Cringely Looks at the WikiLeaks Debacle

dtwood writes "Infoworld's Cringely has an interesting take on the Julius Baer bank trying to silence WikiLeaks.org — and how stunningly stupid they've been. 'But the bank's solution is so mind-bogglingly stupid, you have to wonder if these guys need help getting their pants on each morning. First, this is exactly the kind of story bloggers and Net-centric journos crave. Big nasty corporation stomps all over plucky public-serving underdog. Who can resist that plot line? Second, the equation Bank Julius Baer = Money Laundering is now firmly cemented in the minds of everyone who has encountered this story, regardless of whether it's true. Trois: The documents in question, which might have been quickly forgotten alongside the 1.2 million others on the site, are now hotter than the Paris Hilton sex video. Dozens of mirror sites have sprung up, and Cryptome.org and PirateBay have squirreled away copies of the docs for any interested parties. "

Comments

Just like the Scientology documents

[KublaiKhan]

It's a perfect example of the Streisand Effect in action.

Re:Just like the Scientology documents

[jollyreaper]

This is a perfect example. Who in their right mind would have gone through this stuff unless they knew that there was a story there? Who could have gotten permission to work on it? But now it's everywhere! There are smart bastards in media outlets all over the country trying to confirm it, and they will, because the stuff is never hidden all that well once people start looking. What makes this sort of thing so interesting is how it's so hard to even track things back to the leaker. Counting on journalists to not put the effort into looking into this stuff is the very definition of security through obscurity. Could Microsoft ever prove one of their engineers was responsible for the leak of a new bug to piracy groups when all the information needed to discover it was already out there in public? It's not like leaving the back door unlocked for an inside robbery or providing the root password for the server or walking out with a briefcase full of documents, etc. Where's the evidence? For this bank or Microsoft, the only question to ask is "Who knew about this internally, who could have leaked it, and why?"

This makes me think we could see some great revenge stories in the future. Fire someone who knows where the bodies are buried, he'll leak the info to the press. If it's the kind of thing that's all out in public, then piecing together that information would bring all the relevant facts together, there would be no need for the guy to reveal himself and testify in court and attract the ire of his former employer (assuming it wasn't dead obvious who could have/would have leaked the info).

Re:Just like the Scientology documents

[budgenator]

The thing is, all of this spies and murder stuff is a bit over the top for the more typical organization. Someone is going to rat on the Mafia? He'll get whacked.
How about if the "typical organization" is the kind of place that has those Mafiosos as customers; this guy ratted out the Mafia's bank. Seems like they might have a federal judge in their pocket too.

Who is stupid?

[whoever57]

'But the bank's solution is so mind-bogglingly stupid, you have to wonder if these guys need help getting their pants on each morning.

No doubt the lawyers who advised this course of action have been (or will soon be) paid.

Re:Who is stupid?

[KublaiKhan]

Probably the same guys who advise the RIAA. They're showing a similar level of 'technical expertise'.

Re:Who is stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

The (subconscious) logic probably goes something like this:

• Fundamental truth: We, the top management of Bank JB, are good people.
• Because we are good people, we do good things.
• Because we do money laundering, money laundering is a good thing.
• Because Wikileaks is opposed to money laundering, Wikileaks is opposed to good things.
• Because wikileaks is opposed to good things, WikiLeaks is a bad thing.
• Opposing a bad thing is a good thing so opposing Wikileaks is a good thing.
• We are opposing Wikileaks so we are doing a good thing.
• We are are doing a good thing so we are good people - but that is a fundamental truth so our logic must be correct. All is right with the world.

Re:Who is stupid?

[ashitaka]

Douglas Adams lives!!

"The office of Galactic President exists only to distract attention away from those actually in power."

Written years before the Bush administration made it the best example in modern times.

Re:Sizzling!

[spun]

No, it's just sad. An over-privileged yet insecure girl begging a douchebag guy to love her. Not only won't it get you hard, it's the kind of video that kills any hard on you might have had to begin with.

It's always entertaining...

[SatanicPuppy]

Something incriminating ends up online, and you have two options.

1) Ignore it, and hope that no one notices it.

2) Try to get it removed, guaranteeing that everyone in the world will hear about it.

