×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Censorship Struggle Underway In Iceland

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the information-wants-to-be-free-but-it's-gotta-work-for-it dept.

The Media 251

jon jonson writes "Information from the collapsed Icelandic bank Kaupthing has been leaked to WikiLeaks, revealing billions in insider loans, and the bank has been working day and night to censor the information contained in the document. Last night at 6:55pm GMT, they served an injunction against the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, five minutes before the 7pm news was due to be aired. The TV station just displayed the WikiLeaks URL instead. They've also injuncted Iceland's national radio, banning all discussion about the contents of the document, and they are actively trying to censor the rest of the Icelandic media along with WikiLeaks."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

251 comments

fp!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918115)

Frist Post!!11one

National security? Nah, that's not possible (-1, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918137)

When the government starts censoring things, I find that it is usually because of national security issues more than anything else.

Look at your government and seriously think about how on the ball they are about anything.

You'll find that the only thing they are ever on the ball about is national security. That's it (unless you're an unfortunate American in which case that's not even something you can believe in). So when the government starts freaking out and censoring things left and right, you can bet that there's something important contained in the leaked files.

Now, it's up to you to keep what you know safe and secret from Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918191)

The bank is a private company. He has nothing to do with out government.

I repeat, our government IS NOT censoring things.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (5, Insightful)

Exception Duck (1524809) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918233)

The bank is owned by the goverment.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (5, Interesting)

krilli (303497) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918301)

The police that are mandating the censorship are also owned by the government.

And to complete the farce, the newsroom being censored is ALSO OWNED BY THE STUPID GOVERNMENT.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (5, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918447)

But wait, there's more! According to my favorite Icelandic blogger [icelandweatherreport.com], the commissioner who issued the injunction has a son who is or was a spokesman for the bank, and another who was an executive and the recipient of one of the no-payments loans.

Iceland is a close-knit society. The anger there is fueled by a sense of betrayal that people from big heterogeneous countries can't fully appreciate.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28919047)

"according to a blog" is never, ever a proper source.

never

ever

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (5, Insightful)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918239)

When the government starts censoring things, I find that it is usually because of national security issues more than anything else.

I've seen quite the opposite. Censoring is much more likely to be about covering your ass than about national security.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (3, Funny)

hemp (36945) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918379)

Don't forget about the children.

Won't someone think of the children?

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918429)

Right. Probably the leaked documents contain child porn or something.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918493)

I think it actually is going to be more about national security. Few people want to leak actual national security secrets though, so whenever there's a leak its always about something horrible.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (3, Insightful)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918903)

Mod parent up! Although, I think the grandparent may have been sarcastic? It's not obvious if so.

  Censorship is almost always *officially* about national security, but 99.9% of the time they're actually trying to suppress information which is embarassing or damaging to some particular junta.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (4, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919153)

You know, it's really refreshing to see a story about censorship and (presumed) government corruption that's *not* about America for once. Go Iceland! :)

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (3, Funny)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919013)

"I'm in charge of the nation and it affects MY job security.... so 'national security' applies!"

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918247)

You do know that national security is a synonym for political embarrassment, don't you?

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (0, Troll)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918813)

So when the government starts freaking out and censoring things left and right, you can bet that there's something important contained in the leaked files.

Precisely. Keep in mind that we're talking a bank here, not a military research laboratory or something else of strategic importance. A bank, in fact, whose proper management (or otherwise) is of significant importance to the lives of millions of ordinary people.

This is all about money, and when the government "starts freaking out" in a situation such as this (and I mean any government, not just the one to which us unfortunate Americans are subject) it is invariably due to criminal behavior on the part of government officials. Corruption, in other words. In such cases "national security" means making that information public so that the bastards can be rooted out and put in prison where they belong. It's not in the best interests of the citizens of any country that national security be synonymous with coverup. That's what usually happens when government types go too far, and by burying any and all evidence against them under the seal of "national security" they not only escape prosecution for their crimes but get to keep their jobs.

So, coverup. Let me tell you, that is exactly what this affair smells like to this unfortunate American (we get a lot of those here.) If the Icelanders play this smart, they won't do what we've done here in with our recent government bailout of the private sector. That is, allow the people responsible for this disaster to remain in control and prosper after all the damage they've caused.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (1)

Paladeen (8688) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919031)

The government *as such* is not censoring anything here. Kaupthing Bank is. While Kaupthing is now owned by the state, it is not controlled directly by politicians.

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919167)

I don't know from Iceland, but presumably the bank does not actually employ a military or police force capable of censoring broadcasts? So the governement is the one doing the censorship, because the bank asked nicely? It would be kinda cool if I'm wrong here ...

