Slashdot Mirror
Google Looks To Cut Funds To Illegal Sites
rbrandis writes "Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, MasterCard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding. If Google goes ahead with the radical move, it would not mark the first time that illegal websites have been diminished or driven out of business by having a block put on their source of money."
Thanks Google/banks for killing your own model and building the strength of your sucessor.
If it's left up to one Government to determine what is and is not an illegal site, this is ripe for abuse. Or, what if Google decides that a site (lets say, Mega) is illegal, when in fact it's not?
Google? This is why Bitcoin is necessary. We can't continue having commercial entities controlling the money flow.
Who decides what website is illegal? A website that may be deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.
This was the case with WikiLeaks and how their funding was diminished. The same would be the case with phone unlocking sites fro example.
"the first time that illegal websites have been diminished or driven out of business by having a block put on their source of money."
I guess the author is like me and has forgotten about paypal.
Who does Google think they are to become involved in who can do business online?
They are a search and advertising company, a media company really, I don't want them involved in deciding who can do business.
Isn't Google making money via advertising on youtube with all the posted videos that are infringing on copyrights?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
This is a very dangerous road Google is heading down on. Let's just see what happens.
I'm amazed at how easy it is to find complete PDFs of popular, current textbooks on line by googling. For example, the following search:
Introduction to algorithms Cormen Rivest PDF
gave me two PDFs in the top results on the first page that appear to be illegal, from sites from Czechoslavakia and the Netherlands respectively. Now, it could be that the publisher of that textbook authorized that use, I don't know. But this happens so often that I think Google just takes a blind eye to this kind of thing, even though they have people who should know better.
I can think of at least three ways to get around this. And if I can, then you can bet people who've dedicated themselves to doing this have found at least fifty.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
Cutting off funding should not be decided by business, the courts should make that decision. Garnted, the operators of such a website may be scumbags but they still deserve their day in court.
Be judge jury and executionner and then call yourself good afterwards
So Google will appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner, I suppose? Maybe if everybody just put up a Tor relay.....
For many searches, I still get results that put link and ad farms at the top, while those that are more likely to give original information are demoted.
To me this looks like Google is trying to make sure that if it can't make money on something, no one can. I don't see why it has the right to go out and strong arm other private companies. if something is illegal, let the law take care of it. If Google wants to make the world a better place, start by trying to do so good, instead of just avoiding evil.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Serious question actually, bit of google fu requires some more google fu. That being said, that the irony of searching for said answer brings up a bunch of sites where you can download movies does not escape me.
N.
Usually I hate anything that has to do with crime. But I do not want private companies being allowed to pass this kind of judgement. An example are the various credit bureaus. They are private businesses and their credit reports are often seriously defective. They have gained influence and are bullet proof as far as being sued for falsely reporting incorrectly. This is made worse as they have no incentive to ever correct a bad report.
So what hell will people have to go through if Google gets it wrong and gets payment shut down to an innocent party. Did a company do wrong or did an employee within a company covertly do the wrong? The point being that it is important that an official, legal, system, be the ones who take these sorts of actions and authorities. How serious can it get? Some people have been evicted from their own homes for not paying their mortgages when they never, ever, had a mortgage in the first place. those who accuse and judge must have some burden to be very accurate in their judgements.
the plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
So, if the "legal challenges" have a basis in fact, why not use existing laws? Sounds like a mechanism to make American laws apply to everyone in the world. And they don't even have to prove guilt, just send a threat from a lawyer, which is rightfully ignored, then Google pulls the plug on the site's income, site erased.
I think this could be great, and have unintended consequences that end up strengthening piracy.
By driving out the for-profit pirates, you restore it to the hobbyists, who tend to have high standards and be somewhat fanatical.
This will probably damage piracy of the vapid "big media" movies, music, etc. but will enhance piracy of niche markets and specialty genres, which will strengthen those through the "try before buy" principle among those who are likely to buy them anyway, if they like them.
Google's policies have already somewhat achieved this model. Some of the best piracy for music at least is through Youtube these days. They take down the big acts, but you can find lots of obscure and older material (full albums) with a simple search.
In many ways, this is the resolution between pirates and industry. Industry gets to protect its big money makers, which if pirated result in a loss of profits because they are only purchased for a short term (novelty value). Pirates get access to the vast breadth of information available that isn't in that single protected category.
