Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

100 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 afxgrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      And why they bought every single domain name using "Sucks" and "Blows" that involves Bank of America and all their executive management.

    2. Re:Well, now we know why by Grizzley9 · · Score: 3

      Bush, Obama & crew arrested a military private for the Diplomacy leaks. Wonder who they'll go after for the BofA leak?

      "Bush"? Really? It's only mid-morning on Monday. Also, it is against the law to divulge secret-rated info the private leaked. He should be arrested.

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

      They should have bought everything with "crooks" in it too.

    4. Re:Well, now we know why by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      A: "Anybody except the bank executives who were running the show..."

      --
      No sig today...
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Well, now we know why by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. 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).

    8. 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.

    9. Re:Well, now we know why by maxume · · Score: 2

      Sure, it is a pickle. But there is nothing strange about a soldier who leaked thousands of classified documents being arrested, if Manning didn't understand that...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Well, now we know why by ronocdh · · Score: 2

      An especially wise decision, considering the third-person plural conjugation is actually more acceptable to most speakers of American English. Think about it: you wouldn't say "it sucks" when referring to the fraud committed by Bank of America—you'd say they suck, because they are humans and they suck.

      www.bankofamericasuck.com!

    11. Re:Well, now we know why by mhelander · · Score: 2

      "You put your self at risk to uncover something so heinous as to be worth that risk"

      So if we lower the risk maybe we get to know about more than the absolutely most heinous corruption.

  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 heptapod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course nothing will happen. These leaked Bank of America emails were released during the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear crisis. GREAT FUCKING JOB THERE, CHIEF!!! It shows they're a bunch of amateurs who know nothing about timing so this reaches the broadest audience. Slashdot, reddit, and the rest will get up in arms but the people who need to know, i.e. mom & pop and that mythical linux using grandma, won't have it show up as a blip on their radar because of their reliance upon mainstream media to feed them.

    3. 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.

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

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

    5. 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.
    6. Re:And... by SirWhoopass · · Score: 2

      The two words that will characterise this period of history will be "corruption" and "unaccountability".

      As opposed to when? Industrial-era robber barons? Monarchies and imperial charters? The medieval Catholic Church?

      "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

    7. 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).

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:And... by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      Now, exactly what was so supposedly illegal in those leaks?

      From the summary:
      " 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."

      Now, if falsifying financial documents to get the bank to foreclose on a home isn't illegal, it certainly should be. And coercing, or conspiring to do the same would be in the same boat.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    11. 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.

    12. Re:And... by mhelander · · Score: 2

      Too big to file?

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. Re:And... by carpefishus · · Score: 2

      It doesn't work that way. While I was plant manager for a chemical plant I was known as the "Designated Felon."

      --
      Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
    16. 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.

    17. Re:And... by jimicus · · Score: 2

      Oh, the individual wrongdoers will be handed over to the authorities.

      But I guarantee you the people at the top who oversaw the lot won't be among those handed over. The people handed over will be the salesmen and their managers at the bottom end of the organisation. It's entirely possible that top executives communicated something along the lines of "We must do whatever is necessary to achieve our goals" but they won't have said "and if that means breaking the law, so be it". Or at least, not in writing.

      It's a somewhat curious quirk of society that it is possible to set up an organisation with little or no attempt to ensure that everything is done above board or to reign in dubious practices and while the organisation as a whole may catch some grief, those who set it up and ran it will - in most cases - come to little grief.

    18. Re:And... by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      As opposed to the victim is blameless bullshit from the Democrats? Really?

      "The banker didn't tell me that there would be a balloon payment at the end of my 5-year adjustable rate. I took out a loan that I didn't understand. I'm a VICTIM!!"

      "Real-estate ALWAYS goes up in value. Nobody told me this was a bubble, even though prices were doubling every few years. I'm a VICTIM!!"

      "I was just trying to cash in on the 30% returns of these financial products that I didn't understand AT ALL! I'm a VICTIM!!"

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    19. Re:And... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are accountable in China, just not to western rules. Every businessman is committing a capital offense in China today. If they aren't, then they aren't a good businessman. So why are only a few executed, and only in high-profile cases (like lead in toys and such)? Because the actual enforcement of the rules is "don't cause loss of face to Chinese business as a whole." But if you are the head of a company that is caught doing something as bad as this (fraud to capitalize on a recession you actually helped cause), in China, even if the CEO had nothing to do with this actual fraud, he'd be executed.

