Slashdot Mirror
Bank of America Buying Abusive Domain Names
Nite_Hawk writes "Bank of America has snapped up hundreds of abusive domain names for its senior executives and board members in what is being perceived as a defensive strategy against the future publication of damaging insider info from whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. According to Domain Name Wire, the US bank has been aggressively registering domain names including its board of directors' and senior executives' names followed by 'sucks' and 'blows.'"
Google, Microsoft and all other large companies do the same. What is the news angle exactly?
*sucks.com the name pattern of lolcats everywhere. Get ready!
Good luck grabbing every possible abusive word and all variations. "Sucks" is hardly the only word in existence that can be used to mean you smoke cock or gobble knob.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Maybe they're just preparing themselves for some future "truth in lending" legislation.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Yesterday it was noted that they can do this but getting all of those available will exceed their available cash. Seems like a waste of time and energy.
>> According to Domain Name Wire, the US bank has been aggressively registering domain names including its board of Directors' and senior executives' names followed by "sucks" and "blows."'
I wonder if they also covered the Director and senior executive names - sucksandblows dot whatever... Or how about name-lovestheshaft dot whatever...
What a colossal waste of money, as an investor I am pissed-off at this idiotic attempt at censorship.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
The nearly endless variety of insulting phrases that begin with [name] [verb] [...] makes it impractical to register more than a tiny proportion of them, and no matter how extensive, it's easy to think of alternatives.
[name]stealsyourmoney.com comes to mind in the context of BoA long before it would occur to me to register [name]sucks.com, much less [name]sucksass.com, [name]sucksthebigone.com, and -- in the spirit of Bill Hicks -- [name]suckssatansscalycock.com.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
With a team of SEO geeks it won't even matter.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
There's astounding variety in dyslogistics; humanity's capacity to insult extends far beyond the simple "x sucks", "y blows", and often enters far more explicit territory. What makes them think that "sucks" and "blows" are the preferred verbal weapon of the domain-registering masses? If anything, this will only cause a rise in popularity of other insulting verbs.
Bob, the bad news is that your year-end bonus and stock options will be a wee bit smaller than last year.
The good news is that bobsucks.com won't be displaying a long list reasons for other companies not to hire you.
I can imagine the board meeting where the idea was thrown out: Corp Douche 1: "They're going to be angry when they learn about the kind of things we've done. They're probably going to write letters and e-mails and setup 'BoASucks.com'." Corp Douche 2: "Well, we can ignore the mail. But websites? Oh my... the web! I hear there's a lot of people there and they say mean things about us! We can't let them do that!" Corp Douche 3: "We can cut them off at the knees! Let's buy up all the 'sucks' and 'blows' website names before they get to them! Public relations disaster averted!" *All of the Corp Douches clap*
Perhaps the Wikileaks release on BofA won't be what we all thought - maybe it will be the Wall Street version of Lemonparty. I mean, they're focusing AWFULLY HARD on sucking and blowing...
Interesting way to spend all that money they are making off of their customers, isn't it?
Kind of smells of desperation?
Hoover, Rainbow, and Dirt Devil will see you in court.
"the US bank has been aggressively registering domain names including its board of Directors' and senior executives' names followed by "sucks" and "blows.""
SeniorExecutiveNameSucks.com -- taken.
Probably not taken:
YouSuckSeniorExecutiveName.com
SeniorExecutiveNameSux.com
SeniorExecutiveNameBlowz.com
SeniorExecutiveNameIsLame.com
SeniorExecutiveNameFail.com
SeniorExecutiveNameCrime.com
SeniorExecutiveNameNerfherder.com
Sounds like an admission of guilt, if you ask me.
The only thing I have with bank of america is credit card debt. I hope that disappears in the whole wikileakageddon bank of americassplosion.
--------- I have no signature
BOA is a bunch of angels compared to the rest of the financial community, they should probably be investing in security rather than PR...
