Visa reinstates financial block on WikiLeaks

[jes]

Visa reinstates financial block on WikiLeaks

Visa Europe has reinstated its block on credit card donations to whistleblower website WikiLeaks

 

[w1z4rd]

So Visa, without a court order or even a case number decided to block payments because some corporate executive has a political opinion thats different from Assange.

Kinda goes to show you, that Mastercard, Paypal and Visa can steal your money if they dont like your politics.... and theres almost nothing you can do about it.

 

[zamicro]

So Visa, without a court order or even a case number decided to block payments because some corporate executive has a political opinion thats different from Assange.

Kinda goes to show you, that Mastercard, Paypal and Visa can steal your money if they dont like your politics.... and theres almost nothing you can do about it.

One more reason why we need not be too dependand on services from one country. If there was another card company from Europe, I can promise you Visa or MasterCard would not have done it.

 

[elvis_presley]

So Visa, without a court order or even a case number decided to block payments because some corporate executive has a political opinion thats different from Assange.

Why would they need any of those? Any company in the world has the right to not do business with anyone they want. And you're leaping to some pretty big conclusions re: the political agendas.

Kinda goes to show you, that Mastercard, Paypal and Visa can steal your money if they dont like your politics.... and theres almost nothing you can do about it.

Who's stealing what? If you go to ABSA and they don't want to give you a credit card machine because you have a criminal record or bad credit history doesn't mean they STOLE your money, it just means you can't process your payments through them. As the middle man, they become responsible for the collection of the money and defending the chargebacks, etc. If the governments went after Wikileaks' money trail, Visa would be left carrying the can, and fighting a legal battle for Assange. It's just business, they thought the risk wasn't worth it. It's not some massive conspiracy.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Who's stealing what? If you go to ABSA and they don't want to give you a credit card machine because you have a criminal record or bad credit history doesn't mean they STOLE your money, it just means you can't process your payments through them. As the middle man, they become responsible for the collection of the money and defending the chargebacks, etc. If the governments went after Wikileaks' money trail, Visa would be left carrying the can, and fighting a legal battle for Assange. It's just business, they thought the risk wasn't worth it. It's not some massive conspiracy.

So give us some other examples where Visa and Mastercard have done this to a perfectly legal media organisation that operates entirely within the law.

 

[elvis_presley]

So give us some other examples where Visa and Mastercard have done this to a perfectly legal media organisation that operates entirely within the law.

My company, about 8 years ago. Didnt have the credit rating.

I'd imagine an organization whose leader is on the run a bunch of governments, and has tons of explosive data he releases at whims to serve his own agenda is far more of a credit risk than my little company was a few years ago.

By the way, Wikileaks is distributing information which has been proven to have been obtained illegaly. The organization's legitimacy is in question. It started off as a nice open project one could have faith in, but today it's become a closed publication, controlled by people we know nothing about. I dont know why people think it's so good and right and above reproach. I've been reading for MONTHS about files Wikileaks has that show the US army murdering people, proof how the banking system is corrupt, etc. Plus Assange has that super amazing thing that will blow everyone's mind that he's threatened to release if he's thrown in jail.

Seriously. Blackmailing governments with secret data, and sitting on other data which exposes corruption in the world banking system. He's as bad as the people he says he's fighting. I wouldn't want him as a customer, would you?

 

[copacetic]

By the way, Wikileaks is distributing information which has been proven to have been obtained illegaly

Oh?

How is what Wikileaks have done different to ANY OTHER MEDIA ORGANIZATION?

 

[elvis_presley]

Oh?

How is what Wikileaks have done different to ANY OTHER MEDIA ORGANIZATION?

I take it you're not following this News of the World story that's happening right now.

News organizations arent allowed to break the law to get their stories. You can't go on the record with the information, else you're implicit in the crime. I think you're confusing this attorney/client priviledge.

 

[copacetic]

I take it you're not following this News of the World story that's happening right now.

No, I'm not.

News organizations arent allowed to break the law to get their stories.

You've yet to illustrate how Wikileaks has broken the law.

You can't go on the record with the information, else you're implicit in the crime.

Not sure what you mean.

I think you're confusing this attorney/client priviledge.

I'm not, no.

 

[Gatecrasher]

You can't go on the record with the information, else you're implicit in the crime. I think you're confusing this attorney/client priviledge.

The receiving of secret documents from a confidential source by a media organisation is very, very far from illegal. You most certainly can go on the record with the information. Any media organisation worth its salt does it on a daily basis: New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Mail & Guardian, etc, etc, etc...

Actually, I don't know why I'm even bothering to state something this is so patently obvious...

News of the World broke the law with illegal wire tapping. Wikileaks broke no such law, and no amount of secretly empaneled Grand Juries will prove otherwise.

 

[copacetic]

Okay, I've just looked at this News of the World thing, and as noted above, there's no comparing the two. At all.

So, please:

You have stated that Wikileaks has broken the law - Please elaborate and show proof.

Explain to us how what Wikileaks do, is different to any other major paper.

I presume then, that you feel any paper that has used information provided by Wikileaks is in the wrong then?

