand!
  "If these financial institutions were smarter" ... we wouldn't be in a recession. Just a thought.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris in Utah, 20 Dec 2010 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re: They are pulling a Streisand!
    "If these financial institutions were smarter" .... they will need to file an actual bankruptcy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JJ, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:03am
  
  Re: They are pulling a Streisand!
  BoA may be gambling that the upcoming leak will generate a storm of negative publicity, so they want to get ahead of the story. This way, they can spin themselves as the victim and say the leak is a smear campaign in retaliation for poor America-loving BoA not wanting to do business with the bad scary foreign raping internet terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: How they can do that
  To receive payment from a credit card processor, you need to be an approved merchant, so all the bank needs to do is withdraw the approval, just as they would if a merchant on their list were bankrupt or guilty of fraudulent activity.
  
  This is the reason individuals can't be paid by credit card, and need to use something like PayPal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re: How they can do that
    A lot of this depends on local jurisdictions and underwriting. In this case, The Indemnification Clause part of the Merchant Agreement was probably the sticking point.
    
    Going offshore for credit card processing would probably work because most cards these days are cleared for international transactions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: They are pulling a Streisand!
  "I too don't see how they can do that"
  
  Payment processors all have agreements that a business has to sign before they will process payments for them. So unless you agree to their rules of business, you don't get to play. Pr0n sites deal with it all the time. Same for online gambling.
  
  There are plenty of restrictions on what you can do with your money. Sure you could pay them in cash, but that doesn't work in the internet world obviously. Financial institutions aren't going to put themselves on the line for sending money to [insert bad actor here], even if at the direction of me with my money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:47am

BoA Tax Shelters?
I don't think Bank of America even as their own credit card processing. Most likely, they probably outsource it like everyone else.

Also, wouldn't it be one of those ironically hilarious things if Bank of America's 59 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands turned out to be tax shelters to prevent paying American Income Tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:58am
  
  Re: BoA Tax Shelters?
  Income tax is a scam anyway, so I don't see them dodging tax as something bad.
  
  Though, it's pretty clear they've been knowingly aiding the Mexican Mafia in laundering drug money and paying for guns. Most people who aren't in the Mexican Mafia would probly find that to be a bad thing...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re: BoA Tax Shelters?
    Wait, is there a source for that? I've heard nothing about it...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: BoA Tax Shelters?
      It's not recent news, but check out these fine articles:
      
      "Following Bailout Money To Tax Havens" CBS Evening News, Feb 23, 2009
      
      �Senate probes increase in offshore accounts,� by Martin Vaughan, Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2008, Page A12
      
      Sheryl Adkins' CBS News podcast- CBS Weekend, Feb 27,2009
      
      �Islands are tax haven for contractor,� by Richard Lardner, Associated Press, Dayton Daily News, May 8, 2008, Page A15
      
      I'm just saying that if this is the new norm, the American banking system is doing a massive disservice by not offering these types of accounts to the general public. The first to bring them to the public will have a big leg up against their competitors.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re: BoA Tax Shelters?
    I'm totally with you! If the business found a way to avoid paying personal or corporate income tax without it being considered aiding and abetting, that's great.
    
    Indeed it is very popular. My only question is how can the common man open such an account at the corner Bank of America Branch, because all Americans should be banking with The Bank of America.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:58am

Good
This company needs to be punished for its out of control outsourcing of US jobs to other nations. It has been a huge part of the reason that the US economy has collapsed and that there are millions out of work. They would rather throw US workers onto the street and hire CHEAP labor in India than employ US workers and keep tax revenues in our cities, our states and our nation.

Also, their involvement in making it easy for ILLEGALs to send CASH to Mexico by way of their "SafeSend" program is another WONDERFUL program against the US.

This bank is not looking out for the best interests of the U.S.A., and not the shareholders either (just ask anyone who owns stock in it right now), but instead is only looking out for the wallets of the CEO and its upper buffoon management.

Screw BofA and I hope that company, as well as many other companies like it, collapses. There are plenty of other banks to sweep up that dust. It wouldnt be missed one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:04am
  
  Re: Good
  "This company needs to be punished for its out of control outsourcing of US jobs to other nations. It has been a huge part of the reason that the US economy has collapsed and that there are millions out of work."
  It's this sort of ignorance which stops up economies altogether. Nationalism is fine--in it's place--but when applied in place of rational thought it becomes very dangerous.
  
