Bank of America Cuts Off Wikileaks Transactions 467
Chaonici writes "The first actual bank to do so, Bank of America has decided that it will follow in the footsteps of PayPal, MasterCard, and Visa, and halt all its transactions that it believes are intended for WikiLeaks, including donations in support of the organization. 'This decision,' says the bank, 'is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.' Coincidentally, in a 2009 interview with Forbes magazine, Julian Assange stated that he was in possession of the hard drive of a Bank of America executive, and that he planned to release information about a major bank early next year."
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
the war has begun (?)
Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government can declare something "illegal" and pressure private companies to not do business with a particular entity... does it really matter if they can "make no law" abridging freedom of speech? Isn't the first amendment completely worthless?
Of course, they never (Score:5, Insightful)
accepted any manner of shady transactions regarding
-Bernie Madoff
-mortgage derivatives
-selling mortgage securities without proper paperwork
The problem, anymore, is that banks and ISPs aren't content to just be carriers. They have to judge the content of your transactions, too.
To paraphrase *our* douche (Score:5, Insightful)
Policies (Score:5, Insightful)
"our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities ... inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments"
Shut up. You're a bank. Just move people's money around for them and don't try to have an opinion.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a hard drive of a B of A executive is hardly conclusive as to the banks safety. As far as we know, the contents might have been removed, etc - and it was sent in for repair.
Safety? Wikileaks isn't going to be releasing Bank of America's passwords or security information. If they release anything it's going to be about corruption, insider dealing, complicity in illegal activities etc. The concern isn't the bank's "safety" per se. It's that if shit falls on Bank of America, their share price will get hit, there might be legal investigations into wrong-doing... That sort of thing. And I don't know what sort of shape Bank of America is in - are they part of the general morass that US banking has sunk into over the last couple of years? If so, probably the last thing they need right now is investors getting out. A run on the bank by the public? That's not a first response to this. It's this hit on share price and investors that would be the immediate effect. Expect some emergency buying by non-neutral parties to keep share price up if Wikileaks comes out with anything juicy.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
Bank of America did not close a bank account (like the swiss postbank) or terminated a payment processing contract (like Paypal, Visa and Mastercard), it stops transferring money to other banks. So anybody with a Bank of America account is no longer allowed to transfer his money to another bank account without "moral approval" of the BoA.
I am surprised that this hasn't led to more media coverage jet.
Pyramid and ponzi schemes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
When you close your account, be sure to note that it is because you have reasonable belief that Bank of America may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with your internal policies for a bank-customer relationship.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
It does need to be a lesson to every organization though. Wikileaks / Assange will turn on you any second that they think they have something that they can use to feed their ego. You're not safe doing business with this guy
In order: 1. It's not a lesson to every organization. It's only a warning to ones that have been engaged in wrong-doing. 2. "Wikileaks / Assange" is not good terminology: Wikileaks is not synonymous with Julian Assange and the constant identification of the two with each other is a symptom of our media which simplifies everything to Hollywood plot-lines. We shouldn't perpetuate this. 3. Wikileaks has not "turned on" anyone because this has strong connotations of betrayal. When were Wikileaks and Bank of America ever partners in anything? 4. Why this business of "feeding the ego"? It seems a cheap way to try and invalidate an action by alleging a base motive to the person doing the action. If someone wants to "feed their ego", they're better off trolling innocents on Slashdot or getting a job in Airport security where they can boss people around, than taking on the US government. As a member of the public, I have an interest in knowing about wrong-doings committed by world governments or large corporations.
On a side note, I'm going to go hide that childhood picture of me dressed as a girl for halloween... I'd hate to see it end up on Wikileaks after the cleaning lady steals it.
Wikileaks isn't for people's personal foibles - it's about malfeasance by those in power.
Re:Scheming American bastards (Score:2, Insightful)
The actions of Americans to hide what they have truthfully and secretly said to their kin disgusts me.