There is a steady stream of "$PERSON$ loses job/house, kills family, self, occasionally neighbors and/or a cop or two" stories in the US. Given the number of dodgy forclosures BOA is believed to be involved in, including some cases where they didn't even own the loan, or where there was no loan, I could easily imagine some of their more visible people becoming part of dissatisfied customers' blood drenched exits.
The really high level guys probably already take precautions; but a bank the size of BOA probably has a lot of fat around the middle...
This is like putting buckets over your flowers in advance of a hurricane...while living in New Orleans.
On the other hand it is really interesting they are scared enough about the Wikileaks release to take these fairly absurd measures. I wonder what public opinion of Wikileaks will be like if they expose some serious corruption in a major bank.
I just registered bankofamericasucksandblows.com ! Suck and blow on that!
Perhaps they really are that desperate for money.
How could a person or group express an opinion that would get the highest possible google rank when a person searches for BoA?
That is what this is all about, isn't it?
This seems to be pretty close to admitting that their senior execs have done things that would cause public outrage. Seems like a smarter strategy would have been just to shut up completely about it until seeing what these leaks actually contain. But, I suppose if you know beyond a doubt you will be proven guilty and held to account for something, you might as well prepare for it.
Did they snatch up "Bank Of Assholes" or had they already trademarked that name?
From Doctorow's blog:
In a stunning tribute to the financial acumen of BofA's C-suite, they seem to have missed the fact that total combinations of $FIRSTNAME/INITIAL + $LASTNAME + [blows|sucks|crook|thief|fraudster].[com|net|org|ws|info|cc|ca|ch|whatever] multiplied by, say, $5/domain/year exceeds the total capital reserves of the bank.
Let's say there is a scandal and that 5 executives or directors will get the lion's share of bad publicity. OK, make that ten. And each can have three variations on their name: last name only, first and last, first, middle initial, and last. Oh right, and you can use hyphens to separate each word, or not (but no hybrid, which would be too hard for people to remember). And let's raise the $5 registration fee to $10, to be safe.
So we get:
10 (executives) x 3 (name variations) x 5 (derogatives) x 10 (domain suffixes) x 2 (word separators) x 10 USD =
30,000 USD
IANAFA, but I'll go on a limb and estimate that $30,000 will not exhaust the present-day reserves of Bank of America.
BrianTMoynihanSux.com/net/org
BrianTMoynihanBlovvs (two v's)
BrianTMoynihanBlos
BrianTMoynihanSuks
BrianMoynihanIsADick.com is still available. They'd need to register thousands and thousands of names, not just a couple hundred.
looks like someone may be blowing more than whistles?
http://www.bankofamericasucks.com/index.php
The domain is really secondary to content, because when people search, the search looks at pretty much everything other than the domain name. Silly (criminally rich) bankers.
Instead of trying to silence criticism, how about resolving problems people have with your institution?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You'd think it would just be cheaper to sue - or threaten to sue (the ISP?) - anyone creating a defamatory web-site for defamation of character. Lawyer letters to the ISP of "offending" web-sites are generally effective, especially from a Big Bank.
For each $NAME in @EXECS
$NAMEsucks.com
$NAMEblows.com
(repeat for org, net, etc)
Ok, whew! I think we got them all!
$NAMEsucksass.com
$NAMEsucksshit.com
(repeat for anything else to suck: goats, whatever, just stay on the legal side and don't make a claim that could be claimed in court to be slander/libel)
$NAME_is_a_fuckwit.com
Honestly, I could keep going. People don't just type names in and add sucks and see what comes up, but if one of these execs is caught doing something illegal you can bet that appropriate domains will be reaching the top of google searches for the name with a quickness.
Someone suggests that it is because their customers are finding out about the domain bankofamericasucks.com which has a forum and existing comments by customers and employees.
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
to be the first ones to be prepared to show to the rest of the world how much their executices suck.
--
...there's a clever move., ihatebofa.com, or bofasux.net, or bofarobberbarons.org, or...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
again looking for another bailout. I'd be happy as a clam if Wikileaks or something equal to that brought them all down, with no Goldman Sachs politician able to save their sorry asses.
After all some people swear in French, German, etc. Maybe even Pig Latin!