Giving in to RIAA thugs won't make them demand any less, but will instead make them see themselves entitled to that and more. Google shouldn't be rubbing their back, they should be bloodying their noses.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If BitCoin becomes the "currency" of choice for the "underground economy" (a position for which it is well suited... about the only thing it's well-suited for), I don't think it's going to terrify Google or Visa/MC all that much. They don't WANT that business; it causes too many legal/regulatory hassles.
YOUR money ?
If yes, continue to do business with the companies which have
ambitions which involve prohibiting you from spending money
in ways they don't approve.
If no, do business elsewhere.
It's their search engine/payment mechanism/bank/whatever. They can decide what it is used for. They ARE the law, when it comes to the services that they themselves run. They don't need to ask a court's permission to verify if something is or isn't illegal.
who/how do you define an "illegal download site"?
Is this "they host the files", or is this torrent sites that host no files? This matters, as one of those is not even illegal.
Your first 3 words are in the present tense. As far as I know, BitCoins are legal as of the time of your post, at least in the United States, where Google is headquartered. I can't speak for the United Kingdom, where TFA is presumably published (it's a ".uk" domain).
As for the rest, bureaucracy and courts tend to move slowly, and I very much doubt BitCoins will become illegal in the United States in such a short time-frame.
What COULD happen quickly is that the IRS would re-interpret the "1099" requirement that requires individuals to report if they pay more than a few thousand (or hundred?) dollars to an independent contractor in a given year to specifically include Bitcoins (arguably, it already does, under taxable barter rules)
States, perhaps under federal pressure, could also use existing sales tax laws and rarely-enforced "use tax" laws to crack down on the use of Bitcoins for taxable transactions where taxes were not paid, forcing the owner to testify through subpoena where the money came from "as part of a tax investigation." If just one state government does this successfully, there will be a chilling effect on the use of anonymous currency for transactions where media exposure could be embarrassing or worse.
--
For those outside the United States:
Most states in the USA have a sales tax paid by the consumer on the in-store price paid for non-essential goods and, in some states, services. Goods bought by mail-order from an out of state company that doesn't have a "presence" in your state are exempt from sales taxes, on the grounds that my state has no authority to compel an out-of-state business to collect them. However, most states require buyers to send the state a check at the end of the year for a "use tax" for all goods bought out of state and shipped home. This "use tax" is typically the same as the sales tax, minus the amount of sales tax that was paid to another state. So if I live in a state with 8% tax and go on vacation to a state with 5% tax and buy a $500 computer and bring it home, I owe my home state $15. $15 = 8% of $500 for "use tax" minus 5% of $500 that I already paid in sales taxes to another state. If the state I bought is from is one that will give sales tax refunds to vacationers, I can the $25 sales tax back, but if I do, my "use tax" bill goes up from $15 to $40, so I gain nothing except the satisfaction that the $25 is being used by my government, not some out-of-state government.
Use taxes are on the honor system and are almost never enforced because it's literally not cost-effective unless the amount owed is very high and the evidence of tax evasion is solid.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So I take it that Youtube will be cut off then?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Gotta admit, I liked this when I read the headline, but was disappointed when I saw that this is targeted at media sharing and cites Wikileaks. Was really hoping Google was finally following the money in the anti-spam/malware fight. Oh well.
Only judges should have this power. They did it with Wikileaks, found out it worked pretty well, and that the general population didn't care much. So why not doing it again? "Let's do evil" ...
I believe that Google should be able to do business with whomever they choose, if the feel that a websites activities are not up to the standards the Google wants to associate with, they have the ability to not do business with them. Its as simple as not allowing them to use the Google advertising to earn revenue on their site. desisting them from the Google search, or demoting them could be seen as anti-competitive though.
I have mod points, but not finding anyone questioning this source... Have you RTFA? This is The Telegraph! There is no source cited AT ALL. You don't know who said what in which context. Nothing.
Microsoft has hired the CEO of Burton-Marsteller with the official function of spreading FUD on Google.
But frankly, this sounds more like this comes from The Onion... Nobody here questions sources anymore?
"Legal tender" is anything the government says it is.
"Currency" is anything two or more transacting parties say it is. "Goodwill," "reputation," "an understanding that if I do this for you, you'll do something for me later," and the like are all "currencies" in this sense.
In a more tangible sense, soldiers in WWII used unopened packs of cigarettes as currency, even though it had no legal backing whatsoever. In some American cities, street people have used bus tokens and other useful items that could later be exchanged for a needed good or service as currency, again, without legal backing.