Re:National security? Nah, that's not possible (2, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919073)

I'm an American so this rule doesn't apply (national security is a euphemism for "because I said so, that's why; questioning the HSA is Counterfreedomary!")...but given the history of the sort of people who censor WikiLeaks I have to question whether or not I trust anyone who does.

Interesting (5, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918139)

Kaupthing had fallen over and if they hadn't tried to stop people finding out, it wouldn't have been posted to Slashdot and I and many others would never have known. We need a name for when attempted censorship leads to wider distribution of the information. The Kaupthing effect, perhaps?

Re:Interesting (5, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918181)

You're being subtly humorous, aren't you?

(in case you aren't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Interesting (4, Insightful)

Livius (318358) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918395)

There is also (usually) a correlation between their enthusiasm for suppressing the information and the need for it to be revealed in public interest.

Re:Interesting (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919191)

There is also (usually) a correlation between their enthusiasm for suppressing the information and the need for it to be revealed in public interest.

I'm acutally amazed that good PR companies aren't already exploiting this for purposes of advertising. The fact that this correlation still holds means that no one's gaming it yet. Get on the ball Google - I want to bid on "Streisand Effect Keywords"!

Re:Interesting (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918701)

Interesting that parent was rated "Funny" - it's also insightful that the attempt to stop information can actually make things worse - a lot worse.

It's like trying to put out a gasoline fire with water. You can make it spread even faster! The complete denial action may work better, but being vague and confusing may be the best action.

The genie is out of the lamp so just live with it and duck. Legal action is just putting fuel on the fire.

Good thing WikiLeaks's still around (5, Insightful)

swinferno (1212408) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918141)

Good thing WikiLeaks is still alive and kicking

Re:Good thing WikiLeaks's still around (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918877)

Ya, wikileaks rocks. I think this underscores the importance of enshrining freedom of the press too.

Re:Good thing WikiLeaks's still around (3, Informative)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919203)

Ya, wikileaks rocks. I think this underscores the importance of enshrining freedom of the press too.
Reply to This

More to the point, this completely demonstrates the importance of applying "freedom of the press" to new media.

Who are the insiders? (5, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918163)

revealing billions in insider loans,

Like most wikileaks documents, I've found it nearly impossible to verify the high level claim (insider trading) off the information provided. They always seem to drop the ball on writing down their analysis...or letting others (otherwise, it's NOT a wiki!). I expect several pages of summary and analysis, but instead, just broad claims with little or no references or supporting facts.

For those of us who aren't experts in Icelandic corporations and banking, here's a sample, after some googling- one of the listed parties is a Robert Tchenguiz [icelandweatherreport.com].

If the claims in that blog posting are true, 500BN of Iceland's citizens' money flew out the door in "loans" to tax haven countries.

Re:Who are the insiders? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918261)

Exista == Kaupthing
Landic == Gaumur == Baugur == Glitnir Bank
Stodir = FL Group = Baugur = Glitnir Bank

etc. etc. etc.

The proof is in the reaction (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918349)

If it was a bunch of lies, then the bank officials would have pointed that out. That they are scrambling to censor is proof this is absolutly 100% legit. kind of nice of them to remove any doubt eh?

logical fallacy, for starters (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918549)

If it was a bunch of lies, then the bank officials would have pointed that out.

And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.

First off, I didn't say the claims were lies. I said there was no explanation or analysis, and thus no way for me to verify them. There isn't even any explanation as to why they believe the documents are authentic. I was lamenting, in general, at the lack of explanations and analysis of documents posted to Wikileaks as a whole. Putting down a list of companies and calling it "analysis" isn't.

Second, it does not logically follow that if someone doesn't deny something, it is true- in part or whole. 5th Amendment, anyone? Same goes for trying to get something out of the public spotlight. Maybe the whole reason they want to suppress it is because it IS bullshit, and letting it spread would make it difficult or impossible to find impartial jurors in a criminal or civil trial- or harm existing companies that have done legitimate business with them.

Lastly, very often a public relations effort involves not even acknowledging claims, regardless of their merit. There are a variety of reasons why. For example: sometimes the claims are bullshit but you don't feel you can convince the public otherwise. Sometimes you want to keep a low profile and hope people will get bored and move on to shinier news items. Sometimes you cannot say anything because of pending legal action- either because it would be risky to comment, or you've been told not to.

But hey, feel free to play out the simple Hollywood conspiracy movie plot. The world is rarely that simple.

Re:logical fallacy, for starters (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918585)

I think anyone that looks at a corvette knows it's not alien technology.

