Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard

from the plug-pulled dept

The title of this post is from Rinze, who perfectly sums up the ridiculousness of MasterCard blocking any payment systems that are working with Wikileaks from allowing people to use its card. MasterCard's excuse is even more ridiculous than Paypal, Amazon and others. Rather than drudging up some sort of "terms of service violation," MasterCard is now just making stuff up:
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.
That's nice, but last we checked, for something to be found guilty of illegal activity, first they have to be charged and tried, and only after a court decides it's illegal, is it actually considered illegal. To date, Wikileaks hasn't been even charged with anything, let alone found guilty. Apparently MasterCard isn't a big believer in due process either. It's actually very unlikely that Wikileaks actually has done anything illegal. It is against the law to leak such documents but publishing those documents is still protected activity. Except to MasterCard.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    Mastercard is the card of choice for employment benefits, child support payments, and other government payment programs the nation over. It's not surprising to see them capitulating to the government that helps them make so much money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:10am

    Well I hope they refuse to allow people to put their newspaper subscriptions on their MC

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tony, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Visa, It's Everywhere You Want To Be

    So True. So True. =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DearMrMiller (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:12am

    Visa..

    Visa has also apparently joined the bandwagon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:16am

    As a private business MC is free to do whatever it darn well pleases consistent with the contract it has in place with its subscribers. To start throwing around terms like "due process" ignores the simple fact that due process, if it even applies in the case of WikiLeaks at this point in time, is to conflate the distinction between constitutional limitations on private versus public actors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      Yep, the distinction between 'ethical' and 'legal' is once again portrayed.

      As much as it pains me to agree with a (effing) coward, AC does bring up a valid point.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:27am

        Re: Re:

        I don't think that confusion was ever made. This post doesn't point to the "illegality" of Mastercard's decision, only to its "ridiculousness". This isn't about saying they shouldn't be allowed to do what they did, but it doesn't mean we have to say it was a good ethical decision or even a good business decision.

        If anything Mastercard is the one trying to blur those lines. They are saying they dropped Wikileaks for "legal" reasons, which is clearly not true.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Yeah Right, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:23am

      Re: Private business

      A private business is stating that Wikileaks is "engaging in illegal activity". Without a conviction, shouldn't this statement be considered libel?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:55am

        Re: Re: Private business

        I rather doubt it, but if Assange feels strongly enough about it he is more than free to submit to the jurisdiction of a US court and litigate the issue.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Private business

          I rather doubt it, but if Assange feels strongly enough about it he is more than free to submit to the jurisdiction of a US court and litigate the issue.

          Has he been sued in a US court or are you just making stuff up again?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business

            "Has he been sued in a US court or are you just making stuff up again?"

            He hasn't, but this brings up a new question in the world of emerging digital currency. Doesn't it make sense that we'll need to see a series of lawsuits that will likely result in regulatory legislation on these types of companies? Credit is one thing, but with all of the advances in currency-less transactions, there needs to be some security built around how those transactions are handled and what those facilitating those transactions are allowed and not allowed to do....

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business

            Please read what I said. If the head of WikiLeaks feels he is being maligned, injured, etc. by what some companies here in the US are doing, he is absolutely free to come here and press lawsuits against those companies.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business

              Please read what I said. If the head of WikiLeaks feels he is being maligned, injured, etc. by what some companies here in the US are doing, he is absolutely free to come here and press lawsuits against those companies.

              Are you being purposely naive?

              Amazing.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Chargone (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business

              and probably get shot or arrested as a terrorist the moment he steps off the plane and never be heard from again.

              yeeeeeah.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ignorant_s (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:30am

        Re: Re: Private business

        Maybe not. Libel is defaming or falsely attacking a person or organization (depending on the state) in a permanent medium (like writing) for mass viewership. The truth, opinions or criticism based on how a person who is a voluntary public figure, or privilege (like court testimony or legislative speeches) are all defenses to libel.

        If Assange is charged and convicted of a crime, even subsequent to the statement, well then the truth could be MCs defense. Also, it is hard to argue that Assange/Wikileaks would not be considered a person/organization that has voluntarily put themselves out to the public. Could such a statement as "engaging in illegal activity" be considered an opinion? A legal conclusion? A fair criticism by a non-attorney?