The whole insular and antagonistic country needs to go and d.i.a.f. and leave the rest of the world to live their lives in peace.
Americans espouse freedom of speech... until it gives them a red face, then they show their true colours. A country of warmongers.
Have you ever been to America? They're some of the politest and most welcoming people you'll ever meet. The dichotomy between the decency of the people there, and the corruption of the government is inexplicable. Until you turn on a TV in the USA and see what passes for news in that country. You want someone to blame? Blame the oligarchy that owns America's media.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
This is crap, the banking world should have precisely 2 options:
1. they receive some kind of common carrier status, which means they will have to accept everyone as a customer and have to process everyone's transactions.
2. they can have the freedom to do business with whomever they like and maintain blacklists of payments they will not process, but that means they will become accomplishes if the transfer is part of some crime.
The only possible exception would be specific government regulation.
(assuming an uncorrupted government off course, in that case all bets are of)
Re:Here is the thing about banking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well in that case the term 'terrorist' really gets fuzzy doesn't it?
A terrorist uses VIOLENCE to further a political agenda.
I'm sure you'd be more than happy to argue that wikileaks has a political agenda but where, pray tell, is the violence?
Because if this were to happen it would set precedence for pretty much any journalistic entity that doesn't tow the party line as 'terrorist'.
I'd be very careful about that one.
I've been loving these articles (Score:5, Insightful)
I smell duplicity.
I have been loving these articles, as it routes out the companies that obviously aren't aligned with supporting liberty, and I hate to use companies which don't espouse, or support in some way, the values I believe in. So all of these articles, and businesses, have saved me a lot of time. More so, I love the ones where some companies steps up to fill the void. Those are the companies I'll migrate my business, and my businesses business to.
Nothing like a little private and public sector cleansing!
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd make a joke about corporate overlords (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's really not funny that there doesn't seem to be an inch of daylight between government and big business.
And, no, it hasn't always been that way. There have been times historically the situation was similar, but it hasn't always been that way.
Re:Free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
All bad laws do is lower respect for all laws. Here's the solution:
It would cut down on excess verbiage, legalese, and get some outdated laws off the books.
Re:Here is the thing about banking... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Federal regulators even SUSPECT you have been allowing terrorists to receive payment
Sorry to spoil it for you but that would include every single American tax payer.
I know I will eventually get moderated down to the middle of the world for saying so. But I put no label on the tax payers as such or claim that the American government would be anything special in this regard. Just stating the facts. Or isn't it terrorism just because the government are in charge?
What else than terrorism can you call the first helicopter attack video Wikileaks leaked?
Though I have no idea who the photographers where, or if the people in the helicopter know them, or why they shoot in the first place.
Oxford American dictionaries:
"terrorism |?ter??riz?m| noun the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice circular justification (Score:5, Insightful)
BoA is not a public utility. When I ran a business I declined to deal with certain people because they were a huge pain in the ass. Can't BoA do the same????
WikiLeaks is not a problem client for BoA, because BoA does not and likely has not ever dealt with WikiLeaks directly. They're denying transactions to third-party organizations that deal with WikiLeaks directly.
Just about the only way this could be a reasonable decision is if WikiLeaks were officially declared a terrorist organization. As it stands now, with Assange claiming that WikiLeaks has a BoA hard drive and has dirt on an major U.S. bank, this seems to be "personal".
Re:Scheming American bastards (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever been to America? They're some of the politest and most welcoming people you'll ever meet. The dichotomy between the decency of the people there, and the corruption of the government is inexplicable.
It's not just us. Visit Italy or Kampuchea or Nigeria, among others. The average guy practically anywhere is usually pretty decent, even if his government is unbelievably corrupt. Democracy can reduce the level of official corruption, but it's not a silver bullet, e.g., Italy or Louisiana.
