Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[Valdemar]

OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.

So?

Anyone can still donate to WikiLeaks. Just use the state system: cash. Not the private systems.

What state system would that be exactly?

V

[The Brain]

OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.

So?

Anyone can still donate to WikiLeaks. Just use the state system: cash. Not the private systems.

What state system would that be exactly?

V

Cash?

[Valdemar]

I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.

Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.

I didn't really ask it for you to answer it

However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?

Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.

This is completely voluntary with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.

V

[Valdemar]

Cash?

International cash transfers? As in bank transfers? or as in handing in the cash in person, after flying half the globe?

V

[garbon]

I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.

Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.

I didn't really ask it for you to answer it

However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?

Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.

This is completely voluntary with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.

V

It sounds like companies are doing what companies should do - protecting their financial interests as they see fit.

I don't understand why a company would need to wait until someone is proven guilty to take action.

[Valdemar]

I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.

Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.

I didn't really ask it for you to answer it

However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?

Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.

This is completely voluntary with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.

V

It sounds like companies are doing what companies should do - protecting their financial interests as they see fit.

I don't understand why a company would need to wait until someone is proven guilty to take action.

I agree they are only excersising their rights not to deal with a customer. I just find it a tad discriminating that they do so with out any, even slim, justification or reasoning. If they decide to censor payments, then other payments should be censored as well, or the guideline for this censoring should be announced.

Besides, they would make money on these transactions as well, why the difference?

V

[The Brain]

or as in handing in the cash in person,

V

Sure.

[Berkut]

While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.

What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?

OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.

How very odd, private censoring.

V

It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.

I am guessing that the reason companies are refusing to take transactions is that some state agency has gone to them and made the argument that facilitating someone who is known to be breaking the law and harming the state as as result could be held as criminally liable. They may not be able to get to Assange, but they can certainly get to PayPal and Visa.

The difference between Wikileaks and the American Society of the Nazi Party or the KKK is that the latter nutbars are not breaking the law, and Wikileaks is.

I don't think this has much to do with censorship, and everything to do with the State using its power to curtail a hostile entity that is refusing to play by the rules.

[The Brain]

While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.

What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?

OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.

How very odd, private censoring.

V

It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.

Exactly. See what happened to Washington Post.

[Berkut]

I like how you as questions and then answer them in the next paragraph.

Its called posing a hypothesis or rethorical questioning.

I didn't really ask it for you to answer it

However, question or not, isn't it odd that a private company, or in this case set of companies set about enforcing censorship on a, until proven guilty, legal organisation? While at the same time not imposing ANY other censorship, nor publising whatever guidelines they deem necesary to follow re censorships?

Usually when companies enforce such things they do it to follow a court decision, along some internal "moral" guidelines, or to follow a law of sorts.

This is completely voluntary with no posted guidelines as to why, aimed at just one, hitherto legal, organsation, while at the same time letting other morally "tainted" recepients off free.

V

Wikileaks is not legal. How in the world could you get the idea that stealing government secrets and publishing them is legal?

And a company cannot hide behind the claim that an actor has not been convicted of a crime as a defense for their complicity in that crime. If I walk into a bank and say "Hey, I made $5 million selling crack, and I need you to launder it, but don't worry, I haven't been convicted!" do you think that will cover the banks criminal liability if they go ahead and launder my cash for me?

Of course not.

Moral taint has nothing to do with this,  I suspect. And for that matter, I would bet dollars to donuts that the government has in fact used this kind of tactic to combat other organizations as well.

[Valdemar]

While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.

What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?

OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.

How very odd, private censoring.

V

It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.

I am guessing that the reason companies are refusing to take transactions is that some state agency has gone to them and made the argument that facilitating someone who is known to be breaking the law and harming the state as as result could be held as criminally liable. They may not be able to get to Assange, but they can certainly get to PayPal and Visa.

The difference between Wikileaks and the American Society of the Nazi Party or the KKK is that the latter nutbars are not breaking the law, and Wikileaks is.

I don't think this has much to do with censorship, and everything to do with the State using its power to curtail a hostile entity that is refusing to play by the rules.

I agree fully that that is likely the real reason, but why not go about saying so?

It still stands that they are using double standards. If DEA went to the same companies wihtout a court order and said "This and that mexican is likely a criminal, or a front for a criminal organsation, do not transfer money to that IBAN number" would they then do it?

V

[Valdemar]

Wikileaks is not legal. How in the world could you get the idea that stealing government secrets and publishing them is legal?

