South African government demands bank report takedown

[medicnick83]

This is the 2nd repost. This was already posted twice before.

Everyone it gets deleted or something.
We should keep reposting it.
They can complain as much as they want, who the hell cares!

They find a way to screw us, we find a way to screw them!

 

[bwana]

This is the 2nd repost. This was already posted twice before.

True but this is the first time I've seen it so far in Health, Wealth, Leisure and Relationships

Merge imminent.

 

[mercurial]

True but this is the first time I've seen it so far in Health, Wealth, Leisure and Relationships

Lol

 

[Pilgrim]

Everyone it gets deleted or something.
We should keep reposting it.
They can complain as much as they want, who the hell cares!

They find a way to screw us, we find a way to screw them!

I does not get deleted, it gets merged. The old link points to an invalid thread yes, but that is because the "deleted" thread has been merged into this one.

 

[bwana]

Everyone it gets deleted or something.
We should keep reposting it.
They can complain as much as they want, who the hell cares!

They find a way to screw us, we find a way to screw them!

Something being MERGED.

But hey - way to jump to conclusions

 

[Xarog]

Quoting fin24 :

Johannesburg - Absa says that it holds the competition commission responsible for the leaking of information about the banking investigation, but experts say it is not clear what the commission can do about it.

Absa spokesperson Keith McIvor says Absa voluntarily presented sensitive information to the commission.

Some of the information was not for public consumption because other banks could then see it, which would curb competition in the sector.

"Absa expects the competition commission to act on the issue," said McIvor.

The commission published a technical report on the investigation on its website, with large portions censored at the request of the banks.

An uncensored version however became available on the Wikileaks website.

The report by the investigating panel, chaired by former judge Thabani Jali, found that the banks were colluding to stifle effective competition in the sector.

Costs levied were exorbitant and not calculated on the basis of real expenses, reads the report.

Competition Commissioner Miranshan Ramburuth wrote to Wikileaks and requested that the uncensored version be removed from its website.

On the website Wikileaks claims to publish information covering various jurisdictions, organisations and individuals.

Once the document has been leaked it is practically impossible to censor it, says Wikileaks.

Legal experts say the competition commission's request to Wikileaks cannot succeed because only the American government can issue such an instruction. It is not a South African website and the commission cannot therefore enforce it.

Even if the American government enforce this, Wikileaks has various other websites around the world, including Britain, Sweden and Tonga.

In the commission's correspondence Ramburuth explains that an undertaking was given to financial institutions that certain information would remain confidential if they so wished.

The Jali panel had made its recommendations as early as June, but the release of the entire report was delayed to afford banks the opportunity to censor certain parts.

The censored information chiefly relates to costs levied on ATM transactions, and banks' actual profits from levies on transfers or Saswitch activities.

The investigation declared these fees exorbitant.

Now is it just me, or does it sound like the banks all got a copy of the uncensored report when they decided what they were going to censor?

If so, that claim about the stuff being censored to protect that information from other banks (which the report claims isn't true in the first place, seeing as they shared info to keep the cartel going), is patent BS, because the banks have already seen each other's dirty laundry.

 

[Sackboy]

It's probably been accidentally on purpose put on their site. They want us to see it.

 

[Sackboy]

It seems ABSA was one of the only banks to provide all the information requested. It didn't help itself by doing this.

The other banks came under fire as well:

"Standard Bank and FNB have also enjoyed increased number of transactions, unit cost savings and increased profits, without using these as an opportunity to mount a vigorous challenge to their rivals by way of price competition."

[I can see why someone would be upset by the leak.]

 

[Sneeky]

In a court of public opinion, which is what we all are, of course the CC can appear innocent as well as guilty.

My point, is that the CC needed to cover its arse by making a huge effort to protect the confidential bits - a losing battle of course as we all know, but something that the CC had to do.The fact that more hype has been created, is not something that we consumers should be complaining about when it works in our favour.

Yeah, point taken and understood.
Also, thinking about it a bit further there is no insight to the discussions and/or corrective actions if any at this point.
Only thing that is clear at this juncture is that we are being fleeced somewhat, nothing new in our society hehe.

 

[Sackboy]

I've just heard an interview with the Competition Commission on the radio. They were getting quite upset about these 'leaks' and the fact that hackers decrypted their report and put it on mybroadband and Wikileaks!

Apparently they're taking action against these nasty hackers and have asked Wikileaks to remove it. It seems they didn't manage to decrypt everything "with 3rd party software" and they have replaced their document "with a scanned version".

 

[Sneeky]

caught the tail end of the interview as I was getting into the car.

It will be interesting to see what action, if any, the CC can take against the person that did it. It really looks like they are just trying to shift the blame from themselves.

 

[LazyLion]

It seems they didn't manage to decrypt everything "with 3rd party software"

Decrypt? Decrypt what? The original PDF was not encrypted. It involved just a simple file conversion. The steps were fairly self-evident and not at all complicated. The CC is using hacking terminology here to make it seems like their file was all secure and stuff and it took some hacking and some know-how to get into it which is rubbish. It did not involved any hacking or decrypting at all.

 

[2CentsWorth]

I see wikileaks did not submit to the little CC

 

[ld13]

It will be interesting to see what action, if any, the CC can take against the person that did it. It really looks like they are just trying to shift the blame from themselves.

The CC cannot take any action at all - they'll need to find the person that did 'it' first. Not even Wikileaks know who leaked it to them, lol.

Decrypt? Decrypt what? The original PDF was not encrypted. It involved just a simple file conversion. The steps were fairly self-evident and not at all complicated. The CC is using hacking terminology here to make it seems like their file was all secure and stuff and it took some hacking and some know-how to get into it which is rubbish. It did not involved any hacking or decrypting at all.

+1 The file had almost no protection. The CC is using the hacking terminology etc etc just to get some reaction. Hacking the file surely has to be baaaad? hehe.

@Sackboy The complete report could not be un-redacted due to the way the redacting software handled the redacting of the images in the report. The rest of the report was uncensored completely.

@2CentsWorth Wikileaks will never give in to any request.

 

[reech]

good luck to 'em - it's in the wild now!!

 

[Sackboy]

good luck to 'em - it's in the wild now!!

Wouldn't that be a valid enough reason not to comply with any notices? It's in the public domain.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

good luck to 'em - it's in the wild now!!

Terry Goodkind's novel "Chainfire" springs to mind now...

 

[Pilgrim]

Terry Goodkind's novel "Chainfire" springs to mind now...

Roflmao. Very good analogy

There is one little CC member that can still see the truth: they were hacked.

Why does nobody believe him?