Page 1 of 1
#1 Mastercard & Visa refuse payments to Wikileaks.
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:36 pm
by frigidmagi
Cnet
MasterCard is pulling the plug on payments to WikiLeaks, a move that will dry up another source of funds for the embattled document-sharing Web site, CNET has learned.
MasterCard logo
There are some things you can't buy with MasterCard.
"MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products," a spokesman for MasterCard Worldwide said today.
That further limits the revenue sources for WikiLeaks, which has seen its finances systematically attacked in the last few days, as the Swiss authorities shut down a bank account used by editor Julian Assange, and PayPal permanently restricted the account used by the group. WikiLeaks has responded with an increasing number of fund-raising requests that urge supporters to "KEEP US STRONG."
Assuming that MasterCard blocks payments, the only easy way to donate electronically would be with a Visa credit card through a Web page hosted by Iceland-based DataCell.com. Representatives of Visa did not respond to requests for comment from CNET today. (WikiLeaks also solicits payments sent through the U.S. mail.)
MasterCard said it was cutting off payments because WikiLeaks is engaging in illegal activity. "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal," spokesman Chris Monteiro said.
The move to cordon off WikiLeaks comes as a noose appears to be tightening around the neck of editor Julian Assange, who is the target of an arrest warrant issued today in the United Kingdom, according to a BBC report. He is expected to appear in a U.K. court tomorrow.
WikiLeaks previously was given the boot from its United States-based hosting services and domain name services. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said last Wednesday: "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."
Since then, U.S. politicians have stepped up their criticism of the document-sharing site, which has posted only about 1,000 of 251,000 State Department dispatches it says it possesses and has shifted to the WikiLeaks.ch domain. "I think the man is a high-tech terrorist," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday, referring to Assange. "He has done enormous damage to our country."
In addition, the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants WikiLeaks listed as a "terrorist" organization, which would prohibit U.S. banks from processing payments and make it a felony for anyone else to provide "material support or resources" to the group. CNET reported earlier today that some U.S. government employees are being blocked from visiting WikiLeaks' Web site and the myriad mirror sites that have sprouted in the last few days.
Actually no, you can't use Visa.
Yahoo
Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks pending an investigation of the organization's business.
Visa's decision is a powerful blow to the loosely knit organization, which relies on online donations to fund its operations.
Popular online payment company PayPal, Inc. has already severed its links with WikiLeaks. Visa's decision to pull the plug on WikiLeaks leaves the website with one fewer source of revenue.
Swiss authorities closed Assange's new Swiss bank account Monday
Assholes the lot of them. Let me blunt here, Wikileaks releases classified information, no action. Wikileaks releases personal information, no action. Wikileaks releases Top Secret information, no action. Censorship lists, corruption scandals in other nations, information on assets in Afghan, NO ACTION!
Assange whispers about releasing data on Bank of Ameircan. Shittons of action.
I call bullshit. Tons of bullshit. This is nothing more then petty spite driven by a desire to prevent anything from touching their business practices (I should mention that BoA is very much in bed with Visa). BULLSHIT!
#2
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:54 pm
by General Havoc
I cannot even speak straight, I am so enraged by this news. Accustomed as I am to becoming incandescently angry about the news, this has taken the cake. My money is not Visa's to apportion out as they see fit, and if I choose to give it to the re-animated shade of Adolph Hitler, then I WILL FUCKING DO SO.
As soon as I heard this news, I went online and donated money to Wikileaks. I may do so again. The CIA, the NSA, and Visa can all quote me on that.
#3
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:39 pm
by Charon
Getting arrested is not call to release blackmail information. Credit card companies being fuckwits however? That is absolutely call to drop the fucking bomb.
Dear Mastercard and Visa, this is a free and capitalist society. If I want to give my money to North Korea I could. That is why it is called MY MONEY.
Fucking pricks.
Also;
"I think the man is a high-tech terrorist," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said yesterday, referring to Assange. "He has done enormous damage to our country."