        The fact that MC failed to name the crime does not matter. It could still not be a libelous statement. Non-lawyers who speak critically about organizations that put themselves voluntarily out there, need not have accurately named the crime before any charging documents have been filed to have a defense against libel for a statement that after the fact turns out to be true. I am sure MC has many lawyers reviewing any public statements regarding this issue.

        Many countries, not just the US are talking of charging Assange with a crime, not to mention, he is awaiting extradition to Sweden for a (likely bogus) crime. MC is considering Assange and Wikileaks as one in the same.

        I don't believe this is a due process issue, as MC as a private business has the right to engage in business activity with whomever or whichever entity they please.

        Free speech and freedom of the press have their limitations when it comes to the "protection of vital national security interests". I suppose the US may charge Mr. Assange under the Espionage Act which makes it a crime for an "unauthorized person" to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

        I hate to say it but Assange has an uphill battle. He's screwed. He has pissed off one to many foreign governments for them to let this one go. Ugh.

        At least the debate will continue, because it is an important one.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          ChrisB (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Private business

          > If Assange is charged and convicted of a crime, even
          > subsequent to the statement

          Statements aren't libel if they *might* come true in the future? I call bullsh!t.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            ignorant_s, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 12:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Private business

            The truth of the statement is the defense. If Assange is charged with some crime, that makes MC's statement true, (as bullshitty as that may be). The "illegal activity" arguably would have happened prior to the statement.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:23am

      Re:

      Nobody is saying Mastercard is beholden to due process. You are absolutely right that they are free to do this.

      This issue is with their given reason that wikilieaks is engaged in "illegal activity". This is a flat out lie. Wikilieaks has not even been charged with anything "illegal", let alone convicted. The government can't even figure out which law they could be charged under.

      Does Mastercard know better? Can they point to a law on the books to back up their assertion that Wikileaks is illegal? No. So hiding behind that is a blatantly dishonest PR move. If they want to drop Wikileaks, it's well within their rights, but we don't have to sit here and accept them passing the buck and pretending its about "law" when in fact it is about them voluntarily and arbitrarily discontinuing a client's service.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Richard Kulawiec, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:26am

      Re:

      Yes, yes, we get the difference between contract law and Constitutional guarantees.

      But what MC has done here is to allege a contractual violation without basis in fact. Wikileaks has not been convicted of a crime. It hasn't been charged. And despite all the bluster from Joe "McCarthy" Lieberman et.al., nobody has yet been able to even put up a half-convincing argument they might have committed a crime.

      But let's suppose for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that they have. Then their newspaper partners, who have published the same material that Wikileaks has, have committed that same crime. Will MC be terminating its relationship with The New York Times? If not, why not?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:29am

      Re:

      "As a private business MC is free to do whatever it darn well pleases consistent with the contract it has in place with its subscribers."

      By giving the stated reason of "illegal activity" without there actually being illegal activity, they're opening themselves up for a breach-of-contract suit by Wikileaks. Assuming, of course, you can sue a service provider in an adhesion-contract situation. I know you can sue the crap out of an insurance company for cancelling for the wrong reason (or a reason without proof). Sounds similar to me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Yeah Right, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:38am

        Re: Re:

        Visa Europe and Mastercard both have a provision in their rulebooks which allows them to get away with practically anything:

        Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions
        Any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.

        So if I'm accepting payments through Visa or Mastercard and I tweet: "Visa and Mastercard are rubbish", it is perfectly OK for them to terminate my account.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:01am

        Re: Re:

        As I noted in response to 8 above, there is nothing keeping Assange from appearing in a US court to press a lawsuit for breach of contract or any other civil complaint he believes he may have against MC.

        Perhaps MC, PayPal, or any other private company currently being castigated should consider filing a Declaratory Judgment Action and force the issue.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "As I noted in response to 8 above, there is nothing keeping Assange from appearing in a US court to press a lawsuit for breach of contract or any other civil complaint he believes he may have against MC."

          Nothing except maybe Mike Huckabee waiting for him with a sniper rifle and a bullet with his name on it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 5:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Nothing except being arrested. Ooops!! How stupidly short-sighted you are... or downright clueless of what is going on.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      As a private business MC is free to do whatever it darn well pleases consistent with the contract it has in place with its subscribers. To start throwing around terms like "due process" ignores the simple fact that due process, if it even applies in the case of WikiLeaks at this point in time, is to conflate the distinction between constitutional limitations on private versus public actors.