    20. Re:And... by DavidTC · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you should learn how tax brackets work. Someone making $80,000 is not paying any more taxes.

      A hypothetical person making $100,000 would be paying a slightly higher tax percent on $20,000 dollars.

      I have no idea what state you're talking about, but let's assume that the top bracket pays 15%, instead of 10% lower brackets pay. That would mean, under the law you are speaking of, someone who made $100,000 would pay an extra 5% on the $20,000, which is $1000.

      Yeah, how dare we add $0 to the tax burden of someone making $80,000, and $1000 to the tax burden of someone making $100,000? How dare we take another 1% of their money in taxes to try to keep everything functioning in a recession! That's crazy!

      People like you, who can't understand basic math, and the media that refuses to explain tax differences using examples, and instead yammers about 'higher taxes on people making $80,000', are the reason this country and 49 states are out of money.

      Also, your example is retarded in an completely different way. I'm sure your 'hardware store owner' was part of the false claim that 'small business owners have a lot of money go through their hands but don't keep much of it, but have to pay income tax on it'.

      That claim is idiotic, no small business owner who had that much money going through their hands would have a business structured that was in the first place. That is an exceedingly stupid way to operate a business that is larger than 'selling knickknacks on the side of the road'.

      Anyone who has a business structured that way who makes enough money to live off of is already paying an astonishing amount of unneeded taxes, up to three times as much taxes as they would pay if they'd put their business under the correct part of the tax code! If they did that, if they actually filed some simple paperwork and made their business an actual separate entity from themselves, 'income tax' would have no bearing on anything except money they take home, instead of it being all money their business takes in.

      And I'm astonished that somehow small business owners, who at least have the assets of their business to sell off when it collapses, somehow need the money more than, I dunno, laid off workers. I guess in your universe people can't get laid off 'next year'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:And... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2
      Feel better having called me an idiot? Good, glad to hear it. I know I always have better luck in getting my point across when I call people names.

      Now that this is out of the way, let's review my post.

      What I said was that if someone can validate that those emails are legitimate, then YES, investigate. But don't put someone (whether it's a billion dollar company or a single-owner corner store) to the expense of having to defend themselves without more evidence than a single chain of unauthenticated emails.

      Note that nowhere in my post did I claim them to be invalid as evidence.

    22. Re:And... by number11 · · Score: 2

      The corporate liability shield does not (in theory) protect you if you knowingly perform illegal actions.

      In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.

      Suppose you were a hacker who rootkitted a million computers. We all know that would fall under computer crime statutes.

      Now suppose your name is Sony.

      Rule of law. All equal before the law. Feh. If you're employed by the government, it doesn't apply to you. If you're a large corporation, it rarely applies to you. At least, in the USA (doesn't seem like it's much different anywhere else). It's a nice concept, would be great to see some country try it.

    23. 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

    24. Re:And... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      So those thinks support wealth creation, but they do not represent wealth creation. When the highway is complete, the money taken from citizens has not provided additional wealth, it has simply turned into a highway

      What do you think wealth creation is, other than turning some amount of resources into goods worth more than that. Yes, the Internet and GPS increased the wealth of the world. So did building a highway, assuming it was worth more than what was paid for it.

      None of those things will fill a silo with grain, allow a family to buy a bigger house, or allow a manufacturer to expand his production facility.

      And that's actually retarded. For instance, a highway system allows someone to live further from a city and keep the commute at max_time_for_commute. That means that the amount of land people can live on increases. Which directly translates to bigger parcels of land for the same cost, which again directly into bigger houses for the same cost.

      Similar land costs apply to increasing production capacity.

      But you're right. Technological innovation and infrastructure don't directly lead to increased agricultural yields. That's at least one level of indirection away.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Switch to a local credit union. That is, by far, your best alternative.

    2. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Funny

      I deposit my money into Sealy Posturepedic...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have actually looked into doing that, well I looked into setting up a Building Society here in the UK (Our equivalent of a Credit Union) but according to the Building Society Association, it needs a minimum of £1M backing with 10 members agreeing on a business plan which can take 2 years to get approval from the FSA. The last Building Society to be setup was in the 1980s.

