
WikiLeaks Will Unveil Major Bank Scandal in Early 2011 - jaybol
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/exclusive-wikileaks-will-unveil-major-bank-scandal/
======
hugh3
Okay, I'm bored with the wikileaks hype machine now. If you're gonna leak
something go ahead and leak it, don't build it up for months on end and then
reveal something disappointingly prosaic, like you have the last few times.

~~~
abi
While I agree with you that the content of the last few releases have been
fascinating but mostly inconsequential. The reason given for staggering the
releases is a good one: _if you released it all at the same time, each
individual issue would not get as much attention._ Assange also states that
Wikileaks makes a promise (among other promises such as to protect their
identity) to its informants to try to achieve the maximum possible impact on
the world due to their leak.

~~~
FirstHopSystems
It could also be a way to spread the ideology of leaking information. I'm sure
there is more than just a strategy to leak the information they have, but to
add momentum to the whole idea. Undertaking such a controversial objective
could be backed up by a belief. It seems giving the sensitive nature one would
assume there are larger objectives involved than the attention created, or it
could be as simple as that.

You can stop an organization, but an idea........

------
SoftwareMaven
> He confirmed that WikiLeaks has damaging, unpublished material from
> pharmaceutical companies, finance firms (aside from the upcoming bank
> release), and energy companies, just to name a few industries.

The thing that I dislike most about this is Wikileaks alone gets to choose the
conversations we have based solely on what they decide to publish. While it
was understandable for anything that might actually be life threatening, it
doesn't feel right for other types of information.

I don't believe Wikileaks is an objective enough steward to get to decide all
of the conversations we are going to have about information that was leaked to
them. If you want me to believe you are impartial, dump it all; otherwise, you
are trying to manipulate me just like Fox News does.

~~~
wnoise
> Wikileaks alone gets to choose the conversations we have based solely on
> what they decide to publish.

There's an entire ecosystem of media (ranging from MSM to bloggers) that sets
the conversations. Picking out one small element and giving it this massive
importance really isn't accurate. It's true that they editorialize by choosing
what to cover and what not to. So do all news media. Don't you remember the NY
times sitting on the warrantless wiretapping story for over a year?

If you don't like the messages being pushed you have one option -- start using
your own printing press. Create another site dedicated to publishing
leaks,with your own editorial policy, such as "publish everything as soon as
you get it".

------
jdminhbg
World Events To Unveil Major Bank Scandal in Late 2008

~~~
borism
which one?

------
_delirium
The full-article version of this is currently on the front page:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952037>

------
samt
I'm having a hard time imagining what could be more scandalous than enriching
the super-rich, looting the middle class and leaving the US economy in the
shitter for years to come. That's old news.

~~~
ugh
Actual black-on-white proof that they are aware of doing just that and want to
do just that?

This is your little editorialization, some people agree, some don’t.

------
brown9-2
Are there good reasons to wait to release the documents other than to maximize
publicity and fund-raising abilities?

~~~
steveklabnik
They've been redacting information in every leak so far.

I'm not sure who could get killed if some bank information is public, but if
they have a lot of documents, this could take some time.

~~~
eftpotrm
Get it wrong and they could quite easily cause a run and bring down a bank.
That'd be unlikely to cause deaths but could very easily cause personal and
corporate bankruptcies.

------
btmorex
If this doesn't literally bring down a major bank, it's already been overhyped
(and it was just announced).

------
FirstHopSystems
Leaking US Government data could seen as a threat to US interests. Now leaking
business information could be seen a threat to many interests.

Now It's easy to play the shift blame game if anything happened to the people
behind Wikileaks. In the beginning it would have been easy to assume it was
the US government taking convert action. Now who knows how many ways this
could be twisted to hide the actions of any acting party.

Governments love secrets. Corporations love money.

If your going to play information warfare you might want to do a little bit of
risk assessment.

~~~
robryan
I would assume those behind Wikileaks have a system in place such that
information they already have will be released one way or another even if
something happened to them.

~~~
xxpor
Wikileaks has had an encrypted file on their server titled 'insurance' for a
while now. See: [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-
insurance...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-
file/)

~~~
Xurinos
Seems to me they could use a service similar to <http://deadmansswitch.org/>
for extra insurance. Diversify your insurance.

~~~
steveklabnik
I'm sure something like that is in control of the password.

------
joe_the_user
I'm sad they didn't release this first.

Despite all the shouting, I haven't hear of anything terribly scandalous in
the diplomatic cables.

I strongly suspect that despite the revelations of 2008, the banking system
would yield some notably juicy tidbits.

~~~
abi
Not all of the quarter million cables have been leaked, if I recall correctly.

~~~
jonknee
That's a large understatement, only a few hundred have been leaked.

Update: "Currently released so far... 278 / 251,287"

<http://cablegate.wikileaks.org>

~~~
abi
Pretty sure (but can't find source at the moment) that that number only
reflects the cables on the wikileaks website itself. The number of cables
released to newspapers is significantly higher but not a quarter million.

~~~
mryan
According to a Guardian video I watched yesterday, all of their (the
Guardian's) stories so far have been based on "a couple of hundred" cables,
which seems to suggest the media does not have to full set yet either.

------
mkramlich
> He confirmed that WikiLeaks has damaging, unpublished material from
> pharmaceutical companies, finance firms (aside from the upcoming bank
> release), and energy companies, just to name a few industries.

It's almost as if Forbes is sending out a big heads up to various Republican
power interests to say, "Ok, he's coming after you guys next." Could serve as
a call to action for some.

------
nikcub
Oh Wikileaks, first we learn that the USA thinks poorly of Iran, and now we
learn that the banks are corrupt.

Shock. Horror.

------
willhf
The solution to the wikileaks hype parade: Someone needs to start leaking
stuff from wikileaks.

------
MrFlibble
What worries me is that while the government may inefficiently try to haul
Assange into court and call him a terrorist, the banking & finance elite may
just decide he should have an "accident." I wouldn't put it past them.

~~~
sigzero
From the goverments point of view, he is a terrorist at worse and a thief and
criminal at best.

------
poet
Hilarious to see the questions about Mudge in there. The interviewer is a
sharp guy.

------
wslh
Waiting for WikiLeaks clones all around the world!

------
aguynamedben
Haha, Error establishing a database connection.

[http://img.skitch.com/20101130-brk11r16h3cy86ryxd9sbitr7e.jp...](http://img.skitch.com/20101130-brk11r16h3cy86ryxd9sbitr7e.jpg)

