Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Leaks Internal Bank of America Emails

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-see-what-you-did-there dept.

euphemistic writes "Reportedly the information Wikileaks was set to disclose about a particular bank back from December, 'a massive batch of internal Bank of America emails' has been leaked. While the site hosting it seems to currently be down due to the obviously gigantic amount of traffic interested in this leak, the leak is said to pertain to the Bank of America's improper foreclosure on homes. 'The report came from a former employee with Balboa Insurance — a risk management and insurance firm. The employee reportedly corresponded with Bank of America employees and was told to falsify loan numbers on documents to force Bank of America to foreclose on homeowners.'"

27 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. Well, now we know why by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess this explains why Bank of America's law firm was so willing to buy into HBgary and other's bullshit about being able to take down Anoynymous and Wikileaks.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Well, now we know why by emagery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would agree if he were releasing info that endangered ongoing operations (troop movements, missile deployment sites, etc, in the midst of a battle and to the enemy), but when he's whistleblowing on the criminal actions of his superiors, he must be protected. Every agency at EVERY level must be routinely audited for corrupting, and with 54% of our taxpayer money going to feed this military machine in a time of nation crippling deficits, they deserve scrutiny most of all.

    2. Re:Well, now we know why by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would agree if he were releasing info that endangered ongoing operations (troop movements, missile deployment sites, etc, in the midst of a battle and to the enemy), but when he's whistleblowing on the criminal actions of his superiors, he must be protected. Every agency at EVERY level must be routinely audited for corrupting, and with 54% of our taxpayer money going to feed this military machine in a time of nation crippling deficits, they deserve scrutiny most of all.

      First - Manning wasn't in a position to make judgment on the suitability of classification. At that level, classified is classified. It is handled the same way no matter what is between the cover sheets.

      Secondly - what he uncovered was hardly "criminal actions of his superiors." He was a fool to believe that what he had was all that special and worth putting his own freedom at risk. But that's how being a whistleblower works. You don't get immunity just because you thought you were doing right. You put your self at risk to uncover something so heinous as to be worth that risk.

      Finally - the point still stands. BoA is not the US Military. Manning and some corporate risk analyst are not in the same situation. But it isn't surprising that someone would believe otherwise (whether the OP is believer or a troll).

    3. Re:Well, now we know why by zill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only sane way to decide whether Manning deserves protection as a whistle-blower is a fair trial.

      I really don't see how he can get that anymore.

  2. And... by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. nothing will happen.

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    1. Re:And... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen. The two words that will characterise this period of history will be "corruption" and "unaccountability". Western management has turned impunity--legal, financial, and personal--into a science.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:And... by Joreallean · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although the money helps this isn't about money... It's about the fact that these "people" are doing actions of an individual under the name of a corporation. The difference in your example between your corporation vs commoner is that one is an individual. The government can certainly throw the book at a corporation, but what happens? It either gets a bad reputation and loses the market for a while or they just dissolve it and start something new under a new name. There is no personal responsibility for any of the actions of a corporation and therefore there is absolutely no accountability for their actions. As long as we continue to treat a corporation as the "person" responsible for its actions and not the actual people in charge will they be able to do whatever they want with little to no consequences. These people have just learn to shield their own malfeasance under the guise of a legal corporation. I'm by no means saying that all corporations are like this, but at some point it seems they stop caring about the work they are doing and start caring about the state of the company.

    3. Re:And... by DrStrange66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bank of America is too big to fail and is therefore too big to go after.

    4. Re:And... by s4m7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like." - Edward Thurlow, often attributed to Andrew Jackson

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    5. Re:And... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. While I agree with the general theme that the system is hopelessly corrupt, I disagree that this is what will mark this period in history. I largely believe that this level of corruption has existed for almost as long as humans have lived in "civilized" societies. What will mark this period in history is that it is so well documented. Never before has every nuance of humanity been so well documented. In fact, there's so many documented about humanity right now I don't believe it will be possible for a historian 400 years from now to read about the 1900's completely even if he spends his whole life trying to do it. Even communications intended by the sender to be temporary such as the emails referenced above can be perfectly reproduced thousands of times for years. In the past, there would have been no record of this type of corruption since the communications would have been largely face to face (out of technical necessity if for no other reason).