Terrorist? Last I checked the man hasn't blown up any buildings or gotten any of our civilians killed. Nor has any of the damage he's dealt to us actually been that severe. Maybe if you quit being complete asshats he'd have less ammunition on you, ever think of that? When someone points out that you've been shitting on the front stoop, it's bad form to point at them and say they're really the bad guy for pointing out that you're a dick.
Just one more reason that I could not survive as a politician...
#4
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:11 am
by Derek Thunder
To play a bit of Devil's Advocate (maybe lesser demon advocate) I'm not sure that it's legal to facilitate transfers of money to or from criminal organizations. On the other hand, Wikileaks does not meet that standard in any meaningful way.
Gah, Visa/Mastercard are just like Lando Calrissian.
#5
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:40 am
by Stofsk
Derek Thunder wrote:To play a bit of Devil's Advocate (maybe lesser demon advocate) I'm not sure that it's legal to facilitate transfers of money to or from criminal organizations. On the other hand, Wikileaks does not meet that standard in any meaningful way.
It doesn't meet that standard at all. What the banks are doing here is more criminal than anything wikileaks has done.
Gah, Visa/Mastercard are just like Lando Calrissian.
damnit i said i wouldn't stand for badmouthing Lando Calrissian
#6
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:37 pm
by KlavoHunter
The Internet is already striking back in protest of this bullshit, as Anonymous has DDOS'ed Mastercard and Visa's websites.
#7
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:57 pm
by Destructionator XV
General Havoc wrote:My money is not Visa's to apportion out as they see fit, and if I choose to give it to the re-animated shade of Adolph Hitler, then I WILL FUCKING DO SO.
But, they are under no obligation to carry to them for you.
#8
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:07 pm
by Batman
I very much suspect that unless it is illegal for Havoc to give money to the reanimated shade of Adolf Hitler, yes they are.
#9
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:26 pm
by Destructionator XV
A bank can refuse to cash a check, decline any transaction, or even close your account if they want to. Businesses can refuse certain payment methods or choose not to sell to you at all. I don't see how this is any different.
#10
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:46 pm
by Batman
Destructionator XV wrote:A bank can refuse to cash a check, decline any transaction, or even close your account if they want to.
But not without giving a reason that legally allows them to I bet.
Businesses can refuse certain payment methods or choose not to sell to you at all. I don't see how this is any different.
That'd be the part were they
already agreed to handle Havoc's money. You're essentially arguing that Visa can say' nah, we're not going through with your payments to Microsoft because we like Apple better'.
#11
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:01 pm
by Destructionator XV
Batman wrote:But not without giving a reason that legally allows them to I bet.
Nope. Take this section from my credit card's terms:
"We are not responsible if anyone refuses to accept your Card for any reason. Also, we may reject any transaction for any reason."
My debit card similarly has a term like that, arbitrary limits on it like a fixed amount per day, even if my account balance is well in excess of it.
They're free to do whatever they want, and if I were to later decide I don't like it, I'm just as free to take my business elsewhere. That's what it means to be in a "free and capitalistic society" - it goes both ways.
#12
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:09 pm
by Batman
And Lin wonders why I won't move to the US. Nevertheless, thanks for the clarification.
#13
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:14 pm
by Destructionator XV
I've never had them reject anything for me though... if it weren't in the news, I'd dismiss it as a completely irrelevant in practice Cover Your Ass thing in the contract. But hell I guess they do bullshit from time to time.
#14
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:43 pm
by The Cleric
Destructionator XV wrote:A bank can refuse to cash a check, decline any transaction, or even close your account if they want to. Businesses can refuse certain payment methods or choose not to sell to you at all. I don't see how this is any different.
It's that they're bowing to very obvious political pressure to do this, and NO other reason.
#15
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:59 pm
by Charon
So can the government actually pressure these companies or not? Because I seem to remember that the government was more than happy to suck corporate cock during the beginning of this depression, when these companies had assisted in driving us into the depression.
#16
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:31 pm
by frigidmagi
Yes the government can. It's simply a question of when the government cares to.
#17
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:44 pm
by rhoenix
It's funny that the government raised a minor fuss (comparatively) about Iraq & Afghanistan leaks, but now that some of the main sources of its' politicians' income is threatened, now all the stops are being pulled out.
