Anonymous Leaks Internal Bank of America Emails

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.'"

Comments

Well, now we know why

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Well, now we know why

[emagery]

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.

Re:Well, now we know why

[zill]

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.

And...

[MikeDirnt69]

.. nothing will happen.

Re:And...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

Re:And...

[Joreallean]

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.

Re:And...

[DrStrange66]

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

Re:And...

[s4m7]

"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

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And...

[moj0joj0]

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.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And...

[mhelander]

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.

I will be closing my BOA account....

[Mazzie]

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

Re:I will be closing my BOA account....

[trollertron3000]

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.

No one investigating, no one going to jail

[RichMan]

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))).

Re:Doesn't matter anymore

[elrous0]

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.

Sorry but that is not what he did

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Ummm... Sorry...

[metlin]

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).