      No one said that Mastercard *cannot* do what they did. What we said is that the reason they have given for why they did what they did is a lie.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:03am

        Re: Re:

        You say they lied. I do not know if this is true or not, so I am not ready to jump on the "shame on them" bandwagon.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Yeah Right, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, at least you have to question the sense of Visa and Mastercard's actions. What have they accomplished?

          Severed the money flow to Wikileaks? All it takes is for one do-gooder to start accepting money through his Visa or Mastercard account. If this is a nobody I'm sure V/MC will have no qualms in terminating his account. However, if a well-known name such as Reporters without Borders, Amnesty International or let's say the Guardian or the New York Times started a temporary Wikileaks fund, would Visa/Mastercard have the cojones to cut them off?

          There is one thing Visa/Mastercard have accomplished: by their own actions they have damaged the public's perception of their own brand. A number of bloggers have already identified a number of doubtful organisations V/MC have no problems handling funding for. And the unpalatable collusion between them and government is there for all to see.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      moon batchelder, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 3:06pm

      Re: private business

      they are not honoring the contracts they hold with us by refusing to forward our funds...funny, they allow transfers of donations to the KKK, but for wikileaks, they deny us the services they agreed to provide

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Richard Kulawiec, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:22am

    Excellent article by Glenn Greenwald on this matter

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/06/wikileaks/index.html

    You can smell the stink of fear, can't you? Those in power are frightened out of their minds by this -- which is all the more reason that no matter what happens to Assange, no matter what happens to Wikileaks, this can't be stopped...short of shutting down the Internet, and even that will only work temporarily.

    I'm still waiting for the New York Times, Le Monde, the Chicago Tribune, Die Welt, et.al. to step up to their responsibilities as (supposedly) journalists and get into the fight. They have money and lawyers: they should be the first to mirror Wikileaks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:25am

    technically...

    It does say "or facilitating any action that is illegal". While what Wikileaks does is legal, it could be argued that they encourage and possibly facilate the illegal of leaking. It's shaky, and nI don't like Mastercard's actions here, but they may have a point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:28am

    Kudos on a brilliant post title :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:30am

    No, you don't need a court of law to say something is illegal. You need that prove someone guilty and sentence them.

    If you smash up someone's car in front of me, I'm perfectly free to decide you were doing something illegal and then refuse to do business with you. Everyone has that right, even companies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:39am

      Re:

      Except that there is nothing clearcut in this case.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Richard Kulawiec, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:40am

      Re:

      If you smash up someone's car in front of me, I'm perfectly free to decide you were doing something illegal and then refuse to do business with you.

      In the absence of a valid contract, sure. In the presence of a valid contract, I'm not so sure. (Of course I'm not sure, I'm not an attorney. We need an opinion from someone who is and who is appropriately familiar with contract law.)

      But in this case, it's quite clear that MC is lying. Note that while they falsely alleged illegal activity, they failed to say what that illegal activity is.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:13am

      Re:

      You don't "need" anything to say something is illegal.

      Using Mozilla Firefox is illegal.

      See?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:35am

    Can the New York Times people still use Mastercard?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:54am

    I want to state for the record..

    I do not agree nor disagree with what MC or Visa is doing. The know runner of Wikileaks is charged with "Surprise Sex". he admitted he was avoiding Brittish police because he felt he was not guilty. Evading capture *IS* a crime and he has admitted it (I am looking for the transcript of an interview he had). Not to say this is the driving source behind MC and Visa, however technically they are right. Any money going to WikiLeaks is money going to him.

    I personally don't like the man. I feel he only does this to get attention. However, I will add, what he did I feel is morally right. I just don't like his motivation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Shawn (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:56am

      Re: I want to state for the record..

      Pretty sure he is not currently 'charged' with anything. He is wanted for questioning.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:19am

      Re: I want to state for the record..

      Moreover, despite the ongoing misreporting (and your cutesy euphemism notwithstanding), as far as I can tell Julian Assange is not in fact suspected of rape. Yes, there are sexual crimes involved, but they relate to his refusal to get an STD test after two partners asked him to.

      I'm not saying there isn't still some pretty dubious stuff going on with Assange, but I'm a little tired of how the media has leapt on the "rape" bandwagon while offering almost no details.