I have personally experienced the taking-down of sites and content by ISPs which were legally bullied (cease and desist orders) by large companies to make the site/content go away. It's possible that for every one site/piece of content that I've seen taken down outside of due process, short-circuiting the burden of proof, there may be many other sites where the ISP referred the matter to a legal department and determined that it was just corporate bullying, and took no action.
In my personal experience, when a big company threatens to take action against a smaller company, unless it's a high-profile case that the EFF is willing to tackle, the smaller company seems to fold and remove the site/content. It simply costs too much to battle it out in court, so the big guy often wins.
Does anyone have any experience with a smaller company telling a larger company to go suck eggs and successfully fighting a suit or threat to sue? Maybe I'm just cynical....
If they start buying all of these domain names like BofAsucks etc... , Wouldn't those sites show up on Google?
It would be very funny if that were the case.
Imagine a prospective customer typing Bank Of America into Google and getting nothing but page after page of BofAsucks.com type websites.
If I saw that I would have to reconsider banking with them.
I thought you couldnt use naughty language in the ICANN name system?
Domain Name: FUCKBRIANMOYNIHAN.COM
Created on: 22-Dec-10
Expires on: 22-Dec-11
Last Updated on: 22-Dec-10
brianmoynihanisadickhead.com is still up for grabs though
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
I like where this is going
*gets popcorn*
Why are they so worried? Such pristine and fine bank like that surely has nothing illegal to hide, right?!
What I don't understand is why they think this is even necessary in the new world we just entered a month or so ago.
Why should they have to buy up domain names?
Why not just have their friends at Visa/Mastercard deny the ability of anyone to buy a domain name which could (potentially) be used to engage in "illegal activities"?
Or have their friends in Obama's office of imaginary rights enforcement seize the domains for trafficking in stolen property?
Or have the host (Amazon or whoever) drop the websites? Paypal refuse service? EveryDNS drop the domain records?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Maybe they just think their board of Directors and senior executives "suck" and/or "blow"?
Whoever decided to do this doesn't understand the way language works. If an 'abusive' name doesn't exist or is unavailable people will just ascribe new meaning to an existing word or invent a new word that gets incorporated into a new name. Businesses often buy up domain names in the hope of a site being popular on its name alone. But the most popular websites often have made up names that didn't previously exist in everyday language. Bottom line -- it's the content that makes a site popular, not the name.
What makes them think the public needs to purchase new domain names in order to release information?
I wonder what BoA stockholders think of them wasting corporate funds on a preemptive wild goose chase.
Morans.
Discourage people from getting fired or going to work for a competitor.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
"5 gigabit drive"
Really?
Bank of America isn't worried about Wikileaks telling people about the evil things they have done. ALL banks do that! They are worried that the leaks will show they have been behaving in a financially ethical manner and working for the benefit of their customers. If other banks find out about that, there will be hell to pay. People will make fun of them and lawyers won't want to keep their accounts there anymore. Could cause a run on the bank! They are buying up sites like BOAhelpswidowsandorphans.com.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
http://www.misslopez.se/tag/stockholm/
And here's the pix:
http://www.misslopez.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/thomas-boström-0321-1024x768.jpg
They will survive on Google advertisement and the executive bonuses will come from selling "I'm rich" applications on iPhone, Android and newly Windows Phone 7 market apps.
someone gets the idea to add "goats" to the end of everything they just registered.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
If they had the tiniest bit of courage and honour left, they'd just come clean with whatever the nasty bits are. That would also leave them in control of the story. But no, they'll probably put their PR people into overdrive to spin it once it's out, and until than hang on to the hope that it might not happen.
I'll be waiting for it. I doubt our collective opinion of banks could get any worse than it is, but let's hope that one or two of them come crashing down - as they should've instead of being bailed out with our tax money.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
wtfbankofamerica.com ????
It appears that Bank of America has absolute confidence in its senior management. On one hand, I can sort of see why they would do this for all their executives; if they singled out anyone it'd be kind of an admission of guilt. But this way, they're sending the message that their entire upper management level is corrupt.