  The simple fact of the matter is, if somebody in another country can do the same job for a better price than you're doing it (caveats include w/o destroying the planet with pollution, and w/o killing their workers w/ unsafe conditions. Wages, not so much), then you should be moving to that country and looking for work or finding another industry to work in.
  
  Quit whining about how you're supposed to be entitled and follow the advice of Benjamin Franklin: "God helps those who help themselves."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:12am
    
    Re: Re: Good
    Gotta love how those who defend outsourcing havent lost their own jobs to outsourcing yet, and blindly tell people to move out of the United States to get work. Yea, thats gonna work, Einstein. Cause everyone *wants* to live in India or China or Estonia or Vietnam or South Korea.... its just *so* nice there. Talk about pollution. Dufus.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      Hey, don't move. In fact, don't do anything at all to ensure your own survival, except complaining about "they took our jobs!" Stay home and starve for all I care. It's called "survival of the fittest" for a reason. If you're unfit or unwilling to survive then kindly remove yourself from the gene pool.
      
      ; P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jjmsan (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        I hope that is sarcasm, because if you look up your quote you will find it does not mean what you think it does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Charlie Potatoes, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        I'm gonna move to Matamoros and sit on the international bridge (the new one) and beg for money like most of the Mexicans do. No sense is sitting home complaining, like saint wolf says.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      They lost their job to capitalism...
      capitalism = America...
      not taking a capitalist approach would be un-American...
      
      Not that I agree with it, but it isn't capitalist to create jobs for people who's skill sets are unneeded too. So besides a few good commie good Samaritans trying to help out you are out in the cold alone. At least you will be getting health care soon... probably not soon enough.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChrisB (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      Let me guess. Your union told you to hold out for more money, and then, surprise, the company uprooted the factory to another country. Put blame where it is due. You want Made in China prices but want to get paid a Made in America salary. You can't have it both ways.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jjmsan (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Please tell me how I can find american made goods? Is there a rule saying that goods made outside the country cannot put a made in america label on them? Is there a store out there that sells them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cipher-0, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Please tell me how I can find american made goods?
        There's this thing called Google. You may have heard of it. /s
        http://www.madeinusa.com has hundred of links to US-made goods - granted, some are dead links, but the vast majority still work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      He has a point. People and businesses move to where economies of scale are cheaper.
      
      We need new rules that allow newer businesses to spring up to replace those that are moving.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        New rules? Ah, no.
        
        We need to look at the competitive advantages that we have here and form businesses around those.
        
        I don't see any reason to make people pay $11.00 for a good produced here that could be produced in China and transported here for a cost of $1.00.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        With the rules currently in place, they favor larger corporations that are established for a number of years. Through direct lobbying as well as advertising, they control vast amounts of resources. However, the true innovators are the smaller businesses that create new demands for products and services, not big business.
        
        We won't really have a true advantage until we have better laws that either repeal this view of large corporations dominating the landscape or make it so that more people can innovative in various fields.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BigKeithO (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        What sort of rules are needed to replace these businesses? If there is a need and money to be made wouldn't they be "springing" up on their own? I fail to see what you are getting at here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        More or less, repeals may actually work a lot better. The problem is the lobbying that goes on to support all of the bigger industries snuffs out the smaller businesses as I see it. If we want societal growth, we need that competition. But unfortunately, quite a lot of politicians see dollars signs over sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        I can suggest changing a few rules, and those changes will have quite an impact more-or-less immediately:
        
        1. Make non-compete agreements unenforceable. Or maybe even illegal.
        2. Make "corporation owns your ideas" agreements illegal and/or unenforceable. You do it on your own time, it's yours.
        
        Later, we should ditch long-term copyrights, maybe get rid of "copyright" all together. Copyright in and of itself may have some good effects, but it has lots of negative effects that are now holding us all back.
        
        Repeal Dole-Bayh act, so that publicly funded research is available to the public to use.
        
        Make it harder to get a patent. Make it easier to invalidate a patent.
        