      In some ways I think it's good that it takes a lot of effort and regulation to setup a Building Society but in a post Bankers are scum world, it does kind of feel like it's just there to stop new players entering a market which competes against banks and their huge profit margins.

      I wonder if there will be some new Building Societies started up in the future given the hatred of bankers or whether the market has now been so well sewed up and no small BS's could ever be started again.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    4. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by xMrFishx · · Score: 2

      It would be interesting to run a money instutition based on loaning money you actually Have, and publically displaying loan transactions, in and out on a minute by minute basis. Is there such thing as a LawfulGood bank, and could one be made?

    5. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Predius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unless you get a non-transferable mortgage. You often have to opt for a slightly higher rate if you go that route, but the option is there.

    6. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Foofoobar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yep have to admit when all the mortgage things happened, the credit unions remained unscathed. My wife and I asked our credit union about that and they said they don't report to a board but only report to their members so they are not under alot of pressure to make giant risky investments; they are only their for their members. And while other banks were being taken over left and right, you didn't see hardly any credit unions being taken over.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    7. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, if credit unions aren't an option for you (which depending on your laws they may not be), at least look for a locally owned bank. They have in general been behaving much better towards their customers and depositors than the big guys.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by WillAdams · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I tried to go that route, but the nice locally-owned bank couldn't resist being bought out --- two name changes later and I now own a couple of dozen shares of a Spanish bank --- curious how honest / decent they are? Check the news:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110310-709686.html

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    9. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by s4m7 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the lesson here is it's better to keep your money in the bank rather than toss it at the open market.

      Except of course when the banks turn around and toss that same money at the same open market, which is what they all do.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    10. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by enjerth · · Score: 2

      Silly. People don't buy houses with money any more. They buy houses with debt.

    11. 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
    12. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Khyber · · Score: 2

      My credit union refunds all ATM transaction fees, and I get a dividend payout at the end of the year.

      Being in a credit union is like being a bank stockholder to a degree. It is much preferable to being part of a bank.

      Find a good one and you will have very little to worry about financially if you're responsible.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always liked the idea of cooperatively owned businesses, I would like to see it applied to more types of businesses. In Sweden, one of the largest supermarket chains is a consumer coop, they have better quality overall than the privately owned chains in my experience, perhaps because of the lack of pressure to cut costs from investors who only care about the profits. Members pay a one-time member fee and then get refunds on what they buy, between 1 and 5%.

    14. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At business school I learned something within the first 20 minutes of finance 101. The most important lesson in the class which was repeated on the final was what is a company's goal?

      If you said to make money you are wrong. The goal of a corporation is to raise its stock price, not make money. A third of the course dealt with how to trick investors by creating magical ratios of liquidity (assets that can turn to cash very fast) to make wall street happy and raise the share price. To top it off we studied how going into debt was a great thing as it gave you profit leverage. Holding off paying your suppliers was good too as you can invest the money while you drag your feet.

      The rest of the course dealt with a privately held and small companies. Now their goals was to make money as well as have an excellent credit rating and low debt to make sure adequate lines of credit were available in case of an emergency and to plan ahead conservatively without going bankrupt. 2 different worlds.

      Private companies are the way to go. They simply make rational decisions and play by the rules. The big boys don't and love risk. If the average CEO job is short you can guarantee yourself you wont be held accountable either for short term gains that cost the company later. WOW

    15. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      yep have to admit when all the mortgage things happened, the credit unions remained unscathed. My wife and I asked our credit union about that and they said they don't report to a board but only report to their members so they are not under alot of pressure to make giant risky investments; they are only their for their members.

      If your local credit union is anything like mine - they were unscathed during the mortgage crisis because they didn't actually hold any mortgages in the first place. They'd either sold them to one of the big companies as soon as the ink was dry, or they'd never held the paper in the first place, acting merely as an affiliate/franchisee for one of the big companies. My local credit union even takes this 'arms length' approach a step further - their 'mortgage arm' is actually a quasi-independent (but wholly owned by the credit union) organization to whom the credit union has licensed their name.
       