Re:logical fallacy, for starters (4, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918731)

And when a guy stands in the driveway of a GM plant screaming that alien technology is being used to make Corvettes, does that mean it's true because GM refuses to answer questions from him or reporters and then kicks him off the property? Of course not.

But they also don't take him to court and file a gag order against him or issue takedowns. Furthermore, if the guy is on public property and not interfering, they can't really do anything. (Right to free assembly.)

driveways !public and neither are private docs (1, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918853)

But they also don't take him to court and file a gag order against him or issue takedowns.

Posting a document marked "private and confidential", which were protected by confidentiality agreements signed by the employees who leaked them (or were obtained by breaking into computer systems or bypassing security systems), believe it or not, is not legally defensible. It may be morally correct or even honorable in your eyes (and possibly in mine, I'm on the fence), but one man's morals do not make another man's actions legal.

Furthermore, if the guy is on public property and not interfering, they can't really do anything. (Right to free assembly.)

Way to focus on issues not germane. Aside from the fact that I said "driveway" and "property", you missed the point of the example- or you were hoping to be modded up for comment coattail-riding. The crux of the example was that there are many times when it is a perfectly acceptable course of action to ignore something.

Re:driveways !public and neither are private docs (4, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918945)

This is the exact reason why whistleblower laws exist: to prevent people from being sued for exposing ethics violations.

Re:logical fallacy, for starters (4, Informative)

pingveno (708857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918777)

In this case, one of the threatening letters explicitly said:

These are highly sensitive confidential information from Kaupthings bank hf. loan book regarding the banks clients subject to bank secrecy in Iceland.

I take this to mean that the documents are legit.

Re:The proof is in the reaction (3, Interesting)

Corbets (169101) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918557)

If it was a bunch of lies, then the bank officials would have pointed that out. That they are scrambling to censor is proof this is absolutly 100% legit. kind of nice of them to remove any doubt eh?

Just like someone deleting his hard drive is proof that he's guilty of some kind of computer crime or copyright infringement, eh?

Innocent till proven guilty, people - while it certainly looks suspicious, it isn't any kind of proof of anything.

Re:The proof is in the reaction (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918769)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a rule in the judicial system to ensure safe trial, not a rule to live by in general.

Re:The proof is in the reaction (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919241)

The downside of following "Innocent until proven guilty" as a rule to live by in general is far less than the downside of witch hunts! I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Think about it yourself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918487)

The whole Iceland has got less citizens than an American shopping mall. 500BN is perhaps possible, given the assets were from investors from abroad. However 500BN of assets is not proportional to the size of the Icelandic real economy - it is not plausible that the citizens could have lost such amount.

Re:Think about it yourself... (3, Informative)

unfasten (1335957) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918817)

It was 500 billion in Icelandic currency (krona), not 500 billion euro or USD.

According to xe.com:

500,000,000,000.00 ISK = 3,904,722,881.3900 USD

However, the wikileaks summary says "45 million to 1250 million euros". I haven't read the post that the GP links, except to check the currency type, to find out where it gets the 500 billion number.

Re:Think about it yourself... (3, Informative)

Idarubicin (579475) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918857)

However 500BN of assets is not proportional to the size of the Icelandic real economy - it is not plausible that the citizens could have lost such amount.

The blog posting contains numbers on the order of 300 billion, not 500 billion -- and those are Icelandic crowns (ISK), not euros or dollars. That puts the total at about 2.3 billion U.S. dollars.

Given that Iceland's population is only about 320 thousand people that's still a pretty massive hit to their economy (call it 7000 USD per capita), but not totally implausible (particularly for a heavily leveraged state-controlled bank).

Re:Think about it yourself... (1)

Paladeen (8688) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918997)

Kaupthing wasn't state-controlled at the time these transfers were made. And the figures are genuine. In 2004, I remember reading Kaupthing owned assets worth 4300 billion ISK (about 60 billion USD at the exchange rate then).

Re:Who are the insiders? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918561)

Like most wikileaks documents, I've found it nearly impossible to verify the high level claim (insider trading) off the information provided.

Could you at least read the article summary?

Insider trading is completely different from insider loans (which is what was in the summary).

Insider trading is when people with secret information about a company trade in its stock without filing the required disclosure forms. It's to protect investors so that all investors (in theory) have access to the same information to make buy/sell decisions.

Insider loans is when you give a secret loan on very favorable terms to management, directors, favored clients, etc. For example, senior management at the bank might want to give a million dollar bonus to senior management, even if they don't deserve it. A bonus would look bad in the press or to the shareholders, so instead you make a loan for the same amount at very low interest rates (and the interest payments can be deferred for a long time). On paper, the loan is an asset.