This could have been my chance to negotiate to eliminate my (minor) debt with BoA. Over 5 years ago I bought fuckbankofamerica.com in a fervor one night after the very thing they were found guilty of in a class action lawsuit (only 2ish years ago). I let the registration expire after moving on. Somehow ~$50 of little purchases spiraled into over $800 in overdraft because of their more than sketchy practices.
I. Cannot. Wait. to see what Wikileaks has on them.
This are truly extremely interesting times we live in today. We are on the cusp of either a revolution or totalitarianism which would ultimately (eventually) lead to that same revolution.
Maybe this is what the Mayan 2012 nonsense is actually about, apocalypse be damned.
Back in 2000, the magazine 2600 tried to register VerizonSucks.com and found that it was already registered to Verizon, along with 100 variations. So they registered VerizonReallySucks.com and were doing fine until Verizon sued them.
[ Contact: Bank of America, Corporate and Financial customer category: expense of over 2 billion per year ]
Yes, every year I expend billions of dollars worth of great ideas just simply talking to people and being one of the greatest geniuses who has ever lived. You wouldn't have a clue. I will write "on your level".
From what I understand, Bank of America is spending money to do things like buy up domain names such as "ThePresidentofBankofAmericaHasHisPenisOnUpsideDown.com" or "AllTheMunchkinsWhoWorkForBankOfAmericaAreUnderpaidAndDon'tComprehendIt.com" and so on.
Maybe Bank of America are spending what is, to them, relatively pennies in terms of monies, kind of like throwing a few pennies on the grown relatively, in expressing in a subtle fashion -- nothing that would mark their reputation or standing, mind you -- exactly how they feel about the paranoia and overreaction assembled around Assange and Wikileaks. Perhaps?
Really, though, I would be interested to know what Bank of America's psychologist would say if Bank of America were lying on the couch and said "I want to claim up all the names in the world that might make fun of my name. Might make FUN of my name. So nobody CAN."
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
They're going to have to fight snookie for skankofamerica.example.com
Painstaking legal research at the courthouse has produced the following results:
bofasucks -
bofasux -
bofablows -
bofagate -
bofacrooks -
bofascandal -
bofascam -
bofathugs -
theirbofa -
BOA is a bunch of angels compared to the rest of the financial community
I haven't read what all the other banks have done, but Federal Reserve recently published how their loan program allowed Bank of America to benefit twice, netting $4.8 billion:
[TALF] loans were non-recourse, meaning that if the investment failed, the borrower would not be held responsible for repayment. The belief at the time was that if financing agencies, such as banks, were able to get assets off their books in exchange for cash, then they would be able to freely lend to consumers once again.
Bank of America was able to take advantage of the program by not only selling its assets through the program, but also to profit from non-recourse loans made to BlackRock, in which BofA has a seven percent ownership interest. BlackRock received $2.7 billion in loans from the TALF program to purchase assets. At the same time, Bank of America was also able to sell assets through the program to various investors that received more than $2 billion in federally-backed loans in order to do so. In total, $4.8 billion in loans benefited BofA.
...it was also able to increase its liquidity by selling its assets to other subsidized borrowers. According to the New York Times, "Federal auditors worried about firms like BlackRock, warning that such firms could use federally guaranteed loans to overpay for assets, creating a potential conflict of interest."
BofA sold their assets to buyers who overpaid because they had non-recourse loans. One of the buyers was partly owned by BofA.
Bought it using a B of A credit card. Hey Bank of America -- ITS FOR SALE!!
This isn't a defensive measure against anything. Everyone at Bank Off, America is just getting a special Christmas present this year.
It must have really sucked to be one of those PR folks tasked with putting together a list of "my CEO blows" type of domains right before Christmas
when logic fails, bullshit prevails
Ahhhh, so that's why they need $35 in overdraft fees when I go over by using my debit card for a $5 meal at Mickey-D's.