      Thus while hundreds (thousands? we're a small place) of mortgages theoretically issued by the credit union have gone under - none of them appear on the credit union's books. They've already taken their profit and run.

    16. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Foofoobar · · Score: 2

      Actually that's incorrect on a technicality. That's the goal of a CORPORATION... not a COMPANY. A corporation's goal is to raise it's stock price. A company's goal is to make money.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    17. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      Inflation is based on the price increase of a basket of goods and services used by typical families. Gold is not part of that basket. Gold's value was falling steadily for a long time. A fixed amount of gold could buy smaller and smaller part of the basket all through 1980 till 2007, despite the spikes at y2k, 9/11 etc. Finally a bar of gold buried in the backyard back in the 1980s has the same purchasing power, almost but not quite. It has not beaten bond returns nor stock returns over that long a period.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    18. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by DavidTC · · Score: 2

      Indeed, and the stockholders they do care about are in it for one thing: To watch their stock price rise, so they can dump it and make a profit.

      So CEO, brought in by the board (who are large stockholders) do crazy manipulations, like laying off half the workforce, that bring the stock price up. So board members can sell. Then these idiot manipulations catch up as the company loses value, and the stock price drops, and they let the CEO out the door with a million dollar parachute for doing the job he was hired. New stock holders come in, and old board members buy more stock, and they hire a new CEO to do the same fucking thing.

      And the thing is, it's not even a 'conspiracy'. It doesn't require any conscious action at all, all it requires is a board that cares more about short-term stock price movement than the company.

      In an actual functioning business universe, stockholders would be in it for the dividends, and stock prices would literally be rock solid-stable, at least between quarterly projections and barring disasters. They would simply be a reflection of value of company/amount of stock issued, and would only change if those things changed. There is no reason at all for stock prices to change on a hourly or even weekly basis. How would a multimillion dollar corporation change 30% in value over a week and then back?!?!

      Instead, we've turned the stock market into a lottery. Now, I don't mind a fucking lottery, I have no problem with horse racing, if people want to do that I have no objection. What I don't like is the fact we've apparently connected this lottery straight to our economy to the extent that we're operating out economy for the lottery.

      I say you get to buy stock once a quarter. That's it. Each new quarter, a company issue dividends for the last quarter, and projections for the next quarter, and whether it will issue more stock or not, and a week later on a certain day you put in buy or sell orders for the stock, which are all resolved at the same time, at the end of the day, and you own the stock all quarter.

      Period. You want to buy a fucking company, you have to, you know, actually commit to owning it longer than a damn can of frozen orange juice.

      This is such a blatantly obvious and sane way to treat stock ownership, and yet it never gets considered. Instead, the markets work more and more to make it faster to sell and buy stock, which is not the slightest bit useful for actual company ownership (Which is what stocks are supposed to be.), but is very useful for the lottery they're operating. Which uses corporations, which employ almost everyone and produce almost everything, as fucking toys.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:I will be closing my BOA account.... by Palshife · · Score: 2

      I suggest you look further out than one year and stop worrying about how much money you lost by not buying gold. You could just as easily have lost it buying gold (as many have done throughout history). Invest in stable, predictable products that provide a reasonable rate of return over a lifetime. One year is get-rich-quick talk.

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
  4. leaked? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Is this saying that Wikileaks' information was leaked by a third party?

    As for bank foreclosure fraud, we've known for a year or more that banks have been doing that. A common case is that all the shady asset-juggling left things in a state that no one knows who actually has the rights to it, so the evictions are rushed through without proper legal scrutiny, or even on the basis of forged documents.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:leaked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If Wikileaks has something, this isn't it. These docs were directly leaked to ANON.

      BTW, I'm a total luddite but occasionally hang out in Anon's IRC channel, you should too, its not like its hard to sign on.

      And now I'm on the terrorist watchlist and a botnet.

    2. Re:leaked? by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      BTW, I'm a total luddite but occasionally hang out in Anon's IRC channel

      Citizen, please place your hands in the yellow circles and await a law enforcement action. Thank you.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. 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

  6. If you want to learn more by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read the Market Ticker. Seriously. It is probably the most insightful site I've seen on the scope of the fraud being waged against the American public. In particular, note the number of times Bank of America or "Bank of America employees" get referenced in behavior that sounds more like it should be happening in Zimbabwe than the US.