#18
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:45 pm
by The Cleric
If by funny you mean depressing in ways I have trouble vocalizing, then yes, funny.
#19
Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:07 pm
by Derek Thunder
Charon wrote:So can the government actually pressure these companies or not? Because I seem to remember that the government was more than happy to suck corporate cock during the beginning of this depression, when these companies had assisted in driving us into the depression.
Well, Visa and Mastercard themselves are just payment processors at their core, they're not banks and they don't underwrite the lines of credit on their cards. They're important in the sense that they facilitate a lot of transactions, but they're not even in the same league as a Citigroup, which has about 2 trillion dollars in assets.
I'm not sure that I buy into the notion that the Government is freaking out because of the stuff they may have on Bank of America - I think it's simply the fact that Wikileaks has exposed the United States government as a gaggle of backstabbing, unserious, and incompetent sorority girls posing as a sovereign nation.
#20
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:40 pm
by General Havoc
Derek Thunder wrote:I'm not sure that I buy into the notion that the Government is freaking out because of the stuff they may have on Bank of America - I think it's simply the fact that Wikileaks has exposed the United States government as a gaggle of backstabbing, unserious, and incompetent sorority girls posing as a sovereign nation.
Which section of the recent wikileaks releases are you reading from? I've been reading them as they've become available, and the vast majority show the US government behaving more or less in the way a sovereign nation ought to behave. Documenting lists of threats, giving frank assessments of the state of the world in different parts of the globe, etc... Or are you upset because they referred to Berlusconi as an asshole and Putin as the Alpha dog in Russia?
Yes, there's weirdness in there, I don't quite understand the point of all that UN surveillance nonsense, but it's not like there's anything in those documents that is either unique to the US nor particularly petulant as diplomatic interchange goes, and there certainly no evidence I've seen of a yielding of sovereignty.
#21
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:02 pm
by Derek Thunder
General Havoc wrote:Which section of the recent wikileaks releases are you reading from? I've been reading them as they've become available, and the vast majority show the US government behaving more or less in the way a sovereign nation ought to behave. Documenting lists of threats, giving frank assessments of the state of the world in different parts of the globe, etc... Or are you upset because they referred to Berlusconi as an asshole and Putin as the Alpha dog in Russia?
Eh, perhaps I was being slightly hyperbolic, I'd imagine that the real issue is simply a feeling of embarrassment over classified information being released and a sense of powerlessness against a decentralized network of folks like Assange who work in an un-tameable frontier of free information. Even if he were to vanish tomorrow, others would take his place.
I just don't think it's about BoA because frankly, how could our public perception of them get any worse?
E: Or, maybe they want to stop Assange before he leaks information regarding a certain President betraying a certain light-haired crusader and his friends in order to keep Cloud Ci... I mean, America.
#22
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:08 am
by Comrade Tortoise
General Havoc wrote:Derek Thunder wrote:I'm not sure that I buy into the notion that the Government is freaking out because of the stuff they may have on Bank of America - I think it's simply the fact that Wikileaks has exposed the United States government as a gaggle of backstabbing, unserious, and incompetent sorority girls posing as a sovereign nation.
Which section of the recent wikileaks releases are you reading from? I've been reading them as they've become available, and the vast majority show the US government behaving more or less in the way a sovereign nation ought to behave. Documenting lists of threats, giving frank assessments of the state of the world in different parts of the globe, etc... Or are you upset because they referred to Berlusconi as an asshole and Putin as the Alpha dog in Russia?
Yes, there's weirdness in there, I don't quite understand the point of all that UN surveillance nonsense, but it's not like there's anything in those documents that is either unique to the US nor particularly petulant as diplomatic interchange goes, and there certainly no evidence I've seen of a yielding of sovereignty.
Well, there is the german citizen torturing and "If you pursue interpol warrants against those we ordered to break international law, we wont be friends anymore" thing.
#23
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:52 pm
by General Havoc
And also that bit about the non-sanctioned Tabana Gas mining operation?