        Start to make "classified" work unclassified. Way too much gets squirreled away in SCIFs and so forth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChronoFish (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      You're so right. Nothing makes sense more than protectionism, inflated wages, and forcing US companies to be less competitive in the global economy. Why those bastards who have managed keep their jobs, even in this recession, have the gull to think that companies are in business to make money and maximize profits!
      
      Obviously the only reason that a company should be allowed to operate in the US is to employ US citizens. And if those companies who are in business to employ people are struggling, then clearly the US government must subsidize them!
      
      -CF
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gabriel Tane (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Aww man! You just dripped sarcasm all over the blog! That's gonna stain. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - spiderwebby (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      meh, i've lost my job a couple of times to China and Poland, and i'm only 21. Still, i've got some qualifications in electronics that may do me some good in the long run.
      i think i'll be a joiner or a machinist next...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      i have lost my job to outsourcing, twice in fact.
      
      and i still think that you cant just come up with blanket laws and rules to say 'no outsourcing allowed' as it really does hammer the economy as well.
      
      if you dont like the fact that a company is outsourcing their labor, dont use them. its pretty simple that if people actually figured out how to make a statement with their wallets rather than crying to the gub'ment to just fix it with their magic wands, the landscape along various industries would be vastly different.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        "...if people actually figured out how to make a statement with their wallets..."
        That is all it takes.
        
        Living in Canada, I'll pay a few extra bucks to buy something "Made in Canada" whenever I can. I would expect the same from other individuals in their respective Countries.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lisa, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re: Good
    Destroying the planet? Please. No one believes in this global warming bs. Why dont you ask people in China if they mind taking work from other nations (the united states included) and ask them why theyre polluting this planet in doing so. I bet you arent boycotting ALL products from China. Like Jason said, you sound like an einstein and that is NOT a compliment by the way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Good
      You realize your IP generated profile picture clearly labels you as being the same griefer using different names...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        "You realize your IP generated profile picture clearly labels you as being the same griefer using different names..."
        
        Bwahahahah. Credibility = shot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Clearly a case of multiple personalities. Don't pick on the mentally handicapped. It's insensitive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Multiple sexes as well.
        Probably been told to eff themselves one too many times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        You realize your IP generated profile picture clearly labels you as being the same griefer using different names...
        
        You do know that IP addresses don't correspond to individuals, don't you? That's the problem with those little address images: they make some people think that they mean more than they do. Lisa and Jason may simply be using the same proxy service or something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChronoFish (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        "...Lisa and Jason may simply be using the same proxy service or something...."
        
        Possibly. .....possibly...... .....maybe....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Lisa, Jason and Mike?
        BoA?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        harbingerofdoom (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        it would make sense....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        You do know that IP addresses don't correspond to individuals, don't you? That's the problem with those little address images: they make some people think that they mean more than they do. Lisa and Jason may simply be using the same proxy service or something.
        
        With the same email addresses as well? :) Seems unlikely...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        Thanks guys... that laugh made my day!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
        With the same email addresses as well? :) Seems unlikely...
        
        And just where are their email addresses displayed?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re: Good
    If a company outsources production, consumers should be able to import those products at the local prices (see the Omega case.) The problem is that companies have it their way coming and going.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re: Good
    > then you should be moving to that country and looking for work
    
    That assumes that the other country will let foreigners just show up and start working there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:09am
    
    Lobo Scrooge
    The simple fact of the matter is, if somebody in another country can do the same job for a better price than you're doing it (caveats include w/o destroying the planet with pollution, and w/o killing their workers w/ unsafe conditions. Wages, not so much), then you should be moving to that country and looking for work or finding another industry to work in.
    
    Unfortunately your caveats are nowhere near being observed in the real world - untrammeled capitalism was tried in the UK 200 years ago. The result was so appalling that even the capitalists backed away from it after a while.
    
    What you are really saying amounts to:
    "``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. " (about 2- 3 minutes into the video.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:00am

Hmmm...
Well, if they weren't the target before, I'll bet they are now. Isn't this like raising a hand saying "pick me.. pick me...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Hmmm...
  What is funny is I was just checking my account info and the site is slower than death....I wonder...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Hmmm...
  What is funny is I was just checking my account info and the site is slower than death....I wonder...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re: Hmmm...
    "....I wonder..."
    
    are you wondering if ANON-4Chan is targeting them?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
      In CNET's podcast, they discussed this. Apparently someone asked BoA that very same question, and they basically beat their chests about how secure their system was. Seems like a poor move....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
        " Seems like a poor move...."
        