  7. Russia? by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Russia? by Duradin · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would guess Russia has many ways of making it worthwhile to not release it. Probably very elemental ways, Au or Po.

    3. Re:Russia? by Duradin · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the beauty of Russia's style: take their gold, hire all the security you want, but one morning you'll find they Po'd in your cornflakes.

    4. Re:Russia? by richlv · · Score: 2

      any sources for "Wikileaks is sitting on all sorts of good stuff about Russia." ?

      --
      Rich
    5. Re:Russia? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      How would they poison someone with gold?

      That's easy - you melt it down and pour into them.

      (s/gold/copper/, it was a standard punishment for forgery in Russia up until late 17th century)

  8. 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))).

    1. Re:No one investigating, no one going to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      " ((( some smart saying I can't think of that means investment people who steal money)))."

      Fraud?

    2. Re:No one investigating, no one going to jail by benjfowler · · Score: 2

      The police only really exists to enforce economic rights. Generally only the economic rights of the rich and powerful.

      Seen in this light, law enforcement priorities make perfect sense.

    3. Re:No one investigating, no one going to jail by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      (((Institutionalized embezzlement)))

      It has gone far beyond institutionalized embezzlement. It is lapping up the shores of Cleptocracy.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:No one investigating, no one going to jail by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Thousands of those people put themselves into bankruptcy by purchasing homes that they couldn't even make the payments on, let alone afford.

      That happens every year. There wasn't anything caused by the foreclosure rate. In fact, when the shit hit the fan, the foreclosure rate was on the rise, but still below historic norms. Blaming it on expected and predicted foreclosures was a lie invented by the people that committed fraud to cause the crisis. When you blame black people in the US, the tag sticks, even though it's a lie. White people in the US love to blame the minorities for everything that happens, especially when the problems were actually caused by rich old white men committing fraud.

      The banks were certainly complicit, along with ratings agencies and lots of other people, but a big chunk of the people that went into bankruptcy chose to take on loans that they could not afford in an attempt to make easy money, no one forced them to do anything.

      Yeah, but no more than usual, despite the lies to the contrary (at least at the point where the "crisis" began). The problem was the loan brokers loaning money to people they knew could never pay it back, lying to the people taking the loan about it, then lying to the other financial institutions when selling the loans to them. Then, the banks buying the loans, lied again when bundling the loans. Then these loans which required multiple old rich white people lying on multiple levels to form the fraudulent securities had their normal risk fraudulently concealed. Why was it called subprime? Because the subprime loans defaulted at expected subprime rates, which is higher than other loans. But when you lied multiple times to bundle "subprime" loans into A-level securities when they are really C or maybe B at best when properly hedged (and they weren't, not even close) and then borrow against the value of the A security when it's really a C security, when the default rates are finally noticed, everyone resets the value to a C security they really are and trillions of dollars disappear.

      The only reason they lasted that long is that the housing bubble depressed the normal subprime default rate (no reason to default when you could sell it for a gain, and even if you did, the bank would still get 100% money out, so it wasn't a negative default). It wasn't "high" default rates that triggered it. It was rates well within the normal and expected levels that revealed that high-risk loans were fraudulently bundled into "premium" securities. It was 100% caused by rich old white male bankers (well, not all are old white males, but the vast majority are). And, since the rich old white men run the country and get to name things, they named it so they could blame it on poor blacks.

  9. 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.
  10. As a BoA customer... by FlapHappy · · Score: 2

    I'm just waiting for the "Damage Control Fee" to show up on my next month's statement. Then I'll have to pay an "Account Closure Fee" as well as a "Don't Let Your Ass Hit The Door On The Way Out Fee".

    1. Re:As a BoA customer... by LostOne · · Score: 2

      You forgot the "Fee Fee", unless they're already charging you that one?

      --

      If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
  11. 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.

    1. Re:Yes, there will be reporocussions. by ALeavitt · · Score: 4, Funny

      hoi paloi

      People are stupid.

      This is the most delicious kind of irony.