      The charges he faces and the Wikileaks question are two entirely separate issues. But the media is happy to tag every story about Wikilieaks with "founded by Julian Assange, who is wanted in connection with a rape allegation." You can't find his name more than 5 words away from the word "rape" anymore, and it's unfairly colouring people's perception of the much bigger and non-personal question of Wikileaks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:17am

    Good for MC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:20am

    Looks like I'll be using my American Express card to do my CC-based buying for the near future. (Whether or not Visa is taking MC's approach, I don't have one)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:28am

    Blackmail

    Last I heard Assange said he has a lot of very sensitive documents that has been name "Insurance" and has threated to release the code to decrypt these documents if something happens to him or Wikileaks. To me this sounds like blackmail and last I heard that was illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:34am

      Re: Blackmail

      "To me this sounds like blackmail and last I heard that was illegal."

      Er, no. Blackmail is when you threaten to release information unless you get some kind of undue benefit. Being allowed to live when you've done nothing illegal is not an undue benefit, it's a natural right....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Chris, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Blackmail

        "Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met. This information is usually of an embarrassing, socially damaging, and/or incriminating nature. As the information is substantially true, the act of revealing the information may not be criminal in its own right nor amount to a civil law defamation; it is the making of demands in exchange for withholding the information that is often considered a crime." ~ Wikipedia

        The fact is Assange is withholding sensitive information in exchange for his demands.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: Blackmail

          So... what's he demanding? "Let me live"? "Don't force me out of business illegally?" Sorry... I don't see how those are 'demands' but expectations of a free state.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Chris, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 6:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Blackmail

            He is demanding the govt leave him alone, not shut down his site. He is in the wrong by withholding information and threating to release it if something happens. The govt is in the wrong by going after him. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the govt is after him and he has a right to stay in business does not give him the right to blackmail the govt.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:03am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blackmail

              I still don't see it as blackmail. Blackmail is to coerce someone into action they otherwise would not be expected to take. I.E. "contribute to my campaign, Mr. Money, or I'll release these photos".

              Is it blackmail to threaten your children to spank them (or otherwise punish) if they misbehave? No... you expect good behavior in the first place.

              So is he threatening punishment? Yup. Is it blackmail? Donít think so.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Johnny, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:06am

      Re: Blackmail

      It's not blackmail, it's insurance. If the US kills Assange, that will not be without consequence.

      I am pretty sure, if it were up to bullies like Joe Lieberman, mr. Assange would have already been iced.

      Assange is right to protect himself against such risks.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DOlz (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:35am

    WikiLeaks next leak

    Isn't WikiLeaks next leak supposed to be about the financial industry? If that's the case it's understandable why these companies are trying to cut off its funding. Of course that doesn't make it correct, just understandable that their protecting their own interest while faining moral indignation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jesse, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:36am

    Mastercard should stop working with any major media outlet, because they have disseminated the leaks to the world at large more than Wikileaks ever could have.

    Wikileaks is publishing, not stealing. Let's say it together, with meaning!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rad, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:41am

    What Wiki Leaks is doing is knowingly taking and distributing stolen property. That is illegal court or no court. Besides MC did the right thing since Wiki Leaks activity has been less than on the up and up. Also freedom of the press, kind of a stretch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:24am

      Re:

      Information is not "stolen property". It's massively different under law, no matter what similarities you might see. Please try to understand the basics of the situation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RobertH (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:44am

    This wikileaks fiasco is destroying the credibility on some of our major instutions. I for one am deeply ashamed of the behavior I'm seeing concerning this matter. I was watching a fox video this morning where the news correspondant described wikileaks as "An Information Stealing Site". Excuse me but wikileaks didn't steal anything. Spin Doctors!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Richard Kulawiec, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 9:56am

    Compare and contrast

    (quoted from http://wlcentral.org/ which in turn is quoting from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates?CMP=twt_gu)

    "Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.

    The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are 'white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God.'"

    Now let's compare:
    Wikileaks has: published documents for a few years
    The Klan has: beaten, murdered, lynched, burned, raped for a century and a half.

    Yet Visa and MC are happy to do business with the latter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:13am

      Re: Compare and contrast

      So, under their own T&C, they should cut themselves offf from themselves.

      Awesome! What are the odds of this actually happening?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:10am

    no company needs an excuse

    Mastercard, paypal, you or me, can choose who they want to conduct business with and who they do not. They dont need a reason, and they dont need to justify it to anyone else.


    Just the same as airlines can stop you from flying, if they think you have been drinking too much, or are acting in a way they do not like.