I obviously mean to say "loans" (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918875)

Could you at least read the article summary?

Could you at least recognize that I obviously accidentally wrote "trading" when I meant to say "loans"? I can't believe you got modded up, even if you are an anon.

Re:I obviously mean to say "loans" (1)

Hynee (774168) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919105)

You're both wrong, the Slashdot summary says:

... WikiLeaks, revealing billions in insider loans, and ...

Wikileaks says:

Not long after producing this internal report, the ...

The slashdot summary is making unproven claims, with the only source cited the WikiLeaks article. I think we'll see a correction of this article summary at some time. The Iceland Weather Report [icelandweatherreport.com] article doesn't mention insider trading either.

Re:Who are the insiders? (1)

Hynee (774168) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919051)

Wikileaks doesn't actually use the phrase "insider loans," they use the phrase "internal documents."

I think slashdot summariser may have made a mistake. [jon jonson]

Perhaps Soulskill would like to correct.

The WL page history [wikileaks.org] shows no changes since 31-Jul.

Streisand effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918173)

Someone is just begging for the Streisand Effect to set in, it seems.

Post the Forbidden (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918297)

Someone post the leak onto /.

Ireland? (-1, Offtopic)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918343)

Isn't that the country that just recently created anti-blasphemy laws?

Re:Ireland? (0, Offtopic)

krilli (303497) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918363)

Yes, that was probably Ireland.

On another note, the news story you can see above is about ICELAND.

Re:Ireland? (0, Offtopic)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918381)

>>>"Iceland" == "Ireland"
False

Re:Ireland? (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918553)

>>>"Iceland" == "Ireland" False

Iceland's sheep == shaggy
Ireland's sheep == shagged

Re:Ireland? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919001)

Or rather, it is one letter and six months. They had exactly the same thing happen at Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society.

Re:Ireland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918571)

That was Ireland, you inconsiderate clod!

Re:Ireland? (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918581)

That was Ireland, sometimes called "the green island", which should not be confused with Greenland, though, as Greenland is more like Iceland than Ireland. I hope you're less confused now.

It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (-1, Troll)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918375)

Censorship is when a government stops a person or organization from disseminating information or expressing an opinion. When a private entity does it, it may be slimy and immoral but it isn't censorship.

And no it's not censorship just because they are using the courts.

Re:It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918393)

* Main Entry: 2censor
        * Function: transitive verb
        * Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\
        * Date: 1882

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

Re:It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (2, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918397)

If a company tries to flex its muscle to influence lawmakers, it is. Indirect, but still.

Re:It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918445)

Censorship
Function: noun
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring [merriam-webster.com]

Censor
Function: transitive verb
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship [merriam-webster.com]

What part of those definitions require that governments be involved again?

And no, just because it doesn't fit your needlessly restricted definition of censorship doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.

Re:It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (1, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918869)

"Censorship is when a government stops a person or organization from disseminating information"

The Mafia, among other organizations, would thank you for this definition. Executing an entire family, or even an entire village, to prevent the dissemination of sensitive information wouldn't be considered "censorship", unless the government assisted in the executions. Thank you, sir.

Re:It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919143)

No, it would be murder. Last time I checked, that crime was at least an order of magnitude worse than "censorship."

Re:It's Not CENSORSHIP!!! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919251)

Actually, it would include a LOT of different crimes:

Genocide (wiping out a whole village of people)
Violating human rights
Conspiracy to commit murder
Conspiracy to violate human rights
Conspiracy tampering with witnesses
Conspiracy, obstruction of justice
Almost certainly multiple counts of unlawful imprisonment and/or kidnapping
Illegal use of weapons (probably firearms, possibly explosives)
not to mention, the rather minor censorship (in comparison) thing

The prosecutors may or may not ever get around to any question of censorship, but hey, remember, that was my whole reason for wiping out the village. To prevent my sensitive information being spread around.

If one prissy librarian with a puritan attitude takes books that she disapproves of, and burns them to prevent people reading them, THAT is censorship. The government doesn't have to approve of her actions for her actions to qualify as censorship.

injuncted? (5, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918403)

There's no such word as injuncted. "to issue an injunction" is to "enjoin", so the form needed here is enjoined.

Re:injuncted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28919119)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/injuncted

Re:injuncted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28919237)

You just used it twice, so it seems pretty freakin' obvious that there is such a word.

A total misuse of the legal system... (3, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918407)

To protect private interests against the public's need to know.