      --
      This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
  12. Grey market economy by plopez · · Score: 2

    The corruption in the "market" economy (which it isn't) is making me turn more and more to the grey market economy. Bartering and selling goods and services for other needed goods and services with out using conventional financial channels, e.g. bank accounts and credit cards. Cut out the middle man and get off of the grid.Kkeep your "seed money" under the mattress. The mattress is a much safer place than putting into the hands of those thieves.

    I also have run into some small businesses which are refusing to accept credit cards now. The theives at the CC companies not only charge obscene amounts of interest but also charge obscene fees to the merchants for each sale. By cutting out the banks the small businesses actually gain an edge over larger businesses by keeping costs low.

    For the Revolution!

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  13. Incompetence Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who has worked for a big bank, I can assure you that while there are pockets of AMAZINGLY retarded people that commit blatant fraud, it is mostly just a large group of MOSTLY retarded people committing fraud and not really recognizing that's what they're doing.

    I worked hand in hand with the foreclosure group and I think I can summarize what's really been happening:

    1) Overwhelming Workload + Incompetent Staff = Mistakes
    a) Leads to massive spike in hiring through temporary agencies and the introduction of a much larger group of incompetent people into the process.
    2) Convoluted, counterproductive processes + people who can't use excel spreadsheets = Mistakes
    a) See 1a
    3) Incentive Structure - This one's a bit harder but most banks use production based incentive structures to pay employees beyond their base pay. The more work you do, the more money you make. If it's easier to get rid of a "file" (troubled loan) by tossing it to the foreclosure group and having it roll through that process than it is to help someone save their house, guess what happens. If it takes you an hour to successfully help someone (which it doesn't, it takes days or weeks) or 10 minutes to move their file to foreclosure and therefore out of your stack, and you get paid based on how many files you move out of your stack, guess where all your files go.
    4) Banks DONT LIKE TO RESCIND SALES. It costs them money.

    To me, this is all SUPER old news. I watched this happen in real time for years and the news was always WAY behind on what was happening and WHY. It's not as simple as "banks are greedy and committing fraud/crime." That's certainly a part of it, but not nearly half of it. Realistically it's "There's too much work to do and the people doing it truly don't understand what they're doing"

    It's way easier to recognize what's really happening when you look at how things are done at the bottom. Listening to CEOs and PR reps is a waste of time, they have no idea what's really going on underneath them.

    The problems we have always faced are the result of incompetence, period. More to the point the problem is people.

  14. Tinfoil hat time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't help but wonder who's really behind this leak. It smells a LOT like a false flag operation.

    Bank of America has known for months that they're the next major Wikileaks target. Now all of a sudden the material pops up "from Anonymous", in the middle of the Japan earthquake, a HUGE news story - and over the weekend. I tried viewing the site all morning and have been getting 503 errors. If you wanted to bury an inevitable major embarrassment to your company, I think this is how you do it. Wikileaks, for all their faults, would never release this while there were so many other major developing stories.

  15. The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your comment about "this period of history" draws attention away from the fact that the U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt. Few in government are on the side of the people. Most of the really powerful in the U.S. government are helping the corrupters.

    For example, see the Rolling Stone article about Goldman Sachs, The Great American Bubble Machine

    The documentary movie Inside Job was nominated for an Oscar. It's an excellent movie about the extreme corruption. NOTHING has been done.

  16. Re:Incompetence Conspiracy by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

    Listening to CEOs and PR reps is a waste of time, they have no idea what's really going on underneath them.

    The top men know exactly what's going on. They have set up the system to be filled with incompetence and overwork because that enables them to get away with defrauding billions from millions.

    The system is broken by design.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  17. TORRENT LINK, COME ONE, COME ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  18. Who wants torrents? Come and get 'em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry to reply off-topic, but I want to post this as high up as possible:

    http://www.mediafire.com/?9gig97gio0g3b7b

    Here is the torrent file. BoA seems to be sockpuppet-rushing TPB to mark the torrents as fake.

  19. 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.

  20. So protest at the front gate to the CEO's house by Rasperin · · Score: 2

    Stop this protesting wherever you stand and start protesting in front of the houses of senators and CEO's. You want to put the fear of God into someone, protest right at there gate. Maybe even stir up a little violence. Honestly, if you aren't willing to go to jail for your believes, your words will never go anywhere...