        What bragging about how secure your system is? It would be seen as a challenge by some people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm...
        "What bragging about how secure your system is? It would be seen as a challenge by some people."
        
        Exactly. It's like Ubisoft and their DRM.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:27am

I was going to make some crack about BoA having "tribal dancers", but now I can't stop thinking about a Mexican version of The Godfather.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:31am

I was wondering if it was actually BOA or CitiCorp that is going to be the next target of WikiLeaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  Good point, but if I recall, Morgan Stanley, which was acquired by "Banco De America" had 158 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands pre-merger. This is seven times the number of hotels. Citigroup also has 90 subsidiaries in the Caymans.
  
  So Banco De America has a total of 217 post-merger with Morgan Stanley.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    BoA bought out Merrill Lynch, not Morgan Stanley.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh, That's right. Merrill was that company that worked with Enron, and Morgan Stanley was the company that merged with Citibank. Morgan still has a healthy business in the Caymans.
      
      So the Morgan/Citi tie up created a presence of 248 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.
      
      Maybe the rumored leaks will be about Citibank.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So the Morgan/Citi tie up created a presence of 248 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands. "
        
        I'm sure there's some overlap.
        
        The kicker is that if it turns out that it *isn't* BoA, there's going to be some scrutinizing going on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:34am

Another amusing post that tries to make companies look bad for their actions against Wikileaks.

Last week it was Mastercard and Paypal that were going to get turned out, and now it is "thought to be" Bank of America. It is amusing to see the Wikileaks defender trying as hard as they can to backfill the story.

The real story? Wau Holland Foundation, the foundation that has been taking money for Wikileaks, is under investigation in Germany. They are perhaps not as tax exempt as they claim. Wikileaks has no direct income sources, rather, they are all filtered through third parties. The money that goes to Wikileaks appears to disappear, with no actual track. Ask yourself: where is Wikileaks actually incorporated or the company formed? Do they report? If they do exist as a company and report, why are they filtering money through third parties instead of taking it directly?

The money to help Manning fight in court? That is nowhere to be found. Even as donations are stronger than ever, there seems to be no money going anywhere important.

You want a real leak? Try to figure out where the Wikileaks money is going. That would be a real story!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  "The money to help Manning fight in court?"
  
  Uh, Wikileaks pledged $50k to help Manning in court. Problem is, he hasn't gone to court/tribunal yet. Where exactly do you want the money to be prior to the fact?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Do a bit more homework . . . They need 100k to get the lawyer to prepare for the court/tribunal.
    
    Of that, 50k was supposed to come from wikileaks, but for varied reasons, never got there.
    
    As it is, it's nowhere near as sinister as AC makes it out to be, but in this case, you're actually wrong, DH.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/manning-defens/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And if you don't trust wired:
      http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-renege.htm
      
      So yeah, wikileaks did actually promise to pay that 50k.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ah, so I stand corrected. I guess they have now sent 20k, not 50k, and that the issue arose because of the way their 3rd party partner has to authorize transfers.
      
      Interesting, though as you said, not sinister....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It goes to show you, however, that the Wikileaks deal isn't any more above board than those they leak on.
        
        Assange's continued refusal to discuss the rape case in the media (he ran away in the middle of another internet this week, refering to the reporter as a "tabloid schmuck") makes you wonder what the hell is going on. I am thinking that in the end, they authorities are going to find that Assange has been living large off the Wikileaks "donations", and avoiding tax by moving country to country.
        
        It's getting out of control pretty fast.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [citations needed]
        
        I suspect that perhaps he called someone a tabloid schmuck because they were, in fact, a tabloid schmuck.
        
        I mean heck, being charged with rape because the condom broke? I'll wait till the trial to make any judgements, but everything I've heard thus far indicates the charge is bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Free Capitalist (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes he said it.
        