    I run a business, I refuse clients all the time, I also have conditions of service, I will not provide my services unless they are willing to meet my requirements.

    That might be they are required to pay me, or pay me in advance, or it might be that I just dont want to take on that person as a client..

    It is not illegal for me to choose who I conduct by business with or why..

    If I do not morally agree with something (like wikileaks) there is nothing stopping me from taking it upon myself, to make my company not have to deal with that thing I do not like.

    Does that come as a surprise to you that companies can and do pick and choose who their clients are all the time, and that there is no legal requirement forcing a company from dealing with a specific client..

    get over it. they can do what they like, and what you dont like..

    Maybe you can tell wikileaks about it, and they can leak it as news..

    Like the australian venom company that is supposed to be a critical facility for the US, but have not dealt with the US for well over 10 years, and makes anti-venom for Australian native snakes !!!.. (not many of them in the US BTW, in case you didn't know).

    So the validity and accuracy of the material of wikileaks has now be placed into question, just as Julian's motives for leaking, and his reasons for not releasing all information, and censoring that information from us ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:57am

      Re: no company needs an excuse

      "get over it. they can do what they like, and what you dont like.. "

      Except for breaking a contract they entered in with their customer. Ask an insurance company who says "You know, I don't want to do business with you after all, so I'm not going to pay your claim". See how far that one flies.

      I get what you're saying, and you're right... but you didn't factor in contractual obligations.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:22am

      Re: no company needs an excuse

      *sigh*
      Yes. They can do what they like, and we might not like what they do.

      WHICH IS WHY WE SPEAK UP ABOUT IT WHEN IT HAPPENS.

      D'uh. A private company made a private decision that the public disagrees with, so the public takes to blogs and discussion boards and other media to question and criticize that decision.

      It doesn't have to change their mind to be valuable. It's about getting the info and analysis out there. There are many people who, based on this news, need to question their relationship with Mastercard (or their plans for a future relationship) and so discussion is vital.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      David, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 8:14am

      Re: no company needs an excuse

      I quite agree that a company can pick and choose who to do business with. It's their prerogative and they don't have to give a reason. HOWEVER, it appears that Mastercard has publicly stated that Wikileaks is doing something illegal without benefit of charge, trial, verdict and punishment by the courts of the land. This, to me, should be the only criterion as to whether an act is illegal or not. It is not up to a company or an individual to make a unilateral decision or accusations of that nature and, as has been said elsewhere, surely this is good basis for a libel action?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 11:46am

    As a former US Army Intel Officer, I feel Wikileaks is performing a vital social function. It'll eventually be helping the Gov't. to become more honest with it's citizens. With those in power becoming more corrupt with the recent tsunami of Corporate cash in politics, entities like Wikileaks will be sorely needed. They will need robust legal defenses, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    GraemeL, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 1:55pm

    Consistency

    Nice to see some consistency from Visa & MasterCard in closing off funds to a criminal enterprise like Wikileaks in exactly the same way that they do with the criminal gangs behind pills and counterfeit watch spam.

    Oh, wait...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

    that headline is just perfect. bravo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    dullgeek (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 2:16pm

    That seems to go a bit far...

    While I agree w/you that WikiLeaks has not been convicted of anything, I'm not sure that's the standard that MC has to follow. If conviction is the only way in which MC can cut off business with someone then how do they handle the case when they suspect credit card fraud? Can they cut the fraudulent transactions off before the aleged fraudster is convicted? What about if MC suspects someone is using their card for money laundering. Can they cut off transactions then, before the money launderer is convicted?

    IMHO, as has been stated by other commenters, MC is a private company who can refuse, at any point, to cease doing business with any of its customers if it so chooses. The fact that my MC worked yesterday does not obligate MC to provide me service today nor tomorrow.

    I don't think MC made a smart move here. But I don't see that they acted in any way outside of their rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 3:26pm

      Re: That seems to go a bit far...

      "While I agree w/you that WikiLeaks has not been convicted of anything, I'm not sure that's the standard that MC has to follow."

      If MC says that they are going to terminate a vendor contract on those grounds, I'd say that makes it the standard that they have to follow.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        dullgeek (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:19pm

        Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

        If MC says that they are going to terminate a vendor contract on those grounds, I'd say that makes it the standard that they have to follow.