    --
    WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
  21. Re:So how do shorts work? by jfengel · · Score: 2

    BoA is down today, but not substantially more than the market as a whole.

    If you have an account with a major broker, shorting is trivial: you just sell the stock. It doesn't matter that you don't own it; you just click the box labeled "short sale". You'll need some money in the account to start with, but you actually get to sell it today and enjoy the cash you get from it.

    Note that if the price goes back up, though, your liability is unlimited. Today it's at $14. If it hits $20, your broker is going to be making a polite but very firm phone call that you need to pony up. If it hits $200, you get deeply screwed. I advise against playing this game until you're very aware of how it's played, and are well insulated against the risks.

  22. Ummm... Sorry... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    But I find him no more, and perhaps less, a credible source than the banks. That site is written by Karl Denninger, who is a Tea Partier and Glenn Beck fan. Ok fine, but that does not speak to someone who is very balanced on the issues. That is a hardcore "Gold standard is the ONLY standard," kind of individual and not someone who has a good understanding of the complexities of finance and a balanced view (the phrase "bleeding heart liberals" is a favourite).

    1. 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).

    2. Re:Ummm... Sorry... by metlin · · Score: 2

      This guy knows more about the markets and the economy than you or the vast majority of respected "economists" ever will.

      For one, I am not an economist, and I never claimed to be one. For another, if you are making sweeping statements like that, you'd better back them up. The man does not even have a single publication, peer reviewed or otherwise, on either RepEc or SSRN.

      I'm sorry, but it would be akin to a random blogger on physics claiming to know more about "physics" without having a single peer reviewed or refereed publication on the topic.

      And the big difference is that he's willing to tell the truth.

      ...and what truth would that be? We all know what some of the symptoms are, and we all know directionally what the solutions at addressing those symptoms might be. But that in no way makes us capable or knowledgeable in understanding -- much less fixing -- the root cause of the problem. My wife's grandmother watches House and thinks she can be a doctor, and random guys read yet another "expert" and think they know everything there is to on fixing the economy. Oh the irony.

      The garbage you spew forth is typical of what the main stream media feeds the populace and you do a disservice to people as a whole by repeating it. Let me guess, you finished a couple of university courses on Keynesian economics and now you're the expert who parrots "supply & demand!" in any thread economical...

      What garbage have I spewed forth? Calling forth some skepticism? But I suppose if you cannot refute the argument, why not resort to unintelligent, ad hominem attacks, right?

      Denninger was a Tea Party'er before they got high-jacked by the fools that now run it in a completely different direction. He no longer has anything to do with them and frequently rails on their antics. Denninger is also NOT a "hardcore gold standard" guy, so that shows how misinformed the slurs against him are.

      I could care less for his party affiliations -- I am more interested in his content and qualifications, both of which are suspect at best.

      Seriously, he's one of the few beacons of light in the sea of misinformation and outright bullshit coming from the usual suspects.

      How so? Please explain.

      Let's face it. Markets are complex systems, not unlike the ecology of our planet. Even after lifetimes of study, we've barely grazed our understanding of the subject. Modern markets as we know are really, really young, and incredibly complex. What more, unlike nature's ecology, market dynamics include a feedback and randomness introduced by the human element.

      Anyone who has the gall to say that they've "understood" such a system, or worse yet, offer solutions in fixing the problems thereof, better have some pretty mighty empirical data to back them up. The people who caused this problem were two-penny "economists" who did not understand such systems, and Karl Denninger is no less a charlatan than any of them.

  23. Re:So how do shorts work? by KermodeBear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You want to sell short. It works like this:

    A) Borrow assets (stock in a company) at the current price.
    B) Wait a period of time.
    C) Return those assets to the original owner at the new current price.
    D) Keep the difference (or lose money).

    Now, if you are shady, you can do what is called "Naked Short Selling", in which you perform this trick with assets that don't actually exist. This American Life did a great episode called Enforcers - the second half deals with Naked Short Selling and describes the process in detail. TAL has done several fantastic episodes on the financial crisis, well worth the time to give them a listen.