        Yes, the reporter was being a tabloid schmuck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know :p
        
        And I'll agree with you & madjo. Loaded question, tabloid schmuck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        madjo (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        did you see the footage?
        
        the interviewer asked him such a loaded question, any answer would have been wrong.
        it was close to asking: "when did you stop beating your wife?"
        
        besides, the case is still under investigation, would be suicide to comment on it in the press.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But the correct answer isn't to storm off like a child and call the reporter a "tabloid schmuck", because it makes him look like he has something to hide (and many think he does).
        
        His correct answer would be "that is before the courts, so I cannot comment". If he really want to be take seriously, he needs to grow some thicker skin.
        
        But back to the main point: Do you think the headline on this TD article is honest? It seems that every time someone does something that is harmful to Wikileaks, suddenly the rumors are that they did it because they are "next to be outed". Isn't this getting slightly childish?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, this is why it isn't worth my while to explain to you why your arguments aren't sound.
        
        Not answering a loaded question doesn't make you look like you have something to hide if the viewers have any ounce of critical thinking.
        
        And also, how is the title misleading? BoA did block payments, that ARE thought to be the next target.
        What has TD done but honest reporting?
        What isn't wrong with a company blocking payment to one of its customers because it disagrees with free speech?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Do you think the headline on this TD article is honest? It seems that every time someone does something that is harmful to Wikileaks, suddenly the rumors are that they did it because they are "next to be outed". Isn't this getting slightly childish?"
        
        FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...FOLLOW THE MONEY...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He did not storm off, he walked away. If you have all those news hounds trying to get a rise out of you with those kinds of questions, (because for all the footage available to us, there is undoubtedly loads that we don't see) I can understand him walking away instead of keep standing there.
        Many think that he stayed mostly classy there, and the journo did indeed seem tabloid schmuck. He had a valid question and if he didn't go too graphic he would have had an answer, or at least he wouldn't have had Assange walk away.
        The journo just had to dig too deep.
        
        And I think the headline on this article is okay... it's stating the current rumours. Might be a bit click-bait-ish, but nothing out of line with that. There are worse headlines on the web to be found.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, he stormed off, and only stopped because he was still wired for sound. As soon as the mic was removed, he was out of there like he was on fire.
        
        This isn't the first time he has done the same time, limited only by the wires keeping him place, otherwise he would have tossed all the toys out of his pram.
        
        The classy answer is "I cannot comment, that is before the courts", and no matter how tabloidy the question, the answer is the same. A nice smile and a curt answer fixes the issue. Seriously, if he cannot handle what is a very simple situation, I have to wonder if the rumors about him are true (impossible to work with).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 3:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nothing about the situation is simple, regardless what you might think. If walking calmly away is your idea of 'storming off,' then perhaps you have bigger issues, or an axe of your own to grind. Seriously, if you think responding to such a trashy question in any way, even what you suggest, is smart, then you need to spend a bit more time thinking about such things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Smoking Joe Kubrick, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whenever one is under indictment they are always advised not to speak about it to the press by counsel.
        
        "But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing." ~ Thomas Paine
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Freak, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh, it'd be a bit of a let-down on this site if someone didn't fact-check in the comments ;p
        
        May as well be me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  Because it must automatically be going to the terrorists.
  
  There's a small propblem with that - the terrorists are In The House.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kabul, 20 Dec 2010 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  They havn't finished their buisness report yet.
  I'am into that buisness and it's clearly nothing unusual.
  As a matter of fact it happens all the time. just the normal, "Please send your report to us" government message. The medias just overreacting about a buisness as usual statement.
  
  You don't loose your foundation status so easily.
  If they have a clever team of lawyers. They can defend their foundations status for years, even if they do something wrong.
  
  Wikileaks has strong supporters in the german government.
  Social democratic party and green party supporting it. Even the strong left "social" party. So don't panic. There must happen quiete a lot more before things go ugly for Wikileaks in germany.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob rinaldi, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:01am

How do morons like you get media time
Oh I know you're a registered media moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: How do morons like you get media time
  lolwut?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re: How do morons like you get media time
  They have a media moron register now? Wow, is that a who's who of mainstream media?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:10am

BoA Blocks
If Visa and Mastercard are blocking transactions, then all the check cards are shut down, but PIN based transactions would still be open. It may be BoA that is blocking those and that is what they are talking about.