FWIW, America's problem is its hypertrophied nationalism. People here identify so strongly with their idealized image of their country that when someone points out flaws or misdeeds by the government, they interpret it as a personal attack.
A very dangerous precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Between the Government stampede to eliminate the 1st amendment, and the use of corporations to act where the rule-of-law isn't convenient, the US Government and Corporate overlords are playing with fire.
All democracy-loving non-US entities should be watching carefully as this plays out.
Re:I'd make a joke about corporate overlords (Score:4, Insightful)
This was considered such a good thing, that the zeitgeist held that the best products were inspected by experts and held up to official standards. Businessmen were, by their nature, crooks, and would try to pull the wool over the eyes of their consumers. So regulations were like Hobbs Leviathan for business, just as the police are the Leviathan for citizens.
Switch to the modern world, and business interests are heavily invested in sophisticated spin campaigns, to ensure an endless party -- sometimes at our expense. Thanks to neo-liberalism and the Fox effect, anything remotely centrist is painted as some type of extremism. The AGW denial campaign uses exactly the same tactic: take an extreme position, and then non-experts will think that the truth lies in-between. The result is a shift in the zeitgeist, as the door starts to swing more and more in your direction.
Some might think that this type of extremism will be seen through. Think again. Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea, Post-revolutionary France, they all show just how dark society can become under the grip of extremism. Germany is and was a fine country, and sunk very quickly thanks to media spin that blew on the embers of chauvinism and authoritarianism. And that is exactly what Fox and the tea-party stands for.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's set some things straight:
- Wikileaks leaks PUBLIC information (not PRIVATE). Credit card numbers are not public info, voters don't need this info to decide how to vote. What the government does, on the other hand, is something we need to know. Remember Wikileaks censored the names of US informants in the war diaries.
- About the cables - Wikileaks actually did not leak them to the public. They gave them to 5 major newspapers around the world who discussed them together and decided what to leak and what not to leak.
- It's not up to Wikileaks to decide what public info is important and what public info is not. This is up to us, the public. We already trust our governments to tell us info that is important, and they don't tell us (as evidenced by the Iraq Diaries leak). What good does it do if Wikileaks does the same thing as the government and also decides what we should know? Wikileaks is not an activist group, it only gives the public access to the info it can get us. Whether that information is important or not is up to members of the public to decide. And frankly, in a country where people elect their president based on his skin color, religion or how good looking he is in a suit then I think even whether Hilary Clinton wears red or white underwear is probably important public information too (at least to some people).
- Consider also that people who leak documents take risks. They want to be sure that the information they give Wikileaks WILL be published otherwise they could be taking risks for nothing. This is another reason why Wikileaks should not decide what is important and what is not. The only thing Wikileaks should sort out is what is public and what is private info.
- I'm not even sure what you guys are getting at. Are you suggesting Wikileaks sometimes leaks irrelevant information? Or that it should be shut down because it does not always leak important information? Or are you just bashing it for no reason other than you find it fun. Whatever your reasons I respect them, but I just don't understand what is the point you are trying to make.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately the US law doesn't apply where Mr. Assange has his mailbox.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine because they have lots of lawyers and money and he does not.
Re:Policies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
You silly guy. The Supreme Court figured out that all these years we really didn't need an amendment to prohibit alcohol sales. Congress had the right to do that under the commerce clause all along! In fact, Congress has the right to do just about anything they want under the commerce clause.
In fact, if it wasn't for the 18th (and later, 21st Amendments) Congress would have probably set the drinking age at 21 based on commerce clause powers a long time ago. Unfortunately for them the 21st spells out that this right is reserved to the states -- but only for alcohol. A congressional ban on tobacco would be fully in line with current jurisprudence.
Re:Our advise is to place your funds somewhere saf (Score:4, Insightful)
And would that be because of BoA's recent behaviour with Wikileaks, or the fraud and corruption of which Wikileaks claims to have evidence?
- RG>
Re:I have been enough to America (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)