    --
    Love sees no species.
  24. Thanks for nothing, Anonymous by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 2

    We knew all about this last year. It was on the front page of every paper and the lead story on the TV news. Unless the emails in question were written after October 2010, is there anything new?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39575033/ns/business-real_estate/

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  25. Re:Where's the evidence of corruption? by zill · · Score: 2
    From the last email:

    Hi Peggy,
    I'm just a little concerned about the impact this has on the department and company. Why are we removing all record of this error? We have told Denise Cahen, and there is always going to be the paper trail when one of these sent documents come back, this to me, seems to be a huge red flag for the auditors: example: a scanned document that was mailed to us asking why the letter was received when the letter, albeit erroneous ( this being the letters that went out in error ) the auditor sees the erroneous letter but no SOR trail or scanned doc on the corrected letter is in the SOR and scanned in). What am I missing? This just doesn't seem right to me.

    I don't understand the lingo so much of it is lost to me. However it does seem that at least one person was aware that illegal acts are being committed. Can someone who work in the industry explain some of the the terminology (DTN, Tracksource/Rembrandt,SOR)?

  26. Billionairs by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought it sort of interesting that if you look at the list of Billionaires:

    http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires#p_1_s_arank_-1__-1

    and look at where they got their money from.

    If you look at the USA, and ignore all the Walmart jerks, and software bubbles, a disproportionate amount got their money from "Hedge Funds". Now look around the world, how many others can you find? I think I found one.

    These are the same Hedge Funds that bought up (and demanded, and got) all the US real estate debt, causing the whole economic problem. I wonder how many of those guys are hurting? Oh wait, none because they are all billionaires. Also if you look at the names... its the exact same people that came up with the bail out plan etc... talk about conflict of interest and self serving SOB's.

  27. BoA and Taxes by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 3, Informative
    Bank of America...? Where have I heard that before...? Oh, yeah! They're the one that paid ZERO taxes last year!

    I don't know what's in those leaked e-mails, but this item is just as big - and scandalous,

    "GE isn't the only "Top 5" company on this year's Fortune 500 list that owed no income taxes. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), which suffered major losses in 2009, included a tax benefit of $1.9 billion in its annual profit."

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

  28. I did by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    I went and read his first semi-incoherent rant about gun control and Obama. That was enough for me.

    Also anyone who thinks you can hold the currency perfectly level doesn't understand how it works, or know history. Currency has never been perfectly stable and never will be. You can have it somewhat stable over the long term, at the expense of a lot more short term swings (that was how it used to be), but you can't have it dead level all the time.

  29. Re:Where's the evidence of corruption? by s0litaire · · Score: 2

    Basically "Tracksource/Rembrandt" is the system they use to record mortgage / loan info (i think)

    There was an email before that one you posted saying something to the effect:
    We can't completely remove Mortgage/Load records from the database but we can remove the associated Loan Reference ID, That way any mortgages with no loan associated with it won't show up on an audit.

    There was also a long list of Load ID's to remove from the system...

    --
    Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
  30. email encryption would easily prevent it by henryj · · Score: 2

    In light of email leaks and similar stories in the media, I wish there was more coverage how to prevent such leaks in the first place. I recommend services that offer encrypted email services like Hushmail and CryptoHeaven. Hushmail http://www.hushmail.com/ for its browser accessible web interface and CryptoHeaven http://www.cryptoheaven.com/secure-email-hosting.htm because of the transparent encryption for email and files which anyone can use with ease.

  31. My comment was FLAME BAITED?! by tkprit · · Score: 2

    Hello! What is this?! I responded to "whistleblower defense isn't going to fly [in court]" with something OBAMA'S OWN ADMINISTRATION speaker had concerns with: Bradley Manning's treatment now would affect the court case later [if he's ever able to stand trial].

    I called it torture, and I'm not alone. Even the UN is investigating the government's treatment of Bradley Manning. Likewise, several journalists have taken Manning's treatment to task and called it 'torture' (Will Bunch, Daniel Ellsberg... the numbers are building). And [finally!] a congressman likened Manning's treatment to Abu Ghraib.

    As for Manning's ability to stand trial, after being in solitary confinement for 8 mos+, and stripped naked at night most recently (ostensibly because he's a 'suicide threat' but doesn't qualify for a mental evaluation), Manning's reportedly catatonic — not fit for trial. That's FLAMEBAIT?! Hell no — at worst, it's "Off topic", but then again, so is this whole part of the thread.