And a company cannot hide behind the claim that an actor has not been convicted of a crime as a defense for their complicity in that crime. If I walk into a bank and say "Hey, I made $5 million selling crack, and I need you to launder it, but don't worry, I haven't been convicted!" do you think that will cover the banks criminal liability if they go ahead and launder my cash for me?

Of course not.

Moral taint has nothing to do with this,  I suspect. And for that matter, I would bet dollars to donuts that the government has in fact used this kind of tactic to combat other organizations as well.

But they haven't been convicted of anything, innocent until proven... and all that

V

[Berkut]

While I deplore WikiLeaks and Assange I find it troublesome that financial companies decide on censorship without any sort of trial or sentence.

What gave the companies the right to decide what is a worthwhile cause to donate money to? Seeing they don't extend their censorship along any oerreaching morale guideline and hit other troublesome organisations it would seem they target WikiLeaks solely for politcal reasons. Is that the job of such organisations?

OTOH, they are private entities and as such at liberty to deny doing business with any customer they chose. Problem is they are not denying all transaction from a given subset of customer, only some of the given customer's transactions. So a customer can try two donations, one to Wikeleaks, and one to KKK, one will go through and one will not.

How very odd, private censoring.

V

It is rather likely that what wikileaks has done is illegal on multiple different levels. The theft and disclosure of state secrets is against the law.

I am guessing that the reason companies are refusing to take transactions is that some state agency has gone to them and made the argument that facilitating someone who is known to be breaking the law and harming the state as as result could be held as criminally liable. They may not be able to get to Assange, but they can certainly get to PayPal and Visa.

The difference between Wikileaks and the American Society of the Nazi Party or the KKK is that the latter nutbars are not breaking the law, and Wikileaks is.

I don't think this has much to do with censorship, and everything to do with the State using its power to curtail a hostile entity that is refusing to play by the rules.

I agree fully that that is likely the real reason, but why not go about saying so?

What is the upside for PayPal or Visa to get into that argument in the press? None for them, so they do the obvious "no comment". Paypal stated however that they closed them down for violating their Terms of Service, which include not using funds transferred for illegal activities.

It still stands that they are using double standards. If DEA went to the same companies wihtout a court order and said "This and that mexican is likely a criminal, or a front for a criminal organsation, do not transfer money to that IBAN number" would they then do it?

V

I bet if I told Paypal that I was using my account to launder drug money, they would close it as well, even if I had not been charged, much less convicted.

Hell, if you were standing on the street, and someone ran up to you and said "Hey, I just robbed a bank! I need to get away from those cops chasing me, can you give me a ride in exchange for $25,000?" and you help him, do you think you could then argue "Buy your honor, he had never been convicted of robbing the bank at that time! Hell, he had not even been charged! How can you possibly hold me responsible! I give people rides all the time, and some of those people are assholes! This guy, other than the occasional rape of Swedes, was actually a pretty nice guy, and we all know the banks are blood sucking parasites anyway!"

[Berkut]

Wikileaks is not legal. How in the world could you get the idea that stealing government secrets and publishing them is legal?

And a company cannot hide behind the claim that an actor has not been convicted of a crime as a defense for their complicity in that crime. If I walk into a bank and say "Hey, I made $5 million selling crack, and I need you to launder it, but don't worry, I haven't been convicted!" do you think that will cover the banks criminal liability if they go ahead and launder my cash for me?

Of course not.

Moral taint has nothing to do with this,  I suspect. And for that matter, I would bet dollars to donuts that the government has in fact used this kind of tactic to combat other organizations as well.

But they haven't been convicted of anything, innocent until proven... and all that

V

Uhhh, no. They've come right out and admitted that they were engaged in illegal activity. As I stated, the fact that someone has not been convicted of a crime does not absolve an accomplice of their liability in abetting that crime.

[Razgovory]

I don't know the legality of what they are doing.  Publishing secret material is not illegal in the US, (as far as I know).  Stealing it is, but publishing isn't.  If they put someone up to it I think it's illegal.  Other countries are different in this respect.

What these companies are doing is boycotting Wikilinks.  The idea that someone should have a conviction before they can be boycotted is kind of silly.  If someone doesn't like the actions of Netflix, they can discontinue that service.  There is no need to ascertain guilty or innocence of actual crime before hand.

Now to be fair, the US government has asked many of these companies to refuse to do business with Wikilinks, but it hasn't forced anyone.