Looks like WikiLeaks has Bank of America's PR department working overtime. They're buying up negative domain names in anticipation of an unconfirmed but hotly rumored release.
According to Domain Name Wire, the US bank has been aggressively registering domain names including its board of Directors' and senior executives' names followed by "sucks" and "blows".
For example, the company registered a number of domains for CEO Brian Moynihan: BrianMoynihanBlows.com, BrianMoynihanSucks.com, BrianTMoynihanBlows.com, and BrianTMoynihanSucks.com.
The wire report counted hundreds of such domain name registrations on 17 December alone. They were acquired through an intermediary that frequently registers domain names on behalf of large companies, says the report.
Bank of America has reputedly established a 'war room' to draw up strategy and rebutt [sic] allegations likely to emerge from the publication of thousands of internal documents by WikiLeaks.
As anxious as I am to see Bank of America suffer whatever consequences may result from their internal arrogance and malfeasance, I confess that declarations like this one from Assange make me uncomfortable, too.
"We don't want the bank to suffer unless it's called for," Assange told The Times. "But if its management is operating in a responsive way there will be resignations," he said, without giving details about the material.
After all, hostage-taking is hostage-taking, whether it's Republicans or hackers.
In response to some of the comments below...:
Don't assume my remark about hostage-taking is intended as some slam on Assange or Wikileaks in general. If you read Assange's remarks as anything other than a veiled threat, you're not reading. Threat to what, exactly? Well, reading between the lines would appear to call for a mass termination of management at BofA at the very least, with no public evidence at this time to support that.
That is a threat. My remark was to the threat, regardless of whether the information is released or not. What if the next threat is aimed at someone who is not a villain in the eyes of those commenting below? Would it be received with the same applause as this one?
That was my point. Here's a hypothetical: If Assange had said he didn't want the EFF to suffer unless it's called for, but if they were responsive, their entire management team would resign, would you view that as benign?
For the record, I view the strong-arming of Assange by everyone from Visa to Amazon to Joe Lieberman to Sweden to their DNS provider as absurd bully tactics which escalate everything to a ridiculous level and make a martyr out of him. A far better tactic would have been a strong verbal condemnation and then to ignore it. What has been released thus far is interesting enough to bring attention to it, but hardly earthshaking.
The opinions expressed on this post and in the comments are mine, and mine alone. They are not intended to reflect anyone else's opinion and are in no way, shape or form intended to reflect opinions of Crooks and Liars or other writers on this site.
