This may be a hoax; but it is certainly not impossible for this sort of thing to happen.

What governments and businesses need to know/do is:
1) Understand that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE security - every castle, system, etc can (arguably will) be compromised. The dilemma is whether the cost/effort needed to compromise the system is worth the reward/gain.
2) They should only keep the essential information - don't keep what you don't need. Besides, what they don't store can't be stolen - in the long-run it's cheaper for them and better for the user/customer. Legally speaking, businesses/agencies that store personal/private information is assuming a fiduciary duty to the customer/user - particularly in protecting their data.
3) They should keep the data as atomic/discrete (ie separated) as possible. Instead of housing everything in one mega-database, user information should be kept separate from credentials (passwords), which should be kept separate from banking data, and that should be kept separate from transaction data.
4) All data access should require credentials (certificates and/or passwords) - preferably, the credentials should only provide limited and/or one-time access to the data.
5) Particularly sensitive information should be encrypted within the database, and all access should be logged on a separate system.
6) Credentials and certificates should NEVER be stored on the same system they access.
7) They should use randomly generated unique IDs for each segment of the data - preferably, these IDs should be changed on a regular basis (like passwords).
8) Government issued ID numbers should only be used by the government agency that issued the ID, just like bank account or credit card numbers should only be used by the bank that issued them. Employers should NEVER use the employee's SSN, driver's license, bank info, etc as an employee ID.
9) They should ONLY aggregate the data as needed (at transaction time) - if possible, they should even avoid having more than one segment within the same code.
10) They should make an effort (ie spend time & money) to protect user/customer information data - like it was their own.
      A) They should have their entire system audited by certified external analysts - I wouldn't be opposed to (random) government audits of corporate data.
      B) They should spend more time and money resolving the issues/findings, and then have their systems audited again.
      C) They should also regularly update the system. Over time, the cost/effort to overcome any security system decreases while, in most cases, the value (ie gain) increases.
11) If they aren't willing or able to spend the time/money to protect the data, then they should NOT be allowed to store personal data on their systems.
12) If they do store a user's/customer's information, the user/customer should be able to request certified proof that the system was audited - to verify that their information is safe.
13) All parties should utilize up to date encryption, virus/malware, and security technology to secure their and/or the customer's information.
14) No matter how much effort/money is spent, there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE security.

Personally, I believe that what most businesses are doing with customer's data is reprehensible - and should be outlawed. A person's private information is just that, PRIVATE. Outside of storing financial transactions, user's/customer's information shouldn't be kept to do market research/analysis. They certainly should not be able to profit off of the data - that's a violation of their fiduciary duty. If you think of every worker as a little private enterprise and their employer is effectively "the customer", imagine how much information each of us could collect from every "customer" we've had. Then imagine if every worker started analyzing and selling/sharing "trends" with other "private enterprises", or using that information for their personal benefit. How quickly would those businesses go ape-sh!t trying to stop that activity? What if workers stored their "customer's" data on systems without proper security? Didn't some politico recently state that corporations are people? Wouldn't the corollary then be that people are corporations - with the same rights and privileges?

Uh, you have that a little backwards/wrong. Fractional reserve banking is not a myth, it is very real. Banks can lend more than they have in reserve. To your point, they don't lend from their reserves, they borrow the money from another bank at a lower interest rate than they lend it to obligor. Thus, they create a positive cash-flow through arbitrage. They only keep enough money in reserve to service their debts, and then pocket the excess (aka executive pay and bonuses). What they don't plan on, due to moral hazard, is that the economy might shift (I'll save the reasons for another post) and the obligor may not be able to repay the debt. When enough of their loans go into default (Minsky moment), the bank becomes insolvent because it cannot repay it's debts. And, instead of the exorbitantly rich executives bailing out the banks, they turn to the government, central banks, etc to save the bank. If they don't get enough money injected to cover their debts, the bank collapses. Thus, all of that banks debts go into default, and the cycle repeats itself. This causes the money markets to shift (decreased demand and negative speculation) and the currency devalues. As key currencies devalue, the value of commodities (gold, silver, oil, platinum, pork bellies, frozen concentrated orange juice, etc) goes up. Ultimately, we find that in our debt-based fiat monetary system, the value of our currency is directly tied to the solvency of the banks, which is why the government has established the policy of propping up failing banks (aka moral hazard).

But yeah, when the obligor borrows money, it does create a deposit. This is part of a much larger and very nefarious system...

I don't want Wikileaks to limit their focus, because most of those groups present equal threats. I don't even know why we separated banking and corporations, since banks are usually corporations. Similarly, why do we have separate options for the military and the government? And, the line between government and corporations has been blurred as we move closer to fascism. However, I would like to know more about the activities of mercenaries and government/defense contractors (Xi, Wackenhut, etc), and political organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce and the various parties and caucuses. Effectively, they are all synonymous - they are all controlled by the greatest REAL threat to freedom avaricious plutocrats.

I really don't care what my neighbors are doing, unless they are plutocrats and politicians doing something that truly effects me like dumping toxic waste in the neighborhood. Besides, I have wireless cams set up on the houses where they throw the "good" parties.

I want any usable parts donated for transplant, and then I'd like a Woodstockesque concert at my wake where they pump me full of drugs and alcohol and have "You're next..." tattooed across my body in several places. Then I want my alcohol-embalmed body donated to science for some college student to dissect. Finally, I want any remaining pieces stuffed into a rocket, and launched into the sun. Optionally, I'll take regular cremation or dropped into a volcano, but I'd prefer being launched into the sun.

I'd take the million, and then do what I want. Personally, I despise Microsoft, but Google is getting large enough to worry about who is at the helm.

Seriously though, not using Google would cost the larger companies more than 1MM. In marketing/advertising you use any and all channels to generate leads.

You know, this might also fall into exclusionary practices, which could cause the DOJ to pursue anti-trust case against MS and Mark "I smoke a lotta" Cuban.

Just my ($1/pi)*2^3 Hope you got your money's worth...

So what, then, would you call an entity that is in general designed to remove wealth from as many hands as possible and put it into as few hands as possible?

The correct term is corporatism or fascism, which seems to be the direction of the Republican party. This is the fundamental argument against unregulated capitalism which has become prevalent in the US over the past 100 years.

Not that I believe the Democrats are any better, since they ultimately are a corporatist organization as well. The Dems just lack the organization...

If it was only .01%... I'm thinking it's somewhere closer to 10-15% are truly unscrupulous, and another 10-20% that are either stupid or naive enough to follow the former set. Of that, I'd say half or more are actually capable of causing real problems (which is an amazing success rate, considering societies tendency to object to maliciousness). Thus, the effective number of assholes and blindly ignorant follows is fairly high (billions). Who was it that said, "Those who desire power, usually don't deserve it"?

I'm really surprised, though, that this ad-based malware is only making news now. Using ads to traffic malware has been going on for at least the last 5 years.