        I don't think that's true. I'm quite certain that MC doesn't have to wait until a person is convicted of money laundering to cut off transactions on the card that's involved in the money laundering. They need merely suspect it. In fact, I suspect they can cut me off if they simply think I'm committing a crime.

        Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Wikileaks shouldn't have access to credit. I'm just saying that it should be within the rights of every business to exercise whatever judgement it has on who it does business with. Businesses that are arbitrarily discriminatory will not last long in a competitive environment.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 6:02am

          Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

          If MC were to accuse me of illegal action and terminate my contract on those grounds, I could sue them for breach of contract if those grounds were untrue. Simple as that.

          Will Wikileaks sue? I have no idea. Were I them, I'd just make a very public campaign about unfair business practices by these companies and hit them where it hurts: their reputation.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            dullgeek (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

            What contract do you think you have with MC? They have a terms of use. They don't have a contract with you. They are not obliged to provide you credit. They agree to continue doing it as long as long as they feel like you're a good risk.

            In return for this, you get the right to stop using MC if they start doing things you don't like. What contract are you talking about?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              dullgeek (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:32am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

              That said, if there is such a contract, I agree with you that this would probably breach it.

              But AFAIK, credit card companies don't operate under the terms of a fixed length contract but under terms that can be canceled by either party at any time.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 8:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

                "But AFAIK, credit card companies don't operate under the terms of a fixed length contract but under terms that can be canceled by either party at any time."


                Those cancellation terms are usually included... either party can request a termination of the contract. But it usually has to be done with notice. The problem here is that MC is citing a reason. If they cite a reason, it binds them to the accuracy of that reason. Otherwise, it's a breach.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gabriel Tane (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 8:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

              Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding, MC has revoked their vendor agreement with Wikileaks; the way in which people can donate money to them. If that's the case, there's a contract involved. And remember, a TOS is usually a contract as well. You don't have to sign it for it to be a contract. I haven't signed for my insurance in years (Florida doesn't require a signature), but it's still binding on both parties.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 3:40pm

      Re: That seems to go a bit far...

      While I agree w/you that WikiLeaks has not been convicted of anything, I'm not sure that's the standard that MC has to follow. If conviction is the only way in which MC can cut off business with someone then how do they handle the case when they suspect credit card fraud?

      No one's saying that MC *can't* do this. They absolutely can. What we're saying is that they're LYING about the reason.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        dullgeek (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 8:14pm

        Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

        Ok.

        I guess I don't see the significance of this. Because hearing that a vendor is lying just doesn't strike me as that out of the ordinary.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 10:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

          Out of the ordinary? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't point it out. In fact I'd argue that it's absolutely vital for blogs like this one to expose when companies are being dishonest. By your argument, one could say "governments becoming corrupt isn't out of the ordinary, so government corruption is insignificant and shouldn't be reported on"

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            dullgeek (profile), Dec 8th, 2010 @ 7:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: That seems to go a bit far...

            I don't have an issue with techdirt reporting this. I just misunderstood what techdirt was trying to say.

            That said, there is still a difference between government malfeasance and private company malfeasance. I can freely withdraw my funding of the private company but I can not of government. As a result, I think reporting on government malfeasance is more important.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Daemon_ZOGG (profile), Dec 7th, 2010 @ 6:34pm

    "MasterCard blocking any payments working with Wikileaks"

    I don't use credit cards because of the "fine print" games they like to play with customers.. Though, my eventual "cash" donations to Wikileaks will work just fine. Even better.. Mastercard, Visa, or PayPal won't make a dime from my Wikileaks donations. My gain, their loss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      SA, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 8:05am

      Re: "MasterCard blocking any payments working with Wikileaks"

      how do you sleep at night knowing that you have contributed to the possible destruction of our national security?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    SA, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 8:00am

    how can any of you possibly believe that wikileaks is not leaking confidential information!? 'publishing' and 'leaking' in this instance are no different! this is causing a breach in our national security and jeopardizing the safety of everyone in this country! i cannot believe the ignorance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    moon batchelder, Dec 8th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    sue their censoring asses

    think we should all donate...then, when they deny the payments from reaching wikileaks, join one another in a class action lawsuit against them both!...mastercard and visa...
    visa allows donations to KKK without a blink...but has to investigate criminal wrongdoing before allowing us to support a whistle-blowing investigative news organisation...
    DataCell, who transfers credit card payments to wikileaks has already filed suit against these two hypocrits

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This