Tech | January 17, 2011 | 50 comments

WikiLeaks prepares to destroy the Swiss banking industry.

Image
remanns
"The hacker battle cry of “free” information reflects either ignorance of value and ownership, or active hostility to those concepts".

[ me ] ;
-DEATH TO PARASITES.
Uhm,....yes,....I think "actively hostile" sums it up.

from the post -
CNN reports that “whistle-blowing” Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer handed the banking information of two thousand clients over to WikiLeaks. The website says it will be able to “process” and release this information in “a matter of weeks.” Elmer is facing charges for violating Swiss banking secrecy regulations.

Elmer describes himself as an “activist/reformer/banker” who decided the Swiss banking system was “damaging our society in the way money was moved.” He’s never been able to get government authorities or universities interested in the data he pilfered from the banks, so he hit on the idea of handing it over to WikiLeaks.

Once again, we see a lone “activist” violating the property and privacy rights of many others, in the belief his wisdom transcends the judgment of those he could never convince to act upon his stolen data. I’m second to none in my criticism of hidebound government bureaucracies… but where, exactly, do the Swiss go to vote against Rudolf Elmer or WikiLeaks, if they disagree with their notions of secrecy or transparency?

Are we supposed to believe that all 2000 of the accounts Elmer gave WikiLeaks belong to evil villains conspiring to dominate the world? Don’t they “own” their banking data, and therefore have some right to decide how it would be disseminated?


more-
LINK - - -
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41245
graphic-
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Entertainment,   Tech,   14 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Tech,  Finance,  Information,  19 more
  3. recommended by:
    pjacobs51
  4.     
    |

50 comments // WikiLeaks prepares to destroy the Swiss banking industry.

  • neocongo
  • existentialist
    • +1
      existentialist  

    • One more thing, how many legit accounts did Elmer snoop into to find 2000 questionable accounts? Is it justifiable for a person or entity to spy on or otherwise intrude on the privacy of 20,000 people if it uncovers the wrongdoing of 2000 people? What about spying a million people to uncover the crimes of 2000 people? or even 100,000 people?

      My point is: A person cannot not praise Elmer and advocate privacy rights at the same time.

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  

    • (this largely a repost from another comment I left on a similar story)

      I am not a privacy advocate and I could care less about whether these papers are released. But as a community current.com seems to favor peoples ability to have secrets and privacy. This site is overwhelming anti-big brother and corporate snooping. Also, tax evasion is arguable a victimless crime (it might actually save people with less money going towards the war machine) and many people on this site also argue about the unlawfulness of the US tax system with a good group of people on this site against taxes all together.

      Imagine he was turning over documents incriminating a bunch of people for marijuana use. In that case I am sure this entire site would outraged about the invasion of privacy.

      After all, if I choose to evade taxes because I believe they are immoral (or for whatever reason I disagree with them), isn't that my choice? Honestly, the richer you are the more disproportionately you are taxed, at least in the US, so the rich are actually more justified in tax evasion.

      I am sure many of these people would be served right by being exposed but a precedent (a very dangerous one for privacy advocates) is set when dishonest tactics are used to expose the unjust. After all who decides who or what is just and who has the right the to privacy and who doesn't?

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • +1
      Jeremy_Benson  
    • existentialist:

      Breaking the law is breaking the law. Whether I am smoking marijuana or defrauding a bank, getting caught is the risk I take. Nor does it mean that he violated anyone's privacy in actually obtaining the documents - since he was a banker it would have been his job to look at them regardless. Now, publishing those documents may be a violation of privacy, but that's like me complaining about someone publishing private documents of mine that contain evidence that I murdered someone.

    • 1 year ago
  • neocongo
  • existentialist
  • existentialist
    • 0
      existentialist  
    • Jeremy_Benson:

      You may be right. Elmer was in a privileged position and had access to the bank accounts. But, unless he is under the assumption that every high profile client is evading taxes he would have to do a little snooping outside what is called for in his job description to find questionable accounts. On the other hand, if he is just assuming that these depositors are acting illegally based on the amount, frequency or nature of their deposits that should be considered even more heinous in the eyes of privacy advocates.

      What can't argued is, and you seem to agree with, is that Elmer's sharing of the documents is a violation of privacy. Though, you approve of this, apparently, by saying the ends justify the means. I go back to my previous argument, does that mean it is justifiable to snoop through 1,000 peoples private documents in order to find evidence that you murdered someone? Furthermore, what are the ends here? Some might say justice, but I would argue that the true motivation of people lauding Elmer is schadenfreude or taking pleasure in the disgrace of these high-profile people. Moral consistency be damned, every once in awhile people need a Roman holiday. At least that is a honest, human reason and admirable in that sense.

      On the same token, what if a nurse or secretary at a doctor's office stole and published the names of medical marijuana users that she thought was abusing the substance? There is just not any other situation that I can find where a person, in regards to privacy, would be justified in committing actions like Elmers. In that regard, I don't see how he can be held to different moral standards than others.

    • 1 year ago
  • noxidereus
    • +2
      noxidereus  

    • The hacker battle cry of “free” information reflects either ignorance of value and ownership, or active hostility to those concepts

      Really? Who owns the fucking truth? Nobody.

      WikiLeaks is doing the common man a great service by exposing how the powers that be are taking advantage of and lying to us all. Should we all stay in the dark as slaves or should we let there be light to show us a better way? People who know the truth can make far better voting choices. That's for sure.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
    • +4
      Mark701  

    • "Are we supposed to believe that all 2000 of the accounts Elmer gave WikiLeaks belong to evil villains conspiring to dominate the world? Don’t they “own” their banking data, and therefore have some right to decide how it would be disseminated?"