I'm not ignoring your last sentence, but until or unless Bitcoin-holders attempt to seek the same status for Bitcoins that non-domestic sovereign-backed currencies have, I don't think there will be a problem. From a legal standpoint, bitcoins are more analogous to limited-edition art prints, where "limited" is a very high finite number and where everyone has the ability to, with some expense on their part, create new prints until the limit is reached. This is only a legal analogy, in practical terms Bitcoins are a lot easier to transfer than a paper art print.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Bitcoin will always be a fringe currency. What Google is doing is encouraging a return to peer-to-peer filesharing, which I have no problem with.
Palm trees and 8
Then Google would get into a tiff about manipulating search results, which they don't want.
In that context, this move makes a convoluted and Machiavellian kind of sense. If the sites are gone, there's nothing to index, and Google can claim their search is fair.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
The article refers to someone whose virtual currency "borrowed" significant elements from US currency. While his "medallions" weren't anywhere close to being replicas with US-mint-issued currency, there were enough elements to cause confusion about just who or what was backing the coins' value. Calling them "Liberty dollars" when that is the common name for a historical US coin probably didn't help.
If he'd minted them as "Liberty Money," used units other than "dollars," "cents," or any other past or present unit used by the US government, and avoided words, coin-sizes, and other attributes that might cause confusion he would likely have been free and clear legally. If he went further and put "not backed by any government" or similar words on all coins and paper-money products, that would've been even better.
His mistake wasn't making a second currency. His mistake was either not knowing the law and going out of his way to avoid even the appearance of violating it or knowing the law and being arrogant enough to dare the government to step in. If his goal was anything other than to go to jail, he failed. On the other hand, if his goal was to become a legal martyr and the money thing was just a means to an end, he succeeded.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It sounds like vigilantism, which I guess I've always assumed was illegal. Google, and whoever they partner with would be making decisions on guilt or innocence and imposing sentencing. I can't believe that the government would allow that. There has to be some violations of law in a plan like that! No?
RN
Business is a voluntary act. Google is not a governmental agency which is required to deal with everyone, or even to deal with everyone with an even hand. They don't decide who can be online and do business, and who cannot. Those other sites will still exist and may conduct business as usual, just without a particular business partner.
If you don't like it, don't use them. It will reduce their income. Of course, I presume you're using Google right now, or you wouldn't give a fuck what they do (since, hey, you don't use them anyway).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Interestingly, States have the right to make gold and silver legal tender but they do not have the right to coin money.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Palm trees and 8
"Currency" is anything two or more transacting parties say it is. "Goodwill," "reputation," "an understanding that if I do this for you, you'll do something for me later," and the like are all "currencies" in this sense.
The same goes for Tide laundry detergent, apparently.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
If Bitcoins become the legal equivalent of a foreign currency, then Congress will have the ability to regulate its value:
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, says "The Congress shall have the Power to ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin ... emphasis added".
Prior to the 1960s or 1970s, it was common for foreign currencies to have fixed exchange rates against the US Dollar. The changing world economy as well as other laws such as the fixed price of gold in the United States made such fixed rates problematic, but Congress can still impose fixed exchange rates if it wants to (if it did so against a major currency today, it would likely cause a trade crisis, but doing so against BitCoin right now wouldn't have much of an economic impact on the national or global economy).
Imagine what would happen if Congress declared that the BitCoin was to be treated as an international currency, and that it would have an official exchange rate against the dollar far, far, below its free-market rate. Initially there would be a huge arbitrage opportunity until the value of BitCoin against other major currencies collapsed, which would probably happen very quickly. Mining would practically cease. Once the reality of a "non-floating, greatly devalued" bitcoin set in, there might still be some trading among people who were already using it and some trading among people who had no other way to trade anonymously, and there would be some hoarding by speculators, but otherwise it would become irrelevant.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Sounds like a first date if I've ever heard one described...
Bitcoins possess YOU!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...executioner. Right.
Reminds me of that William Gibson book where the world is basically ruled by huge megacorporations that *are* the law, and a meaningless ("small") government.
Fuck you, Google. You don't get to decide for *me*, what's OK and what's not.
From TFA: “In 2011, Visa, Mastercard and PayPal, cut off all donations to WikiLeaks, the controversial website headed by Julian Assange”
If assisting with cutting off funds to sites like Wikileaks is what Google is intending to do, this can set a very bad precedence. While WikiLeaks is controversial, it is not be illegal. It hasn’t been even charged with any crime. But let’s say it does get charged with some random US law from 1918 and, in the court of law, is pronounced to be “illegal” in the US, does it mean the funds will be cut off to Wikileaks globally? What if the Wikileaks is based in Sweden and I live in Norway, would I be able to give funds to Wikileaks? Would Google prevent me in any way? How far would this ban go?
