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.'"
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.
Well, the first sentence of the two-sentence summary suggests that what makes this newsworthy is the fact it's being done defensively ahead of a major wikileak.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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
Actually it could be the PR department trying to cover *their* ass. The board of directors may or may not still be psychopaths.
c++;