This is so ridiculous it's funny. :)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I've seen a couple of the files wikileaks has on BoA. I kind of wish they'd quit dicking around with the cables (there's nothing illegal or all too scandalous) and post the BoA files. From what I've seen, there should be some serious jailtime, maybe the bank split up or shut down entirely. The FDIC, Fed, and treasury have been protecting them, but when this shit hits, there will be criminal and civil lawsuits. My advice to the BoA execs is to relocate to a country that doesn't extradite (not Sweden!)
Wonder how many *cough* links point to bao?
Suppose a branch is on a street corner - how many different entries could be generated?
I think a previous poster is right in suggesting boa will hire the best SEO money can buy to manipulate search results.... what could possibly go wrong?
get a load of that democracy, freedom of speech .... you are as free as the money you have - and those with more money than you, can even go 'privately' buying means with which you can effectively practice your freedom of speech ... yeah yeah, i know, they are 'just' buying domain names in this instance. 'just'. but they are also in bed (all megacorps actually) with each other in payment, backbone providing, news, media, and so on. all combined, it makes a hugely effective mechanism for control of free speech.
greatest trick : make everyone free to speak, but tie everything to money. then you have effectively controlled free speech, and also maintained an illusion of freedom that fools would believe.
Read radical news here
BoA better be worried along with AIG. I know what is coming. Last night's secret meeting with China was a last ditch attempt by America to devalue their currency in an attempt to cut USA debt. China said no, so America now owes 2 trillion more. Good luck with that.
In God we trust you to pay off your debt USA.
They can have all the *sucks urls. I want to see *ate my balls come back. I think it would be much more fitting too since banks want to take everything of value from you.
So, if you buy "JohnSmithsucks.com", whats to stop someone from buying "JohnSmithblowsatBankofAmerica", and what about other domain roots, like .Net, or .Biz. Look Bof A and all the big Banls suck and blow, and it's about time that the jack-offs that MAKE them suck and blow be shamed in public, because it appears that that is the only punishment that these jerk-offs will get, because they have bought legislation to protect themselves. Frankly, I would love to see every last one of them placed in the public pillory for two days, with just bread and water and whatever rotten eggs they could lick off their lips that were thrown at them. These people, the ones who screwed this country, are scum, and deserve HARD TIME. Go get 'em, wikileaks!
What a great way to spend bailout money.
BoA_Destructor
FROM -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33092398 [slashdot.org]
"I have been offered the online-perception-management services I'm talking about while managing at HP and Sourcelabs. If you are not aware of companys concern for their online perception and what they do about it, and won't take my word for it, there isn't much point in arguing about it with you." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @09:27PM (#33092398) Homepage Journal
&
FROM -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192 [slashdot.org]
"It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @03:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal
---
This article's tactics of buying up domain names to avoid further exposure by the press as regards BOA's "reprehensible practices" is only exposing them further, & it's only a VARIATION OF THE ABOVE noted by Bruce Perens of "Open Source fame"...
It's painfully obvious to most folks reading here & elsewhere online today!
(I mean, for example - Look at the replies here alone, for Pete's sake - says it all! Those BOA fools think they can "fool others" w/ their "std. spin control" tactics? Please - might have worked in a "PRE-INTERNET WORLD" but it won't today - period!).
APK
P.S.=> The more "moves" they keep trying to make only makes folks hate them all the more, w/ each "move" they pull regarding wikileaks, here are the "highlights":
---
1.) Trying to "frame" J. Assange for "rape" for Pete's sake (you can't rape the willing - well, not unless you're the US Taxpayers who paid for the "bankers' bailout" & this madness too mind you)
2.) Pressuring businesses to drop financial support for wikileaks
3.) Pressuring businesses to drop hosting support for wikileaks
4.) Pressuring gov't. official to THREATEN THEIR EMPLOYEES ABOUT READING THE LATEST FROM WIKILEAKS, etc./et al, also??
---
(PLEASE... it's pitiful, & backfiring on them, if anything!)
I'd feel sorry for them, in a way, if they were NOT such crooks, but their actions (especially now)? They're only "incriminating themselves" even further... hilariously badly played by them! apk