What if Iran sued New York Times and declared it to be illegal. Should Google then prevent the transfer of funds to New York Times because it was found to be illegal there? If Google decides to have different blocking policies based on the geographical location of the user, this can lead to breaking up the internet. Besides, we know there are plenty of technologies that allow users to spoof/change the location on the web. Will banning VPN and Tor be the next big thing?
--
There’s no such thing as “illegal download”
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
[Vogon Captain] All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, and so you've had plenty of time to lodge any complaints and it's far too late to make a fuss about it now!
(ANGRY SHOUTING)
[Vogon Captain] What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake, mankind! It's only four light years away, you know! I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that's your own lookout! Energize the demolition beam! God, I don't know! Apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all!
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Visa could choose to not do business with blacks if they choose to?
If you say no, where is the line drawn?
Except for the fact that Visa operates in country that prohibits racial discrimination by law AND the fact that they would be subject to customer boycotts even if it were not legally prohibited, yes, they could choose not to do business with people of a certain race.
In the United States, there are many local "businesses" that are organized as private clubs and who restrict club membership to people of certain age, religious, gender, or racial groups. Typical examples are golf clubs, alcohol-serving "private" establishments, and the like. Other "private club businesses" include professional associations, fraternal associations, and associations which have other specific "affinity criteria" like the age-based "AARP."
Laws limit the kinds of goods and services they can offer on a "members only" basis. For example, the wholesale "club" known as Sam's Club must offer certain regulated products like alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs without regard to "membership". On the other hand, a "night club" that sells alcohol for on-premises use only is not required to sell alcohol to non-members.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
How can you tell which sites are illegal?
What about sites that are illegal in some countries and not others based on differing laws?
Have you thought this through?
I broke the first rule of Download Club. Sorry about that.
Good .sig, by the way.
Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, MasterCard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding.
A person's actions are not illegal until they are found guilty. That is a cornerstone principle of our law; presumption of innocence. A few corporations proclaiming something illegal does not make it so. Having our monetary system in the hands of a few relatively unregulated oligarchs is perilous.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Most of them are moving to bitcoin.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I hope RMT (Real Money Trade) sites for MMO games are included in this. It's such an annoyance to play any damn MMORPG and it's flooded with bots selling the game's gold or other items, that many of these games stop being fun. When I try to find official sites to these games, ... all the top hits returned are also RMT sites. Like WTF.
You are naive as to Google's real intent. Google wants to give governments the ability to EXTERMINATE content they don't like. This isn't about piracy and fake goods sites. This is about free speech and sexual freedom.
Take the depraved extremists that run Iceland. A tiny ultra-feminist, ultra-fascist elite has been running a program of social conditioning in Iceland's schools and greater society for generations now. Like the people that got booze banned in the USA, or get women put into black bags in Saudi Arabia, they represent the wishes of almost no-one in their nation. However, their control of the mass media makes the ordinary person THINK large numbers of their neighbours carry these opinions, making everyone shut their mouths for fear of being seen as a 'deviant'.
Google wants the ability to work with the know of sociopaths at the heart of Iceland's power structures to successfully ban Internet 'pornography'. Firstly you get most people to browse via a search-engine, so that search-engine can be a perfect censoring gatekeeper. Then, that search-engine company also works to be the major source of income for many web businesses, so that company has the ability to issue financial 'death penalties' against sites.
Google is an NSA built monster. They say Ghengis Khan had the safest roads seen since the Romans, if you could overlook his love of genocide. Google is not your friend, and the creators of Google are repulsive racist filth, often found in Israel celebrating yet another holocaust against the people the zionists label as 'sub-Human'.
The is only one issue here that matters. Does a 'free' web serve our masters better than a closed one? More people at Google are convinced the answer is "yes". You see, a 'free' web allows people to speak their minds, and this information is gold for our masters. Petty tyrannical nations like Iceland, Australia or Saudi Arabia have useless unproductive populations, so kicking them around counts for little. However, crush the spirit of people in the USA or major European nations in the wrong way, and the elites run the risk of ruining their own crops.
The Internet has proven very effective at providing 'bread and circuses' to distract the masses, as the war machines grow larger, and continue their rolling program of devastation across the globe. What best conditions people to allow the circumstances for another World War? Some psychopaths in the heart of your governments say "look to Hitler". They mean that Hitler's great social movement was a feminist, anti-pornography, 'family comes first' project that sought the support of women far more than men within Germany itself.