This is the stuff that we should be angry about. Not putting some trailer-trash families in rehabilitation programs discussed about in the recent front page article (That's the one with the hyperbole about 24hr surveillance BTW).

you're exposed, astroturfer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918825)

A UK social services bureaucrat, are you? hahahah....you're exposed.

Hey, at least they tried (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918411)

We (in the USA) still have no idea where our TARP [wikipedia.org] funds went. And no documentation likely to appear on Wikileaks either. When our gov't asked the banks what they did with the money we gave them, they just replied, "We'd rather not say".

Re:Hey, at least they tried (2, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918637)

No one cares, really... they are loans and will (mostly) get paid back. The banks unable to pay back end up being owned by the feds anyway, and then the books are wide open.

Re:Hey, at least they tried (4, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918907)

The banks unable to pay back (...the TARP funds...) end up being owned by the feds anyway, and then the books are wide open.

Perhaps you're thinking about some other country? The US government is anything but transparent, notwithstanding any "Hope & Change" rhetoric to the contrary. It took an FOIA request and months to even be allowed to see the Air Force One Manhattan fly-over photos that everyone knew existed.

The chances of the books being opened would be particularly slim if the bank(s) end up being owned by the Federal Reserve. I know that politicians are currently making noise about publicly auditing the Fed, but that's all it will end up being...noise to placate the proles. Unless politicians suddenly start finding themselves losing elections en masse and/or finding themselves at the working end of pitchforks & shotguns.

Strat

Re:Hey, at least they tried (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918909)

Not loans. Equity positions in the banks. As such, I'd expect that the largest shareholder in any company shouldn't have any problem going to the execs and asking for a full accounting of what they are up to. Or be shown the door very quickly.

The fact that we "don't care" is a testament to how thoroughly we have been turned into sheep by special interest groups. At least the people in Iceland are being made aware that something foul is afoot.

Silly elected officials (4, Insightful)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918449)

Once this shit hits the internet - it's out there. There is no undo button or magical legal action you can take to cover it up anymore.

You'd be better off to admit you fucked up and spend your efforts cleaning up the mess instead of trying to cover up this crap.

Oh yeah - and piss off the media - that helps your case too.

Bank, Lawyers do their job - film at 11 (5, Informative)

aricusmaximus (300760) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918509)

Per the cease and desist order [wikileaks.org], it appears that the lawyers on behalf of Kraupthing are doing their job.

The laws themselves appear to be there to protect the client's confidential information. Paraphrasing (IANAL, IANAL, IANAL!) they are:

58. Banks are not suppose to disclose their customer's financial information.
59. Exception #1 - if there is a risk to a parent company
60. Exception #2 - if the customer(s) say it is okay to disclose the information.

So basically the bank and the bank lawyers are doing the job they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their customers.

Re:Bank, Lawyers do their job - film at 11 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28919181)

Glad to see someone finally getting to the issue here - right to privacy. The bank may have been doing something illegal. That does not give the public the right to violate the privacy of every client of the bank. Sorry. How would you feel if you were a customer of a bank, that bank turned out to be doing something illegal, and your private banking information were revealed publicly as a side effect of that? The same people who are screaming "censorship" right now would be screaming "privacy violation" if details of their bank accounts were revealed. There is a double standard going on here. Classic hypocrisy.

Invest! (-1, Offtopic)

MynockGuano (164259) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918517)

A dental health network:

Risks:
- The outlook for the UK dental market...is positive
- Current dental provision in the UK is low with only c. 50% of the population registered with dentists. There are also too few practices to meet the capacity needs.

Invest! Invest!

mod 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918533)

Leaving the play And she ran simple solution it was fun. If I'm in ratio of 5 to charnel house. The FreeBSD used to '*BSD Sux0rs'. This

Information wants to be free in every country (4, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918697)

Especially if it describes how the country's currency became worthless.

Just because you are in ICEland doesn't mean you can freeze the free flow of information.

They should have known better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28918725)

Pfffst, haha, they should have known better than to trigger the Streisand effect. But then again... KAUPTHING BANK - Beyond thinking.

Of course they are trying to censorship this (2, Interesting)

tobad (1610527) | more than 4 years ago | (#28918799)

Of course they are trying to censorship this. They have been hard at work since the bank crash trying to hide all the stuff that can show the illigal stuff they where doing. And this was not the only bank of the 3 that went down that had very questionable (amounts over what was legal) loans to insiders.

Wow. in fucking iceland ? (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#28919059)

in one of the scandinavian countries which are renowned for modern liberties and freedoms ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...