 

[elvis_presley]

The receiving of secret documents from a confidential source by a media organisation is very, very far from illegal. You most certainly can go on the record with the information. Any media organisation worth its salt does it on a daily basis: New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Mail & Guardian, etc, etc, etc...
Actually, I don't know why I'm even bothering to state something this is so patently obvious...

M&G (and those other publications) aren't known for peddling stolen information, they're known for getting information that people (usually corrupt and incompetent government employees) are trying to hide, that should be publically available anyway. The ANC is trying to classify these as "top secret" so it would be a crime to publish it. Wikileaks accepted tens of thousands of protected "top secret" documents they knew were stolen from the US government, or that were diplomatically protected.

There are frameworks for dealing with secret and stolen information, there's entire whistleblower laws. They involve lawyers, not journalists. These laws aren't set up to be circumvented by a random person calling themself a journalist publishing it with impunity.

I really, really hope you don't believe that stealing confidential top secret military information and publishing it without consequences is a good thing, and that ANYBODY in the chain of events isn't implicit in the problem.

 

[elvis_presley]

You have stated that Wikileaks has broken the law - Please elaborate and show proof.

The reason that Assange is hiding in safe harbours, and is fighting extradition to a place that the US can get their hands on him, is that they want to prosecute him: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ae43d12-acd1-11df-8582-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RYYGDhcR ... it's generally accepted he'll beat the sexual assault charges, but the second he gets off a plane in a place where the US can bully the government into giving him up, he's off to trial.

Explain to us how what Wikileaks do, is different to any other major paper.
I presume then, that you feel any paper that has used information provided by Wikileaks is in the wrong then?

Wikileaks is trying to bypass the whistleblower laws and go straight to the public. Newspapers don't (shouldn't) do that. And when they do, they end up in court. The media is one sided with its own agenda, I trust them to do the right thing, as much as our government will, which isnt a lot.

Papers shouldn't republish the data, and a lot of them get around it by providing "opinion on the data", not actually republish the raw information. but they're quite happy to let wikileaks take the brunt of the legal action. It's impossible to go after every single paper that republished it.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Wikileaks accepted tens of thousands of protected "top secret" documents they knew were stolen from the US government, or that were diplomatically protected.

None of the US documents published by Wikileaks were classified as "top secret". The documents are being released through, and in collaboration with, main stream media outlets. Potentially harmful information that could affect innocent parties is redacted from the documents.

I'd love to go on debating this with you, but I think you need to go and do some homework first.

 

[elvis_presley]

None of the US documents published by Wikileaks were classified as "top secret". The documents are being released through, and in collaboration with, main stream media outlets.
I'd love to go on debating this with you, but I think you need to go and do some homework first.

Okay, they were classified "secret"... not "top secret" ... We've both been educated ... it's still breaking the law though.

Potentially harmful information that could affect innocent parties is redacted from the documents.

This is half the problem. Who are Wikileaks to be the filter of this information? They say the big problem is that the governments filter information. Then they get some unfiltered information and filter it, proving that filtering information is necessary. WTF. By the time the public gets this "explosive" data Wikileaks gets, it's so tame and watered down; most the chatter around wikileaks is about wikileaks, not the crappy data they release. And then Assange holds back the best info for himeslf as blackmail material in case he gets caught. Yay freedom of speech.

Which comes back to the original point: Why the hell should Visa put themselves in the middle of this game that Assange is playing? Why should they be OBLIGATED to process this guy's payments?

Don't get me wrong - a lot of what Wikileaks done is legal and good (much like what M&G does here), but the problem is Assange chooses to taint the whole project with crap like this. He should tell people that come to him with illegal data, to follow the whistleblowing laws in their country, so that they will be protected, and not end up like Bradley Manning, naked, on suicide watch, in a military holding cell somewhere. I bet he's not so keen on Wikileaks now.

 

[copacetic]

The reason that Assange is hiding in safe harbours, and is fighting extradition to a place that the US can get their hands on him, is that they want to prosecute him: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ae43d12-acd1-11df-8582-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RYYGDhcR ... it's generally accepted he'll beat the sexual assault charges, but the second he gets off a plane in a place where the US can bully the government into giving him up, he's off to trial.

Prosecute him for what exactly?

I mean, I know they are trying to put together a case, but I cannot see how they could achieve this without having to arrest the heads of every other media outlet that's received and disseminated information the US government does not want them to. That would be, erm, all of them, by the way.

Wikileaks is trying to bypass the whistleblower laws and go straight to the public. Newspapers don't (shouldn't) do that. And when they do, they end up in court. The media is one sided with its own agenda, I trust them to do the right thing, as much as our government will, which isnt a lot.

I really don't understand what you are saying here.

Papers shouldn't republish the data, and a lot of them get around it by providing "opinion on the data", not actually republish the raw information. but they're quite happy to let wikileaks take the brunt of the legal action. It's impossible to go after every single paper that republished it.

They can't go after the papers, because like Wikileaks, the papers have broken no laws.

 

[Gatecrasher]

Okay, they were classified "secret"... not "top secret" ... We've both been educated ... it's still breaking the law though.