Another part of Google's inner core thinks the 1930s Germany now forms an ideal model for a West increasing under the control of 'political correctness' conditioning. These monsters within Google want their counterparts that work for mass media companies to step up, and flood the world with fascist propaganda of all kinds, especially extreme-feminist, green, and anti-Muslim forms.
I think the 'loose' web advocates will win over the 'tight' web ones. After all, the biggest political sites online are all either extreme right ('little green footballs' variety) or under the control of the elite's propaganda master George Soros. Freaking out because the net has small pockets of opposition would be a moron's mistake, and sadly the depravities that happily exterminated the secular nation of Libya are just not this stupid.
Bitcoin is best suited for any transaction where:
* It offers the payer something of value, such as anonymity or not having to carry a wad of cash, compared to at least one of the current methods of payment he uses
* It offers the payee something of value, such as the ability to attract new customers, lower transaction fees, etc. compared to any one of the payment methods he currently accepts.
In Africa, one common way of doing business is to use cell phones as a way of communicating money transfers, in much the same way that debit cards are used in the United States today. A "cell phone money app" that could operate in multiple currencies combined with vendors who accepted multiple currencies including BitCoin would be a viable use for this currency.
Now, as to what businesses would want to take bitcoin? Probably only those that catered to customers who currently pay in cash or with prepaid, anonymously-purchased prepaid debit cards. Even then, would the Truly Paranoid(TM) really trust any method of exchange that involved the use of a cell phone with a fixed Bluetooth and WiFi address or other "unique characteristics" that could be traced back to them? Buying a new cell phone every few weeks adds up, so the Truly Paranoid(TM) will still use cash or anonymously-purchased prepaid debit cards for low- and even medium-dollar purchases.
One other thing bitcoin is good for:
Like any other somewhat stable currency or commodity, it can be used as an investment hedge. The downside to using Bitcoins as a hedge is their limited supply - if a significant percentage of Bitcoins are owned by investors and they all try to sell at once, well, that's not good for the investors. But as a small part of a much larger currency hedge, it has value.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
VISA did pay a small or as you point out, perhaps not so small - public relations cost when they did this.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So this is different from vigilante justice how?
Unless you live completely isolated from civilization (unlikely, since you have an Internet connection) idiots already tell you how to spend your money... it's up to you to discern which notions are idiotic and ignore them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If it's left up to one Government to determine what is and is not an illegal site,
Actually, that's the way most laws work:
In general, sovereign states determine what is and is not illegal within their domain, subject only to their "basic law" (i.e. Constitution) and the ability and willingness of the people to rise up and revolt and the ability and willingness of outside actors (typically other governments, but sometimes people or corporations) to sanction or to go war with the sovereign state if it does something that offends someone.
Google is hosted in the United States. It does business in other countries. If another country tells Google "don't allow our citizens to access XYZ or we will kick you out" or "don't allow site XYZ that is in our borders to be accessed through Google or we will kick you out" then Google has a choice: Play by the rules or pack up and go home.
Since Google is based in the United States, it is subject to United States laws. If the Federal Government (or the state government where Google operates) gives a lawful order to Google, Google has a choice: Obey the law or cease being headquartered in the United States. If the request has to do with US-based web sites or US-based users, the choice to move his HQ abroad isn't enough, it will have to both move abroad and exit the US market, or obey the law in question.
Now, fortunately for companies headquartered in the United States, we do have a working court system and if the government asks Google to do things that the government is prohibited from requiring Google to do, Google can say "no" and if the government keeps insisting on action, Google can go to court and get an order requiring the government to back off.
Also, fortunately for Google, it's sitting on more than enough cash to fight a legal war with the United States and not lose purely due to inadequate representation or legal attrition. Smaller companies and individuals on the other hand can be and are bullied to the point of suicide by the United States Government.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So Google has decided it needs to become an IP enforcement arm of the Internet. Who is going to decide what is illegal; Google, the RIAA/MPAA, foreign government agents, big corporations, or whomever decides to pay them to make their competition go away?
Visa could choose to not do business with blacks if they choose to?
Not on the basis of their race in the United States and quite a few other countries. Doing would (rightly) risk federal/state prosecution and very likely civil lawsuits as well.