I don't think that they can block paper checks presented via the banking system for ANY reason other than NSF. BUT it's possible that they would DELAY their processing to the legal limits which I believe is 10 days or something like that.

Of course they would also be blocking direct Wire Transfers...

BUT BoA and many other banks are screwing a number of thier customers non stop, and noone seems to be doing anything about that. The banking industry in general has strayed away from century old accounting practices of posting transactions as they are received. Some banks post transactions as they are received UNLESS you are going to go negative, then they process largest to smallest to maximize the over draft fees. Then others just post largest to smallest every time in hopes of maximizing OD fees.

Anyone that does a large number of transactions daily can look at their statements and see what I am talking about BBVA Compass Bank does it all the time. There is no way that my transactions ALWAY get to the bank largest to smallest. So how is it that EVERY statement processes it that way?????

As for BoA, I banked with them in the 90's, and after they spend 3 months "investigating" a $2800 lost cash deposit and determined that they never got it even though I had their receipt, and they had me on film walking into the bank to make the deposit at the time of the deposit receipt, they could not produce film of me at the teller even though there was a camera directly pointing at the teller...

Needless to say after taking a $2800 loss along with the associated fees involved, I will NEVER bank BoA or any bank that they aquire in the future... No matter how many times I have to change banks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: BoA Blocks
  i think pretty much anyone that has ever banked with boa has these kind of horror stories, mine is their penchant for processing debits before processing credits in order to create false bounced checks and overdrafts.
  
  i too have moved away and will never go back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:42am

Part of the plan?
I'm starting to wonder if the idiot politicians and big bankers are doing exactly what Wikileaks wants them to do. The more the governments and big buisness goes after them, the more of a victim they appear. The more of a victim they appear, the more weight people in general are going to give their cause.

This could be, the most masterfull use of the "Streisand effect", ever seen.... and the politicians, industry shills, and the BoA's of the world, are falling right into their trap..... muhahahahhaha

This is starting to sound like a bad pinky and the brain episode.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 9:50am
  
  Re: Part of the plan?
  The scary part is that it's working.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:03am

A right to a job? Maybe not a right but an expectation, a good will effort. There is a contract between the American people and corporate America. Companies are given legal rights and tax breaks by our government (using American�s money in the form of taxes) and in turn provide employment. Companies have been breaking that contract with Americans and if they continue, things will not go well.

In the past, manufacturing was off shored and the argument was it would make companies more competitive and would create jobs elsewhere, that off shoring would create more jobs than it eliminated. Then back office positions were off shored. More and more positions were eliminated, new companies that sprout up implement lean hiring practices and off shore many positions themselves. By doing this, the creation of jobs never materalizes. Tax credits and bailouts continue (funded by the American people) but job creation doesn�t happen.

Henry Ford recognized that if American workers are not paid suitable wages, they can�t buy products. Consumer spending drives the US economy (responsible for 70%) so until the job situation in America improves our economy can�t recover.

As for the free market, capitalism and other issues, our government attempts to tilt the playing field in our favor, as does other nations. Is it fair that our companies pay for health insurance while in France health care is paid for by the Govt? Is it fair that while our companies are bound to pay for the clean up of rivers while in China, their two largest rivers will soon be considered �dead.� There is no level playing field, and the contract between companies and people is breaking.

Break a contract and expect what? Why should people that have no vested interest in companies support bail outs or tax breaks? With no vested interest, why should Americans support patents, copyright, trademark law?

Pull hope and a lot of bad things begin to happen. Don�t expect people to leave the country and move to places like Mumbai or other places with lower lifestyle levels, expect our cities to turn into places like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChronoFish (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  "...Maybe not a right but an expectation, a good will effort...There is a contract between the American people and corporate America. ... Companies have been breaking that contract with Americans..."
  
  WOW. Are you serious? You're expecting business to honor and stay true to "nonenforceable implied unwritten contracts"?
  
  Why would you even admit to such an absurd thing?
  