Bradley Manning may have broken the law. Not Wikileaks.

This is half the problem. Who are Wikileaks to be the filter of this information? They say the big problem is that the governments filter information. Then they get some unfiltered information and filter it, proving that filtering information is necessary. WTF. By the time the public gets this "explosive" data Wikileaks gets, it's so tame and watered down; most the chatter around wikileaks is about wikileaks, not the crappy data they release. And then Assange holds back the best info for himeslf as blackmail material in case he gets caught. Yay freedom of speech.

If you only choose to read smear and diversionary articles on JA and Wikileaks then it would be very easy to come away with that impression. But if you actually read some serious articles covering the contents of the leaked documents you would not use words like "watered down" and "tame".

Which comes back to the original point: Why the hell should Visa put themselves in the middle of this game that Assange is playing? Why should they be OBLIGATED to process this guy's payments?

It's not "this guy's" payments. It is payments to Wikileaks, a media organisation. The original point is: why shouldn't they? Why should Visa be allowed to dictate what you or I do with our money? Who elected them? Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? If a properly constituted court rules that Wikileaks is operating illegally then, and then only, should Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al, take action.

Don't get me wrong - a lot of what Wikileaks done is legal and good (much like what M&G does here), but the problem is Assange chooses to taint the whole project with crap like this. He should tell people that come to him with illegal data, to follow the whistleblowing laws in their country, so that they will be protected, and not end up like Bradley Manning, naked, on suicide watch, in a military holding cell somewhere. I bet he's not so keen on Wikileaks now.

Bradley Manning blabbed to a former convicted hacker, Adrian Lamo, who turned him over to the FBI. Not much Wikileaks could have done to prevent that.

Wikileaks uses submission protocols that ensures that even they don't know the identity of their sources. The first time they ever heard of the name Bradley Manning would have been when he was arrested.

And on the contrary, I bet Bradley Manning is just as keen on Wikileaks now as he ever was, and given the global impact his leaks have had, probably more so.

 

[elvis_presley]

Prosecute him for what exactly?
I mean, I know they are trying to put together a case, but I cannot see how they could achieve this without having to arrest the heads of every other media outlet that's received and disseminated information the US government does not want them to. That would be, erm, all of them, by the way.

From what I can gather, Assange/Wikileaks set up the system to get the data to them anonymously/encrypted, so Wikileaks is aiding the data theft. Not sure how legally sound it is, but it sounds at least plausible to me. There's a clear difference between that and the publications that consume the data.

>>Wikileaks is trying to bypass the whistleblower laws and go straight to the public
I really don't understand what you are saying here.

What I'm saying is - there's no doubt the person who actually took the classified data broke laws. If it is indeed data that the public should see, governments actually have provision in their legal systems for that. Whistleblower laws. You go to a lawyer. You get attorney/client priviledge. Then you work from there. Assange was downright irresponsible accepting that data and passing on the legal ramifications to the leaker. He knows all about these legal procedures, but chose to take the data and publish it, because it furthered his agenda.

They can't go after the papers, because like Wikileaks, the papers have broken no laws.

Yup... I'm sure the papers filter the data and water it down through their lawyers, so probably are in the clear. I doubt any reputable paper would publish these things without doing at least that, and the governments know it's probably not worth their time pursuing the matter.

 

[elvis_presley]

Bradley Manning may have broken the law. Not Wikileaks.

See above

If you only choose to read smear and diversionary articles on JA and Wikileaks then it would be very easy to come away with that impression. But if you actually read some serious articles covering the contents of the leaked documents you would not use words like "watered down" and "tame".

Every wikileaks leak is supposed to "change the world"... but they never do. At best, they seem confirm what everyone assumes to be true anyway. It's like "ok yeah, i thought as much". But if you look at the wikipedia wikileaks page, they have this amazing set of stuff "coming soon" that'll apparently blow your mind. But it never does.

It's not "this guy's" payments. It is payments to Wikileaks, a media organisation. The original point is: why shouldn't they? Why should Visa be allowed to dictate what you or I do with our money? Who elected them? Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? If a properly constituted court rules that Wikileaks is operating illegally then, and then only, should Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, et al, take action.

I don't know why you think Visa has a political agenda. Whoever accepts and passes on Wikileaks' money is at some point going to take some heat from governments. It's quite understandable to see Visa would just want to avoid that. Not much money to be made, big risk. Purely a business decision. Any company can choose to not take on a client's business even if they're not guilty of anything. Most restaurants have "right of admission reserved" above their door. If you're a bit tipsy and talking loudly, they can refuse to let you in. You're not breaking any laws. Same thing here. Visa have obvioulsy determined that the heat they will take by NOT accepting Wikileaks business is far less than the heat they'll get for taking it.

Bradley Manning blabbed to a former convicted hacker, Adrian Lamo, who turned him over to the FBI. Not much Wikileaks could have done to prevent that.
Wikileaks uses submission protocols that ensures that even they don't know the identity of their sources. The first time they ever heard of the name Bradley Manning would have been when he was arrested.

See above

 

[Gatecrasher]

See above.