Sadly, this works the same way whether its true or false information...The information trail almost always increases when you try to have something taken down, so while it may have been only 1 data point before, your attempts to bring it down can create many more...In cases like this, a ridiculously large number.

Probably the best policy is trying to brazen it out...Hardly ever is the information that good...You can always try to laugh it off, but trying to bury it makes it look like you've something to hide.

I'm not a huge privacy nut, so this doesn't necessarily bother me, but I wonder if a lot of the free-speech/privacy buffs are starting to feel a little worried. When everything is free, even the most trivial stuff can end up online, and it's pretty obvious that once it's there, it's never coming down.

Re:It's always entertaining...

[iamnafets]

I think this idea that having something removed makes it well-known is fallicious at best. There are select few stories covering content being removed that are publicized and the content spread over the entire internet. Meanwhile, there are an uncountable number of things removed from websites every day for legal reasons or for censorship that are simply ignored. The question isn't "ignore it and hope..." or "try to get it removed", it's more of a question "how likely is this to be covered by a major news outlet, and how pissy will they be about it". If there's only a 1% chance that it makes the front page of slashdot, it's not altogether unwise to go for it. Mass publicity does not always follow censorship. And sadly as censorship becomes more prevalent, publicity will die off with the uproar about it.

Re:It's always entertaining...

[Anonymous Coward]

3) Post an informative rebuttal. If necessary, provide evidence of the misinformation; or, if you are indeed guilty of what has been said, post a rational explanation of how/why it happened, and, again, if necessary, an apology.

You don't need to publicize your rebuttal, however, if it is either incredibly bad or incredibly good, it will get more coverage (or similar coverage) to whatever you are trying to counter. If it's equally silly, it will likely not increase the popularity of either the original information or yours.

Re:It's always entertaining...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Ignore it, and hope that no one notices it.

2) Try to get it removed, guaranteeing that everyone in the world will hear about it.

You forgot option 3) Debunk it gently and without great fanfare.

Of course this only works if the information is wrong, but that's as it should be.

Re:It's always entertaining...

[Tom]

Something incriminating ends up online, and you have two options. You have three.

3. Wash it away in a flood of misleading other information.

That's what politicians and other people experienced at fooling the general public do. For example, look at when controversial laws are passed, it is often during times where the media's minds are elsewhere.

I think the CIA and the NSA have the best grip on this. AFAIK there is no word "Uninformation" in their vocabulary, but the words "Disinformation" ranks highly.

There is no negative to "information", so you can't remove it, mathematically speaking. But you can bury it under more information.

Re:It's always entertaining...

[greenbird]

Something incriminating ends up online, and you have two options.

1) Ignore it, and hope that no one notices it.

2) Try to get it removed, guaranteeing that everyone in the world will hear about it.

3) Step up and address it head on and accept the consequences. But that would take a moral code, some ethics and a conscience so we know no lawyer is going to advise that route let alone a shyster banker take it.

Pirate Bay

[thewils]

I'd be surprised if Pirate Bay has "squirreled away" copies of the leaked docs which would be just asking for trouble. It is my understanding that they don't manage content, only links to torrents providing content from elsewhere.

Re:Pirate Bay

[PlasticArmyMan]

The people saying the pirate bay has squirreled away the content are the same people that say that torrent sites host illegal content... It'll just be a torrent.

Reputation?

[seyyah]

'But the bank's solution is so mind-bogglingly stupid, you have to wonder if these guys need help getting their pants on each morning. First, this is exactly the kind of story bloggers and Net-centric journos crave. Big nasty corporation stomps all over plucky public-serving underdog. Who can resist that plot line? Second, the equation Bank Julius Baer = Money Laundering is now firmly cemented in the minds of everyone who has encountered this story, regardless of whether it's true.
Free advertising! What's so bad about that?

It's the only money laundering bank I can name.

From TFA

[Artaxs]

"(If you think those [NSA] taps will only be used to identify terrorists, you're living in a fantasy world.)"

Why is it that this kind of common sense doesn't often penetrate the mainstream media? Because they create said "fantasy world"?

Err, no

[qwerty shrdlu]

Using a bank that's famous for money laundering defeats the whole point of money laundering. This could cost them their exisiting customers.