10 ms·

WikiLeaks wins case against Visa

325 points by Kenan 14y ago

pvnick 14y ago
Was this really the main obstacle for donations involving Visa? Does forcing the Icelandic arm of Visa to accept donations mean that Americans will be able to donate to Wikileaks? It seems farfetched that an international company as large as Visa would actually follow these orders, seeing as they probably want to protect themselves from leaks involving their own interests.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  If a company has a branch in a given country, that country can hold the local branch legally responsible for the actions of branches elsewhere, including non-compliance with local rulings. Unless VISA wants to close VISA Iceland (Valitor) completely and write off the entire country, they either have to win their appeal or comply with the ruling.
- jeltz 14y ago
  > It seems farfetched that an international company as large as Visa would actually follow these orders, seeing as they probably want to protect themselves from leaks involving their own interests. Not at all. It is just about which is most valuable to VISA. Not losing the Icelandic market or complying with the wishes of the US government. This is the reason why not just European companies pay up when fined by the European Court. You have the choice to either comply and pay the fine or to leave the country (perhaps getting all your assets there confiscated). It might be worth leaving Iceland since it is a quite small country. It all depends on how much complying with the US government is worth and how big the PR hit of leaving Icleand is.
beggi 14y ago
The headline is a little misleading. DataCell, Wikileaks hosting provider, actually won a case against the local company Valitor, VISA's issuer and processor in Iceland. Also in case you're wondering as I was, Wikileaks was not awarded compensatory damages but Valitor must reopen their payment gateway within 2 weeks (although they can still appeal to a higher court).
- tokenadult 14y ago
  The source of the submitted article, rt.com, is not known for careful journalism. I'll check what other sources say about the full implications of the case. After edit: Now I've had time to check some other news sources. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawyer-wikileaks-wins-icelandic-court-victory-in-financial-fight-against-visa-mastercard/2012/07/12/gJQAe0kPfW_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawyer-wikileaks-wins... "The implications of the judgment, which Valitor plans to appeal, weren’t immediately clear. "Even if Valitor is eventually forced to comply with the judgment, it isn’t clear whether Visa or MasterCard would allow their customers to make donations to DataCell or WikiLeaks. Both companies have refused to deal with WikiLeaks for the better part of two years, leading to allegations that they had bowed to U.S. pressure to starve the organization of funds." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-blockade/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-bloc... "The Associated Press reports that Valitor can appeal the decision, but even if it chooses to comply with the judgment, it’s not clear that Visa or MasterCard will still allow customers to make donations to DataCell or WikiLeaks."
  - maratd 14y ago
    > The source of the submitted article, rt.com, is not known for careful journalism. Understatement of the year.
    - alexqgb 14y ago
      Remember, that's "R" as in "Russia", which really isn't a region renowned for reliable reporting.
      - ZeroMinx 14y ago
        As opposed to the United States of Murdoch (?!)
        tptacek 14y ago
        Yes. Because Fox News exists, US journalism is totally no more reputable than Russian journalism.
DiabloD3 14y ago
I reported this earlier, I think (unless this is a different Icelandic Visa Wikileaks case): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235397
nhangen 14y ago
Don't credit card providers' terms of service give them the right to block payments to those that use the service in violation?
- trevelyan 14y ago
  In violation of what? Journalism is not illegal.
  - nhangen 14y ago
    I'm not arguing for or against Wikileaks as illegal, I'm just wondering if, from a purely legal standpoint, Visa has a right to refuse service to a business based on their terms of service?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
batgaijin 14y ago
RT also did an awesome program with Assange while he was under house arrest: http://assange.rt.com/ http://assange.rt.com/
asdfasdghasdf 14y ago
This is a pretty poor article, unsurprising coming from an arm of the Russian government that employs Julian Assange. Here's a summary without any politics or conspiracy theories. So, each payment that Visa or Mastercard process comes with a risk. If that payment was made with a stolen card, Visa and Mastercard are on the hook for it. Because of that, for example, the fee the merchant pays per transaction can be wildly different depending on its nature. In-person transaction with a signed receipt at a coffee shop: pretty safe. Internet payment: riskier. Require a CCV from the customer, a bit safer. Customer is from a foreign bank? Risky again. Online pharmacy: even riskier. Check this out: http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/MasterCard_Interchange_Rates_and_Criteria.pdf http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/MasterCard_Interch... Merchants also are subject to credit checks... they do a lot to make sure they won't be on the hook for a bunch of chargebacks. Some categories of purchase are considered too risky to even consider. From Visa/Mastercard's