    6. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US doesn't have a democracy. It has a plutocracy. These huge financial firms used captured regulators, insiders, and like-minded ideologues to create an environment in which, once again, the rich could further enrich themselves upon the backs of the middle and lower-class. While, as you say, this has always been the case, at least to some degree, the last three decades have seen a massive concentration of wealth and power in a select elite. The recent banking fiasco is simply the pinnacle of that trend, resulting in massive unemployment and loss of homes, pensions, and what little other wealth the non-rich have while the rich continue to get richer and richer, while absorbing none of the consequences of their actions.

      But, I think to future historians, the most baffling thing of all will be how so many of the middle and lower class cheered on deregulation, defended the rich, decried attempts to correct this wealth and power imbalance as "class warfare", thus actively working against their own self-interests.

    7. Re:And... by moj0joj0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no personal responsibility for any of the actions of a corporation and therefore there is absolutely no accountability for their actions.

      Corporations may not be individuals, but they are run by a board of directors that is ultimately responsible for the actions of the company. If individual wrongdoers within the corporate 'body' are not handed over to the authorities, then the board would be held responsible. If this were the case, you'd see a lot less evil in the business world. If generals are held responsible for the actions of their troops during wartime, then surely we can hold the leadership of a corporation responsible for the actions of the corporation. Maybe not, but it makes me feel better to think so.

    8. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or it shows that Bank of America PR staffers know exactly how to contain a potential disaster. By releasing their own information as Anonymous during a time where it is guaranteed to be buried under far more pressing news stories.

    9. Re:And... by mhelander · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've heard it claimed it is because just like we all think we are better than average drivers, everyone in the US think they're one day going to become rich.

    10. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or... if you dig deeper - maybe this is *exactly* what they wanted. Who is to say that BofA didn't leak them themselves through Anonymous, knowing that Wikileaks had it, and that a dump of everything in the middle of a disaster would guarantee the minimal amount of exposure for them. After all Wikileaks is nothing if not good at milking the mainstream media for every ounce of coverage without actually releasing anything. If I was the PR guy at BofA this is what I would do.

    11. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup, I've heard that, too. In addition, many people have a remarkably inflated view of their wealth, and the overall wealth distribution in the US. Here's an interesting graph on the topic:

      http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/poor-people-are-much-poorer-than-you-think/

      People massively underestimate just how much wealth is concentrated in the top few percent of earners.

      In addition to this, while for the life of me I can't find the original citation, I recall a recent report that indicates that people tend to view themselves as being richer than they are. ie, they believe they're in a higher quintile than they are.

      So if you believe more people are "rich" than actually are, and that you, yourself, are richer than is the reality, then naturally you'll rail against "class warfare" versus the rich, believe you believe you, and many of your fellow citizens, will be targeted.

    12. Re:And... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      decried attempts to correct this wealth and power imbalance as "class warfare", thus actively working against their own self-interests.

      Maybe they just don't like the methods suggested, namely an increase in the power of government to confiscate greater wealth from private hands. Maybe if their paycheck comes from one of those targets, they don't see it in their self-interest to be biting those hands, especially when only private interests can actually create wealth, while governments simply use it up.

      Besides, income taxes do little other than control inflation, since the government can print and distribute fiat money all they want. If you could trust everyone to do it, you could just have everyone (that is, the less than 50% that actually contribute via income tax) just take the taxes they owe out in the back yard and burn it up. It would have exactly the same effect.

      How about this? If we decide that we are so jealous of some one else's success, we should get together to hire some goons to go to their house, armed to the teeth, and demand they give up a vast portion of it. Then the goons can take their cut and distribute the rest to us poor folk. ... Oh, wait...

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    13. Re:And... by Stick32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Corporation n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

  3. I will be closing my BOA account.... by Mazzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and switching to a more reputable corporate behemoth like... hrmm... like... uhhh... doh!

    --
    Having a bookmark to Google does not make you an expert on everything.
    1. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by trollertron3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You basically nailed why so many corporations are suffering from corruption from within - they are beholden to board members more than their customers. They don't even care about the fundamentals of business anymore. They're too busy inventing new ways to fuck each other.

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
  4. Woman dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there is any connection with this to the women being shot and killed a few hours ago at Bank of America, I would had to see that connection not be made.

    Simple Google News search will get you the links.

