Are payment processors trying to become the legislature of the new decade?

Biggins

"Are payment processors trying to become the legislature of the new decade?"

Thats the question being asked by Bonnie Lam of MegaUpload service.
See here:
* http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91663/riaa-wants-mastercard-to-cut-off-megaupload/
* http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91680/exclusive-megaupload-issues-response-to-riaa-over-mastercard-cutoff/

On the back of Julian Assange being cut off from receiving serious amounts of donations/funds from supporters, through a number of services that have decided upon themselves that he is guilty of something (I thought a person was innocent until proven guilty!) - the music industry body RIAA (having really failed going after downloaders) has decided to try another tactic and once again attack (via Mastercard whom they are pressurising) the likes of MegaUpload, getting their payment receiving ability stopped!

In other words independently or being asked to by a fellow body, payment services now can cut you off from your funds accumulated already and stop you from receiving money trying to be given to you!

There is the argument that "well you broke our terms and conditions" but what if those "conditions" don't exist yet (and if they don't, hell... we will change our rules till they do!") - is it right that a pure business money making body can step in and undemocratically deny you your rights!
...And all without ever being found guilty of an actual crime?

Has another method just been found to destroy freedoms people once took for granted?

Where does this new method of "divide and conquer" end?

sure dont paypal always suspend payments or withhold money if they think there is anything fishy going on?
it's their service

mconigol

Aren't payment service companies entitled to do business with whomever they like?? Just as the rest of us are entitled to choose whether we wish to use their services or not?

Biggins

bluewolf wrote: »

sure dont paypal always suspend payments or withhold money if they think there is anything fishy going on?
it's their service

They do, but the question is, is it right that a totally independent BUSINESS body can step in and pressurise/request another to deny you your rights - even IF you have not yet broke their (Mastercard as in this case) terms and conditions?

Where was the court case that proved you broke state laws, to have your abilities once used, taken away from you!
Are you now guilty until proven innocent and has an "innocent until guilty" ideology been subtly been reversed due to business concerns alone?

That is the main concern and is our rights being abused and taken away further, inch by inch!
Where does it end?

kowloon

There has to be a court order to suspend a criminals bank account. I don't see how online services like Paypal should be allowed operate any differently. It's still your money. Some people make a living online and rely on the likes of Paypal.

TimTim

bluewolf wrote: »

sure dont paypal always suspend payments or withhold money if they think there is anything fishy going on?
it's their service

Yes, it is part of their t&c of using the service although PayPal is interesting one since they want to act like a bank but not to be regulated like a bank.

I'm guessing if they do that to something large and popular enough you'll find the US eventually trying to introduce laws like the "PayPal regulation act", or "ensuring americans have access to online currency act" which will force them to ease up on using measures like this (unless they are told to do so by the US Govt.)

But as you find everyone is moving to electronic payments, that you'll have to only control 2-3 major companies to seriously affect the ability for someone to receive payments if they aren't liked by a certain large corporation/government.

MagicSean

Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal matters. Civil matters are always dealt with on a balance of probabilities. You don't have a democratic right to use another persons service. To force them to do business with someone they do not agree with would be the undemocratic thing to do.

Biggins

k_mac wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal matters. Civil matters are always dealt with on a balance of probabilities. You don't have a democratic right to use another persons service. To force them to do business with someone they do not agree with would be the undemocratic thing to do.

You make a serious good point.
However if I may add, there is the view that a withdrawal of services - especially in a public light - insinuates that rules have been broken and by that inference, your name and reputation is imputed?

...Again, as in the case of Mastercard and the fellow business pressure being brought to bear upon them from the body RIAA (acting as judge and jury!) and no rules broken by Mastercard T&C, your still considered to be a body/person of repugnance and should be barred from using services that are available to all other decent law abiding citizens!

MagicSean

Biggins wrote: »

You make a serious good point.
However if I may add, there is the view that a withdrawal of services - especially in a public light - insinuates that rules have been broken and by that inference, your name and reputation is imputed?