perspective, if you're going to be receiving a ton of donations from paranoid hackers who took down your own website and probably think they're being tracked and monitored by the US government (which they very well may be), it's probably safe to guess there may be some stolen card numbers in there and are not going agree to let payments to Wikileaks go through their system. So, Wikileaks and their data host came up with a brilliant idea: their host, DataCell, will sign up to receive payments with their credentials, and then it'll give the money they raised to Wikileaks. They entered into a contract with Valitor (which isn't a subsidiary of Visa or anything: it's just one of three card processors in Iceland, who handles acquiring services for Visa and Mastercard) saying that they will be collecting payments for their data hosting services. They write a donation page and get everything set up, test it out, and then after a couple weeks turn it on. About a week after that (or possibly the same day, according to one source http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/iceland-court-orders-valitor-to-process-wikileaks-donations-1-.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/iceland-court-order...), Visa and Mastercard call Valitor up... kinda like how they call you up if you make an unexpected $1000 purchase in another country out of the blue. They say, "hey, you guys are sure selling a lot of servers, or whatever. What's going on there?" Valitor has to come clean and say that people are paying Datacell with the expectation of that money going to Wikileaks. Visa and Mastercard say, "oh, that's pretty clearly not what we signed up for here: this is, like, millions of high-risk payments. You're gonna have to cancel that account." And they do. So now Datacell sues them for breach of contract. The contract pretty clearly states that Datacell is not allowed to use their account to process payments for other parties. This is Valitor's only defense. Datacell's argument is super weak. They say they are not processing payments for other parties, but that their core business includes allowing their customers to collect payments. The payments intended for Wikileaks are part of the principal business and they're collecting that money to offset the cost of paying Wikileaks. The judge pretty much ignores that argument but finds in favor of Datacell anyway. Valitor had full knowledge going into the contract that DataCell was going to be processing payments for Wikileaks. Its employees provided help in designing and creating the Wikileaks website, and they tested the website for them. Because Valitor knew this was going to be used for Wikileaks fundraising, they cannot now argue that that isn't allowed by contract. So, Valitor will appeal this decision, but if it holds up, they'll probably just wind up going out of business (unless they decide $6000/day is affordable). Visa and Mastercard are just gonna turn them down as customers because this was some fraudy shit they pulled. They'll go out of business, and Icelandic merchants will just have to sign up with one of their two competitors instead.
gruuuuuuuu 14y ago
It's funny to read a comment here a couple days ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237027 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237027), bemoaning the quality of the reddit frontpage, for this 'story' just appearing there. Two days later, it's the second highest story on the Hacker News frontpage.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Didn't Citizens United effectively say that donating money is protected speech? Apparently we need a Wikileaks party in the US.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  No. It said that spending money on advertising was protected speech. Citizens United actually stated that direct donations, or advertising in concert with candidates (essentially gifts in kind) could still be criminalized. (I actually read the opinion.)
  - vishaldpatel 14y ago
    So, basically.. you can get your guy elected by helping spread the message by pouring money into advertising, just not buy him, or buy votes etc...?
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      And you can't coordinate your message with him. In other words he can't tell you what to say and you can't run your message by him.
      - caf 14y ago
        This seems a bit strange - protected speech is no longer protected if you consult someone about it before you say it?
        einhverfr 14y ago
        It gets worse, I am afraid. Look at Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It's protected speech if you blog saying "Terrorist organizations should adopt non-violent methods of resistance instead of blowing up cafes. Here's how it might work as an overall strategy, using Hamas as an example...." However if you print this out and mail it to Hamas, that's not protected, and may be offering expert assistance to a foreign terrorist organization.... Apparently the First Amendment no longer protects the question of who you talk to.
maeon3 14y ago
Visa, helping shady soveriegn's levy secret and illegal financial warfare against political international opponents since forever. Priceless.
linuxhansl 14y ago
How can Visa or MasterCard censor what I can do with my money, especially when it comes to an entity that has to this day not even been charged with a crime? It speaks to our "obedient sheep" nature that there has been no outcry about this. Some will say: "Well Visa and MasterCard are private companies", which is technically true of course, but when they handle the majority of all private money transaction there are other factors at play.