  -CF
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smokin' Joe Kubrick, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:28am

BOA
I've been with Bank of America since it swallowed up the smaller bank I was with for many years. I've watched the fees go up as the customer service degraded to a point where it's an absolute joke. The bank actually discourages people from using the teller. A bank manager approached me when I was at the teller's window making a deposit in the bank and asked why I didn't have an ATM or debit card ... as if it's any of his business. He then proceeded to try and sell me on the benefits of a debit card. I've never had a debit card, have no intention to obtain one and it's none of the bank's business why I opt not to. This last issue with Wikileaks is the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. I'm closing my account with BOA right after the holidays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 7:06pm
  
  Re: BOA
  the above aside, except for the weirdness that is 'credit ratings' and the like, Debit cards are actually a better option that credit cards... of course, for Most things cash is better still.
  
  ... and if you can get people to accept silver it's even better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 10:52am

According to Nicole and her supervisors at the Bank of America Customer Service line (18004321000, press 0 to get to the reach a representative prompt), there has been no internal statement to stop transactions with WikiLeaks.

They seemed largely unaware of the statement that came out over the weekend, and were quite perplexed by it considering it didn't match any information they've received in the last few weeks.

Not saying it's completely accurate or that they know what's going on, just what I found out from a quick phone interview.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 12:11pm

CF, is business doesn't honor the "contract" they should not expect any support or help from taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  I hate to burst everyone's bubble here, but there's only one thing a business owes it's loyalty to: Their bottom line.
  
  Corporations are held liable if they don't turn a profit. Held liable by their shareholders, which are often times those very same taxpayers.
  
  And what does taxpaying have to do with anything? You seem to be making a case that just because someone here is an American Citizen and pays their taxes, these companies should somehow be loyal to them. Why?
  
  As long as the company is making money: it. doesn't. care. I'm sure there are some CEO's out there that would LOVE to do their business according to their personal moral beliefs. But if those beliefs don't jive with 'making money', then they are overridden.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 12:31pm

Bank Of America...
They are Absolute Scum. If you ever needed to know what really happens when you combine Arrogance and Smugness, it's bank of america. To use apple's analogy.. "There's a fee for that." Long Live WikiLeaks! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 20 Dec 2010 @ 2:10pm

Corporations need to be stripped of all the rights of personhood because they are not people. Also, all corporations larger than the regional level should be broken up into small non-profit-sharing companies no larger than the regional level, and no future corporation should be allowed to grow beyond that level. And business and government need to be completely separatedy, forcibly if need be.

Bank bailouts and BoA shenanigans are the kinds of things that happen when government and business are allowed to collude together. And a company's only true legal obligation should be to its customers, not its shareholders - an obligation to treat them fairly and honestly, and to show good stewardship of the environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2010 @ 3:48pm

I've been a BofA customer since 1992 when they bought out Security Pacific National Bank. I won't be much longer. I'm now in the process of closing down my accounts. I've already closed my Amazon and PayPal accounts in boycott.

It's too bad that more people won't act in kind and lay some serious financial hurt on these companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 6:17pm

Shunning large banks.
Everyone should shun the large banks in favor of either small regional banks or credit unions.

In my opinion Bank of America is one of the worst in the industry.

The banking industry pushes credit and hooks people much like drug dealers.

Everyone should get out of debt and shun credit for everything except major things like buying a house.

I was completely debt free by age 35 and have kept it that way.

Regarding BoA:

I did use a number of BoA credit cards (over 15 years) simply to consolidate transactions for each of my companies but switched to debit cards after BoA fleeced me. We pay invoices on the 1st and 15th in full each month. It was amazing how statements from numerous accounts were arriving 8-10 days after the supposed closing date out of a 20 day grace period.

It appears that BoA's return to profitability was based totally on unusual mail delays.

I stopped using BoA cards (formerly MBNA).

Ronald J. Riley,

President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org

Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MR.G., 16 Jun 2012 @ 9:40am

stocks
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW . WHY BAC IS SELLING SO LOW @ $7.90 ?
OTHER BANKS LIKE = WFC , BANK OF PA. TD BANK , METRO BANK , AND SO MANY OTHER BANKS. THEY ARE ALL BEATING BAC ON THE NYSE STOCK EXCHANGE.

I CAN REMEMBER WHEN BAC SOLD FOR $18.00 DOLLARS A SHARE.
MR.G.
6-17-12
[ link to this | view in chronology ]