    And here is a better link than the one posted (provides screenshots and better context of th conversation):
    http://bankofamericasuck.com/03/13/ex-bank-of-ameica-employee-can-prove-mortgage-fraud-part-1

  5. No one investigating, no one going to jail by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The governement administration was pretty quick to hand them money to keep going and the oversight seems to be uninterested in putting people in jail.
    If you pickpocket a $100 store item expect to go to jail. If you force thousands into bankruptcy and put several nations into financial stress you will have no problem collecting your yearly bonus pay.

    It seems to me we need a crack down on white collar crime.

    Stop jailing people for grams of pot and start jailing people for ((( some smart saying I can't think of that means investment people who steal money))).

  6. Re:Russia? by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wikileaks is sitting on all sorts of good stuff about Russia. Why does Assange not release that?

    The gangsters in charge of Russia really do have no scruples when it comes to eliminating inconvenient people...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  7. Re:Doesn't matter anymore by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In their defense, they have invested a LOT of money in buying off Congress. It's only fair they get a return on that investment. That's the free market at work.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Yes, there will be reporocussions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Members of the Senate Finance Committee will hem and haw and grandstand.

    BOA will make some lamo PR statements from the spawn of Satan that PR and Marketing people are.

    BOA will then make some "campaign" contributions to the Senators and after a few weeks, the public will have forgotten it all because the powers that be will come up with some distraction issue. A distraction issue is something that really isn't important to this country's well being: going after Muslims (Sen .King), security, non-existent terrorism threats ("possible threats as they call them"), and if everything else fails, bring up some sort of abortion issue or religion issue. Abortion is a great way to distract the hoi paloi.

    People are stupid.

  9. Sorry but that is not what he did by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Provided that he indeed was the source of the leaked material, and it seems likely he was, this is NOT whistle blowing. That would be releasing a specific set of documents relevant to what you are blowing the whistle on. He released everything he got his hands on. Please note some of it is shit like what US diplomats think of foreign leaders. That is nothing that is of any public interest, nor in the slightest illegal/immoral/etc.

    Now regardless, he broke the law. Please remember military law is a little different from civilian law. Regardless it is illegal to disseminate classified information you are given access to.

    In a case of legit whistle blowing, then perhaps that is a mitigating circumstance (though the UCMJ doesn't really seem to provide an exception, perhaps it should but it doesn't) but in this case no. It was a leak of whatever he could get, without regard for value or harm. That really removes any moral high ground argument.

  10. Re:Ummm... Sorry... by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I visited his site, and the first entry was on guns, comparing Obama to Hitler, while his site is titled, "Commentary on The Capital Markets". Very relevant and erudite, indeed. And of course, the content and quality of his site went downhill from there.

    Here is the problem, and the irony, of such sites (as I see it).

    Ever since the crash, you've all these "experts" who have a tenuous grasp at best of fundamental finance or economics, and yet who are perfectly comfortable spewing forth rubbish on the topic. It's no different from the dotcom boom -- everyone pretended to know a little something about technology, and was perfectly happy to spew forth rubbish, without really knowing anything substantial at all.

    Just read his junk on the state of the debt, and you realize that the man only talks about the market at a broad, superficial level, peppered with hackneyed hockey-mom aphorisms, without ever touching any of the fundamental drivers. Furthermore, I really wish somebody would give this guy a crash course in fundamental statistics on cross-correlation and causation.

    The problem is that armed with half-baked knowledge and strong opinions, these guys are perfectly happy telling the world what's wrong, but offering nothing more than platitudes in fixing the problems without collapsing the economic structure we've built thus far.

    Heck, what are the guy's qualifications? He has a Wikipedia entry that states that he is a "stock trader" and a CEO, but how much capital did he trade in? Unless it's hundreds of millions or more, he knows nothing about "capital markets" -- he is just a small fish in the pond. And what was he the "CEO" of? What are his educational qualifications?

    The irony of such guys pushing forth their opinions is pretty much the same as creationists pushing their "agenda" to stop teaching evolution.

    If you must, read someone like Nassim Nicholas Taleb -- his books The Black Swan or Fooled by Randomness offer a lot more on why we fucked up, than some crazy right wing rhetoric by a chipmunk with half-a-brain (no insults to any chipmunks, of course -- they are perfectly adorable creatures).