325 points by Kenan 14y ago

Was this really the main obstacle for donations involving Visa? Does forcing the Icelandic arm of Visa to accept donations mean that Americans will be able to donate to Wikileaks? It seems farfetched that an international company as large as Visa would actually follow these orders, seeing as they probably want to protect themselves from leaks involving their own interests.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 14y ago
If a company has a branch in a given country, that country can hold the local branch legally responsible for the actions of branches elsewhere, including non-compliance with local rulings. Unless VISA wants to close VISA Iceland (Valitor) completely and write off the entire country, they either have to win their appeal or comply with the ruling.
jeltz 14y ago
> It seems farfetched that an international company as large as Visa would actually follow these orders, seeing as they probably want to protect themselves from leaks involving their own interests. Not at all. It is just about which is most valuable to VISA. Not losing the Icelandic market or complying with the wishes of the US government. This is the reason why not just European companies pay up when fined by the European Court. You have the choice to either comply and pay the fine or to leave the country (perhaps getting all your assets there confiscated). It might be worth leaving Iceland since it is a quite small country. It all depends on how much complying with the US government is worth and how big the PR hit of leaving Icleand is.

beggi 14y ago

The headline is a little misleading. DataCell, Wikileaks hosting provider, actually won a case against the local company Valitor, VISA's issuer and processor in Iceland. Also in case you're wondering as I was, Wikileaks was not awarded compensatory damages but Valitor must reopen their payment gateway within 2 weeks (although they can still appeal to a higher court).

tokenadult 14y ago
The source of the submitted article, rt.com, is not known for careful journalism. I'll check what other sources say about the full implications of the case. After edit: Now I've had time to check some other news sources. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawyer-wikileaks-wins-icelandic-court-victory-in-financial-fight-against-visa-mastercard/2012/07/12/gJQAe0kPfW_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/lawyer-wikileaks-wins... "The implications of the judgment, which Valitor plans to appeal, weren’t immediately clear. "Even if Valitor is eventually forced to comply with the judgment, it isn’t clear whether Visa or MasterCard would allow their customers to make donations to DataCell or WikiLeaks. Both companies have refused to deal with WikiLeaks for the better part of two years, leading to allegations that they had bowed to U.S. pressure to starve the organization of funds." http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-blockade/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/wikileaks-visa-bloc... "The Associated Press reports that Valitor can appeal the decision, but even if it chooses to comply with the judgment, it’s not clear that Visa or MasterCard will still allow customers to make donations to DataCell or WikiLeaks."
- maratd 14y ago
  > The source of the submitted article, rt.com, is not known for careful journalism. Understatement of the year.
  - alexqgb 14y ago
    Remember, that's "R" as in "Russia", which really isn't a region renowned for reliable reporting.
    - ZeroMinx 14y ago
      As opposed to the United States of Murdoch (?!)
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Yes. Because Fox News exists, US journalism is totally no more reputable than Russian journalism.

DiabloD3 14y ago

I reported this earlier, I think (unless this is a different Icelandic Visa Wikileaks case): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235397

nhangen 14y ago

Don't credit card providers' terms of service give them the right to block payments to those that use the service in violation?

trevelyan 14y ago
In violation of what? Journalism is not illegal.
- nhangen 14y ago
  I'm not arguing for or against Wikileaks as illegal, I'm just wondering if, from a purely legal standpoint, Visa has a right to refuse service to a business based on their terms of service?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

batgaijin 14y ago

RT also did an awesome program with Assange while he was under house arrest: http://assange.rt.com/ http://assange.rt.com/

