3 ms·
While I understand the logic of your point, I think the assumption you make is that MasterCard will add in the costs of a possible DDos attack when considering
by asr 16y ago
While I understand the logic of your point, I think the assumption you make is that MasterCard will add in the costs of a possible DDos attack when considering whether they made the right business decision.
And I think the answer is no, although it's arguable. There is surely a point at which MC will try to do the "right" thing instead of the profitable thing, and it's easy to see how that point is between cutting off Wikileaks (which arguably is harming US national interests) and changing business strategy to appease hackers.
- kenjackson 16y agoI think you missed his point again. He's not speculating as to what MC will optimize. He's just stating point of fact, as we understand it today. If you do A then B will happen. Given that its unclear to me that what Wikileaks even did is illegal (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html?_r=1) I have little sympathy for MC. It just feels like they're a bully in this situation. It does suck for their customers though. Maybe more customers will drop MC due to their inefficiency? Who knows.
- eli 16y agoHow is it being a bully to deny service to a customer who may or may not be committing a crime? There is no inalienable right to have a credit card merchant account.
- steveklabnik 16y agoThat's why we call it 'being a bully' and not 'committing a crime.'