...Again, as in the case of Mastercard and the fellow business pressure being brought to bear upon them from the body RIAA (acting as judge and jury!) and no rules broken by Mastercard T&C, your still considered to be a body/person of repugnance and should be barred from using services that are available to all other decent law abiding citizens!

If you feel that way you can bring a civil action under the Defamation Act and for breach of contract but these would both be decided on balance of probabilities. So much less proof required on their part.

Biggins

k_mac wrote: »

If you feel that way you can bring a civil action under the Defamation Act and for breach of contract but these would both be decided on balance of probabilities. So much less proof required on their part.

Indeed - so the onus is that your more presumed guilty than innocent by business (and public?) perception from there on in!

I just feel that the current services are being cruelly being used as a backdoor step to have a go at someone, tarnish their name and stop their services/actions - with possible shocking consequences!

Here is a simplistic scenario: Suppose I run a business and a rival business (we will call it "Acme") is working in competition to me, bringing about loss of revenue to me.
I go to any number of financial services WITHOUT ABSOLUTE proof and/or court order and insinuate/pressurise/request (by various means) that my opposition "Acme" states that I is doing something dodgy! The use of the now "guilty until proved innocent" scenario with nothing proved!
...Next thing you know I'm cut off from funding abilities, credit transfer abilities, etc...

Has the backdoor now been opened for anyone to use and abuse others - besides bringing about a denial of basic standard services just because someone else has decided to throw an unproven allegation (and possibly non-state crime more importantly) out there?

Take into account also as the saying also goes, if you throw enough mud, some sticks...
(But thats another aspect!)

I'm playing devils advocate here at times by the way.

MagicSean

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed - so the onus is that your more presumed guilty than innocent by business (and public?) perception from there on in!

This information should only be available to you and the company who stopped your account' They don't advertise their dodgy customers. So nobody will actually know what happened and so you won't really look bad in anyones eyes, unless you decide to tell them yourself.

Biggins wrote: »

I just feel that the current services are being cruelly being used as a backdoor step to have a go at someone, tarnish their name and stop their services/actions - with possible shocking consequences!

Here is a simplistic scenario: Suppose I run a business and a rival business (we will call it "Acme") is working in competition to me, bringing about loss of revenue to me.
I go to any number of financial services WITHOUT ABSOLUTE proof and/or court order and insinuate/pressurise/request (by various means) that my opposition "Acme" states that I is doing something dodgy! The use of the now "guilty until proved innocent" scenario with nothing proved!
...Next thing you know I'm cut off from funding abilities, credit transfer abilities, etc...

Has the backdoor now been opened for anyone to use and abuse others - besides bringing about a denial of basic standard services just because someone else has decided to throw an unproven allegation (and possibly non-state crime more importantly) out there?

Take into account also as the saying also goes, if you throw enough mud, some sticks...
(But thats another aspect!)

I'm playing devils advocate here at times by the way.

But under the Defamation Act they will have to back up all these claims they made to companies or face a lawsuit costing loads.

Biggins

k_mac wrote: »

This information should only be available to you and the company who stopped your account' They don't advertise their dodgy customers. So nobody will actually know what happened and so you won't really look bad in anyones eyes, unless you decide to tell them yourself.

Tell that to Julian Assange.

k_mac wrote: »

...But under the Defamation Act they will have to back up all these claims they made to companies or face a lawsuit costing loads.

If - IF - You can prove what was said within phonecalls, favours asked without actual proof given, etc...

Its not simply about defamation anyway, its about the withdrawal of public services without ever being found fundamentally guilty of something anyway!
(As with RIAA and Mastedcard now)

This current new way of cutting off services/censorship such as MegaUpload and Wikileaks, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, a fear for the future and I suspect a clear indication of more things to come in the same vein!

The next question is... who's next!

(Thanks for your input so far!)

Chardee MacDennis

k_mac wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal matters. Civil matters are always dealt with on a balance of probabilities. You don't have a democratic right to use another persons service. To force them to do business with someone they do not agree with would be the undemocratic thing to do.

so is that why publicans dont have to server tinkers, oh wait....

squod

Another group having a stab at getting control of the internet IMO. First terrorist fear, then pedo fear, next piracy fear and now instilling fear in people by quoting legislature. By definition laws are there to protect the people. Let's not forget that.

bobblepuzzle

No sympathy for Assange tbh, he's just a troublemaker... what did he think was going to happen leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents
And now he's afraid for his life... jeez :rolleyes:

On the funding issues, yes I believe that there has been a shift of power to Paypal etc but they can do what they like as it is their business unless legislation is brought in

Biggins

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

No sympathy for Assange tbh, he's just a troublemaker... what did he think was going to happen leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents
And now he's afraid for his life... jeez :rolleyes:

Can you blame him after the below lot was released and many, many crimes against humanity was discovered!
Shame on him for letting the world know alone what prison guards were up to, who was tortured violently and how they were shipped to their torture places via what countries secretly aiding and abetting! :rolleyes:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

In the funding issues, yes I believe that there has been a shift of power to Paypal etc but they can do what they like as it is their business unless legislation is brought in

Which brings us back to that accusations now are enough to cause a denial of services - possibly even censorship and forced silence!

MagicSean

BastardPrince wrote: »

so is that why publicans dont have to server tinkers, oh wait....

No that's because of politics.

Biggins wrote: »

Can you blame him after the below lot was released and many, many crimes against humanity was discovered!
Shame on him for letting the world know alone what prison guards were up to, who was tortured violently and how they were shipped to their torture places via what countries secretly aiding and abetting! :rolleyes:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks

But do you not see the stupidity of poking a bear and then crying when it tries to maul you?

bobblepuzzle

Biggins wrote: »

Can you blame him after the below lot was released and many, many crimes against humanity was discovered!
Shame on him for letting the world know alone what prison guards were up to, who was tortured violently and how they were shipped to their torture places via what countries secretly aiding and abetting! :rolleyes:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/24/wikileaks


Which brings us back to that accusations now are enough to cause a denial of services - possibly even censorship and forced silence!

That information was never meant to be seen by the public, thats why it is CLASSIFIED. What he's doing with it is stupid and dangerous, not only to himself but to others in the wider world. He could have maybe used a different approach... ie hints to investigative media and the like...

Biggins

k_mac wrote: »

...But do you not see the stupidity of poking a bear and then crying when it tries to maul you?

No, but thats a WHOLE thread topic in itself and could be an interesting one.

My short version reply - unwanting to drag this thread off topic - is that he did what he did and while wishing to continue to due to, made it known that he acknowledged too someone might be out to get him by death if possible.

To be honest, that was obvious anyway by his actions, justified (as some think) or not, (as by others think).

If we all just lived in fear, not speak of dangers and let fear rule us, the world would be a vast different place.
One of more dictatorships. Some more visibly exposed than others that operate behind the scenes as suspected.
...But thats another big topic in itself. Nuff' said by me on that here.

Biggins

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That information was never meant to be seen by the public, thats why it is CLASSIFIED. What he's doing with it is stupid and dangerous, not only to himself but to others in the wider world. He could have maybe used a different approach... ie hints to investigative media and the like...

...And if everything was classified and stayed that way, many a crime etc would be got away with!

* Should the banking wages/bonus details not be made known?
* Should the antics of our own government ministers, their wages, abuse of cars, planes and helicopters and their expenses issues not be known?
* Should the use of Shannon airport possibly being used to move/rendition prisoners not be publicised?

...Aaa but that's different of course! Those are secrets that we should allow to get out?

I quote JFK from America:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101206/01134912143/jfk-secrecy-censorship.shtml

America has certainly fallen far from those once looked up to principles.