asdfasdghasdf 14y ago

This is a pretty poor article, unsurprising coming from an arm of the Russian government that employs Julian Assange. Here's a summary without any politics or conspiracy theories. So, each payment that Visa or Mastercard process comes with a risk. If that payment was made with a stolen card, Visa and Mastercard are on the hook for it. Because of that, for example, the fee the merchant pays per transaction can be wildly different depending on its nature. In-person transaction with a signed receipt at a coffee shop: pretty safe. Internet payment: riskier. Require a CCV from the customer, a bit safer. Customer is from a foreign bank? Risky again. Online pharmacy: even riskier. Check this out: http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/MasterCard_Interchange_Rates_and_Criteria.pdf http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/MasterCard_Interch... Merchants also are subject to credit checks... they do a lot to make sure they won't be on the hook for a bunch of chargebacks. Some categories of purchase are considered too risky to even consider. From Visa/Mastercard's perspective, if you're going to be receiving a ton of donations from paranoid hackers who took down your own website and probably think they're being tracked and monitored by the US government (which they very well may be), it's probably safe to guess there may be some stolen card numbers in there and are not going agree to let payments to Wikileaks go through their system. So, Wikileaks and their data host came up with a brilliant idea: their host, DataCell, will sign up to receive payments with their credentials, and then it'll give the money they raised to Wikileaks. They entered into a contract with Valitor (which isn't a subsidiary of Visa or anything: it's just one of three card processors in Iceland, who handles acquiring services for Visa and Mastercard) saying that they will be collecting payments for their data hosting services. They write a donation page and get everything set up, test it out, and then after a couple weeks turn it on. About a week after that (or possibly the same day, according to one source http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/iceland-court-orders-valitor-to-process-wikileaks-donations-1-.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-12/iceland-court-order...), Visa and Mastercard call Valitor up... kinda like how they call you up if you make an unexpected $1000 purchase in another country out of the blue. They say, "hey, you guys are sure selling a lot of servers, or whatever. What's going on there?" Valitor has to come clean and say that people are paying Datacell with the expectation of that money going to Wikileaks. Visa and Mastercard say, "oh, that's pretty clearly not what we signed up for here: this is, like, millions of high-risk payments. You're gonna have to cancel that account." And they do. So now Datacell sues them for breach of contract. The contract pretty clearly states that Datacell is not allowed to use their account to process payments for other parties. This is Valitor's only defense. Datacell's argument is super weak. They say they are not processing payments for other parties, but that their core business includes allowing their customers to collect payments. The payments intended for Wikileaks are part of the principal business and they're collecting that money to offset the cost of paying Wikileaks. The judge pretty much ignores that argument but finds in favor of Datacell anyway. Valitor had full knowledge going into the contract that DataCell was going to be processing payments for Wikileaks. Its employees provided help in designing and creating the Wikileaks website, and they tested the website for them. Because Valitor knew this was going to be used for Wikileaks fundraising, they cannot now argue that that isn't allowed by contract. So, Valitor will appeal this decision, but if it holds up, they'll probably just wind up going out of business (unless they decide $6000/day is affordable). Visa and Mastercard are just gonna turn them down as customers because this was some fraudy shit they pulled. They'll go out of business, and Icelandic merchants will just have to sign up with one of their two competitors instead.

gruuuuuuuu 14y ago

It's funny to read a comment here a couple days ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237027 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237027), bemoaning the quality of the reddit frontpage, for this 'story' just appearing there. Two days later, it's the second highest story on the Hacker News frontpage.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

Didn't Citizens United effectively say that donating money is protected speech? Apparently we need a Wikileaks party in the US.

einhverfr 14y ago
No. It said that spending money on advertising was protected speech. Citizens United actually stated that direct donations, or advertising in concert with candidates (essentially gifts in kind) could still be criminalized. (I actually read the opinion.)
- vishaldpatel 14y ago
  So, basically.. you can get your guy elected by helping spread the message by pouring money into advertising, just not buy him, or buy votes etc...?
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    And you can't coordinate your message with him. In other words he can't tell you what to say and you can't run your message by him.
    - caf 14y ago
      This seems a bit strange - protected speech is no longer protected if you consult someone about it before you say it?
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        It gets worse, I am afraid. Look at Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It's protected speech if you blog saying "Terrorist organizations should adopt non-violent methods of resistance instead of blowing up cafes. Here's how it might work as an overall strategy, using Hamas as an example...." However if you print this out and mail it to Hamas, that's not protected, and may be offering expert assistance to a foreign terrorist organization.... Apparently the First Amendment no longer protects the question of who you talk to.

maeon3 14y ago

Visa, helping shady soveriegn's levy secret and illegal financial warfare against political international opponents since forever. Priceless.

linuxhansl 14y ago

How can Visa or MasterCard censor what I can do with my money, especially when it comes to an entity that has to this day not even been charged with a crime? It speaks to our "obedient sheep" nature that there has been no outcry about this. Some will say: "Well Visa and MasterCard are private companies", which is technically true of course, but when they handle the majority of all private money transaction there are other factors at play.