      I doubt that any are evil villains out to dominate the world. It's far more banal than that, they are tax cheats. Not all are from America but quite a few are and some of them are politicians. It would interesting to see if any who defended the Bush tax cuts have money stashed in Swiss accounts. In addition to unreported income, they are fighting for tax breaks on their reportable income. Just a little self serving, don't you think?

      Second, I want to know who's on the list. Specifically, if any are members of the SCOTUS or blowhards like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or even Murdoch. They would all be guilty of tax evasion. It would be interesting to watch them squirm and wiggle while the government took their finances apart piece by piece, forced them to pay back taxes, and hopefully go to prison. I think Americans are entitled to know which of our corporate leaders, pundits and politicians are nothing more than thieving hypocrites in nice clothing.

      Do I realistically think any of this will happen? Nope. If there is one thing I've learned is that the wealthy are judged by a separate standard from the rest of us. You'd have a greater chance of spending time in prison for stealing $1000 dollars than any of these folks would be for avoiding millions in taxes.

    • 1 year ago
  • remanns
  • mikem0487
    • 0
      mikem0487  
    • Mark701:

      "I want to know who's on the list. Specifically, if any are members of the SCOTUS or blowhards like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or even Murdoch. They would all be guilty of tax evasion. It would be interesting to watch them squirm and wiggle while the government took their finances apart piece by piece, forced them to pay back taxes, and hopefully go to prison."
      That would be amazing if that did happen. It would let the right wingers who watch fox news know that they are getting lied to and brain washed and hopefully cleanse some peoples minds from the pollution that fox has put into there brains!

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
    • +1
      Vierotchka  
    • Mark701:

      From what I have been able to gather, the two thousand people in that list had stashed money into offshore accounts on the Cayman Islands and not in Switzerland, nothing was said about their nationality or occupation, and the list has not yet been published so anything anyone says about them is sheer speculation for the time being.

    • 1 year ago
  • ArchDruid
  • Vierotchka
  • remanns
    • +2
      remanns  
    • Vierotchka:

      I did not KNOW about this "gold train" ! Very interesting tale.

      Has it already been made into a suspense film,...and I missed it,....or has Hollywood just not received a good "it could'a happened THIS way" script ?

    • 1 year ago
  • remanns
  • RMattnerTours
  • slvrGelatin
  • ozoneocean
    • +1
      ozoneocean  

    • At least you CAN vote against governments. There's very little the ordinary man in the street can do against unelected corporations and greedy, wealthy individuals, so we NEED people like Elmer and WIkileaks!

      Just think who worse the situation would be under that mad Mike Shank's idea of a political system.

    • 1 year ago
  • katsmetalarmy
    • +4
      katsmetalarmy  

    • “damaging our society in the way money was moved.” AND STILL DO!

      HAVE A NICE DAY! WHERE IS MY BAILOUT?

      All bankers and politicians are full of themselves looking for the next hand out or S&L rip off.
      They don't haft to stop its cheaper to pay government fines than stop.

    • 1 year ago
  • jim_stooges
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • jim_stooges
  • alexandrek
  • Vierotchka
  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  
    • Vierotchka:

      Yah! ( But You ARE Swiss,.... I think,....THAT'S CHEATING ! )

      That's like being a native Hawaiian and talking trash about how easy it is to surf and score hot chicks with killer tans !

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • alexandrek
  • Vierotchka
    • +1
      Vierotchka  
    • alexandrek:

      Actually, to open such a numbered account, you need a minimum of fifty thousand francs if you are a resident, and twice that much if you are not a resident - I know this because my husband and I made enquiries with various banks on this subject before we were married and he wasn't officially a resident then and he wanted to transfer the few thousand dollars he had in his American bank. With regard to your Mickey Mouse friend, you haven't quite got it right:

      Numbered accounts
      Probably the most noted and infamous Swiss bank account is the "numbered" account. As implied, these accounts have numbers associated with them (or sometimes a code word) rather than a name. Even so, there will always be a select few at the bank that must know the name that goes with the account. So, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as an "anonymous" Swiss bank account. Even though Swiss bankers must maintain silence regarding their clients and client accounts, there are always records of ownership.
      http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/swiss-bank-account.htm/p...

      Therefore, Mickey Mouse is the code word your Russian friend used, but his real name is registered with the bank.

    • 1 year ago
  • ghostofamerica
    • +1
      ghostofamerica  

    • keep on violating those personal and property rights, when the IRS(not a government entity) violates the rights of property owners who dont pay homage to the federal reserve bank in the form of blood money, they violate the rights of those little property owners, to make themselves bigger and fatter. Violate them over and over and over, until the shadow government is in the light,

    • 1 year ago
  • TVtattors
  • Robotic091
    • +4
      Robotic091  

    • F#*k international BIG banks they should be put out in the cold, anyway they hold everybody's money and can do what ever they feel. If they (all big banks) followed more ehtical ways of business instead of just making that quick cash it would be no worry over what thet man gave to wikileaks or what wikileaks wants to realse what they already have on such subjects (bank of america).i understand that lots of those rules were enplaced to protect the companies and products they produced, but if its just to protect your PR image wit your clients because you do shady stuff (gray area/leagal but not ethical)then go to hell. The logic is "if your sh#t don't stink, then why do you worry if some one comes sniffing around?"

    • 1 year ago
  • toyotabedzrock
  • pjacobs51
  • figgdimension
  • dalistuff
  • artemis6
  • pjacobs51
  • artemis6
  • PzLuvHappeniz
  • remanns
  • remanns
    • +10
      remanns  

    • Don't worry about the "artists" and "makers",....we will get by. You skimmers,....extortionists,..thieves, and middlemen on the other hand . . .oh, and you"financier" parasites....

      Lets see those fucking books,....if you please.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • pjacobs51
  • figgdimension
  • remanns
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos