5 ms·

An incredibly critical point. A boycott is only effective if the disgruntled group has enough population to affect the business of the target. There in lies th

An incredibly critical point. A boycott is only effective if the disgruntled group has enough population to affect the business of the target. There in lies the problem with a DDoS attack. It is not a symmetrical response. A small group of people could execute such an attack, while the majority of actual customers may not have an issue with their actions.

jacquesm 16y ago
Judging by the difficulty that MC has in dealing with this one I wonder how big that 'small group' really is.
- eli 16y ago
  As compared to total MC customers and daily transactions, I'm sure it's infinitesimal
- danohuiginn 16y ago
  according to netcraft, it only took 400 machines. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/08/visa-com-taken-down-by-botnet-volunteers.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/08/visa-com-taken-...
Daishiman 16y ago
A small group of MC lawyers and executives also has say on whether you can use of the three largest payment methods on the planet to fund a group you sympathise with. When it comes to oligopolies, the usual rule of corporations as private, independent entities that can do whatever they please, goes out the window.
- eli 16y ago
  "Life, liberty, and a credit card merchant account" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Must they also offer service to companies with bad credit or a history of fraud?
  - Daishiman 16y ago
    Bad credit and fraud are actually good reasons to deny a service, and fraud is, you know, an actual criminal offence that is easily demonstrable, unlike the arbitrary decision of the Department of State to not like an organization and whine about it to their corporate friends.
    - eli 16y ago
      Actually if you read the updated story, the State Department didn't say anything to Paypal. It was Paypal's decision. That said, Paypal is not making nearly enough on transaction fees to cover wasting a single minute of a lawyer's time. If there's even a chance of there being legal issues with an account holder, it's almost certainly in their business interest to end that account.
      - Daishiman 16y ago
        Don't be naive. Credit card companies have lobbies which operate in their interests and help pass legislation which favors their industry, much like other financial interests. There doesn't even need to be explicit conversation between government officials and Visa/MasterCard for there to be a conspiracy; it's more of a matter of a gentleman's agreement to cover each other's backs.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  Not that I approve of MC's actions, but I think they're perfectly in their right to deny service to WL. I don't think their excuse of "illegal actions" cuts it, because as it's been pointed out, the illegality of their actions is still in a very gray area. However, I think they should be able to sever ties with a customer and I cannot see what law would prevent them from doing so in this case. WL is not in any protected class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). I don't like that they've denied them service, but I believe it is and should be perfectly legal for them to do so. Can you explain why you think it should be illegal?
  - Daishiman 16y ago
    By arbitrarily accepting or rejecting clients, they essentially determine the existence or lack thereof of these organizations. In the same way that Google has suffered legal action for alleged manipulation of search results (though I must credit them for being very consistent in that regard), MasterCard should also be accountable as not just an actor in a market, but a gatekeeper. A market that's guarded by a couple of monolithic entities with similar interests is not open, and without credit card transactions a lot of international business is essentially impossible. I believe that's too critical an issue to be left to the whims of corporations. The situation would be very different if we had dozens of easily available credit card providers who would take our money with no hassles. Whether you consider that a failure of the states or the corporations is no the issue at hand. The problem is one of assigning too much power to aisngle entity.
  - LiveTheDream 16y ago
    Seeing as "Political Affiliation" isn't in that list of protected classes, does that mean that a private (i.e. non-government) corporation can legally say "I won't sell to you because you're a {Republican,Democrat,insert-your-party-here}"?

jacquesm 16y ago

Judging by the difficulty that MC has in dealing with this one I wonder how big that 'small group' really is.

eli 16y ago
As compared to total MC customers and daily transactions, I'm sure it's infinitesimal
danohuiginn 16y ago
according to netcraft, it only took 400 machines. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/08/visa-com-taken-down-by-botnet-volunteers.html http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/12/08/visa-com-taken-...

Daishiman 16y ago

A small group of MC lawyers and executives also has say on whether you can use of the three largest payment methods on the planet to fund a group you sympathise with. When it comes to oligopolies, the usual rule of corporations as private, independent entities that can do whatever they please, goes out the window.

eli 16y ago
"Life, liberty, and a credit card merchant account" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Must they also offer service to companies with bad credit or a history of fraud?
- Daishiman 16y ago
  Bad credit and fraud are actually good reasons to deny a service, and fraud is, you know, an actual criminal offence that is easily demonstrable, unlike the arbitrary decision of the Department of State to not like an organization and whine about it to their corporate friends.
  - eli 16y ago
    Actually if you read the updated story, the State Department didn't say anything to Paypal. It was Paypal's decision. That said, Paypal is not making nearly enough on transaction fees to cover wasting a single minute of a lawyer's time. If there's even a chance of there being legal issues with an account holder, it's almost certainly in their business interest to end that account.
    - Daishiman 16y ago
      Don't be naive. Credit card companies have lobbies which operate in their interests and help pass legislation which favors their industry, much like other financial interests. There doesn't even need to be explicit conversation between government officials and Visa/MasterCard for there to be a conspiracy; it's more of a matter of a gentleman's agreement to cover each other's backs.
jokermatt999 16y ago
Not that I approve of MC's actions, but I think they're perfectly in their right to deny service to WL. I don't think their excuse of "illegal actions" cuts it, because as it's been pointed out, the illegality of their actions is still in a very gray area. However, I think they should be able to sever ties with a customer and I cannot see what law would prevent them from doing so in this case. WL is not in any protected class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). I don't like that they've denied them service, but I believe it is and should be perfectly legal for them to do so. Can you explain why you think it should be illegal?
- Daishiman 16y ago
  By arbitrarily accepting or rejecting clients, they essentially determine the existence or lack thereof of these organizations. In the same way that Google has suffered legal action for alleged manipulation of search results (though I must credit them for being very consistent in that regard), MasterCard should also be accountable as not just an actor in a market, but a gatekeeper. A market that's guarded by a couple of monolithic entities with similar interests is not open, and without credit card transactions a lot of international business is essentially impossible. I believe that's too critical an issue to be left to the whims of corporations. The situation would be very different if we had dozens of easily available credit card providers who would take our money with no hassles. Whether you consider that a failure of the states or the corporations is no the issue at hand. The problem is one of assigning too much power to aisngle entity.
- LiveTheDream 16y ago
  Seeing as "Political Affiliation" isn't in that list of protected classes, does that mean that a private (i.e. non-government) corporation can legally say "I won't sell to you because you're a {Republican,Democrat,insert-your-party-here}"?