If you say no, where is the line drawn
Easy question. You cannot discriminate against people based on a number of protected classes including age, sex, marital status, religion, national origin, familial status, disability, veteran status and genetic information. Generally speaking any other form of financial discrimination may be fair game legally speaking. (Morally is another issue)
It sounds like there is a market for something like BitCoin, but where all coins are pre-mined and backed by a fixed commodity and an insurance and legal structure that protects against theft of the underlying commodity.
Imagine a parallel pre-mined-on-launch "bitcoin" that was backed by a legal entity that owned $21M,* 21M Euro, 21 million grams of gold, or some other fixed tangible or intangible good that had a stable value. In such a world, the bitcoin would operate much like an electronic version of bearer-ownership-certificate for a closed-end mutual fund, but without any voting rights.
*I'm using 21 million as a convenient number based on the maximum number of bitcoins that will ever be minted.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
something. A month later someone comes up with a bedroom brewed solution. Last on I've seen is Netflix-desktop for Linux.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Payment processors should serve anybody until a court says otherwise.
(That is how it is supposed to be).
Same as phone company / utilities etc etc
This is good, and long past due. Amazing that it took so long.
Tom Geller
Non-transferable gift certificate good for dinner tonight at a restaurant halfway around the world from me.
Obligatory update:
The real Mafia just called, they say any business that wants to operate like this needs to come to an "intellectual property agreement" with them first.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and the government's inability to tax such businesses, because they are either considered "illegal", or a monopoly reserved for the state. That is what this is about.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
If you are denied credit because of a credit-bureau snafu, consider suing for a declarative judgement that the credit bureau's records cannot be considered complete and accurate, then sue the company that denied you credit for an injunction preventing that one company from making credit decisions based only on the not-independently-confirmed, legally-judged-to-be-not-complete-and-accurate information returned by that credit bureau.
If you win, this will force that one customer to either fire that credit bureau or double-check any negative reports against another bureau, which will increase his costs.
It will also save an step for others who are denied credit based on inaccurate records from the reporting bureau that had bad records on you if they want to take similar action
The resulting news coverage may shame the companies into being more pro-active than they already are and/or get TV-time-hungry lawmakers to make noise about the issue.
Even if it doesn't, the resulting loss of business resulting from the injunctions will get the attention of the bureaus whose record-keeping has been judicially ruled to be incomplete and/or inaccurate.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and yes, I do post as if I live in a fantasy world where good always prevails.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So reading this dollar bill I quote. "This note is legal for all debts public and private". Refusing to deal in currency is a crime. Realizing paypal and visa don't deal in bills this still seems like they would be violating treasury laws in doing so.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
awwwwww...
I wanted a peanut!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
One other thing bitcoin is good for: Like any other somewhat stable currency or commodity, it can be used as an investment hedge. The downside to using Bitcoins as a hedge is their limited supply - if a significant percentage of Bitcoins are owned by investors and they all try to sell at once, well, that's not good for the investors. But as a small part of a much larger currency hedge, it has value.
BitCoins are NOT "somewhat stable". If the USD, EUR, or pretty much any other currency on the planet fluctuated on a daily basis anywhere near as much as BitCoins do, it'd be considered an economic apocalypse. You'd have to be utterly nucking futs to consider BtC's a "currency hedge." (A highly speculative investment sure, but it wouldn't a hedge against anything.)
This instability also makes it pretty useless as a general-purpose currency. The only way to ensure you don't completely lose your shirt is to "sweep" your BitCoins into the national currency of your choice pretty much as soon as you receive the things. If you are going to go to all that trouble, most people will just use normal currency to begin with because of the transaction fees. The instability also introduces a hidden "transaction fee" on every BtC transfer if you actually want to trade outside the "Bitcoin economy."
Yes, BitCoins are useful if you want to keep your transactions anonymous, but that "economy" is sufficiently small and trouble-prone that Visa/MC won't miss it one bit. (The pre-paid debit cards that would be useful for such a thing are only a tiny fraction of their business.)
While some individuals within banks do sometimes purposefully facilitate money laundering, it is very rare for an institution as a whole to condone it. The fines involved if the bank gets caught are simply enormous, and well out of proportion with whatever profit they might have derived from it. Prosecutors love money laundering cases because the payoff is huge, and the burden of proof much easier than, say, dodgy mortgages.
Chronic violators get cut off from SWIFT and IBAN, which is pretty much a bank death sentence.
Google? Visa? RIAA/MPAA?
Or is Google going to cut funds to sites AFTER they are ruled illegal in a court of law?
The real problem is WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE. There is where freedom dies.
morcego
Sounds like a first date if I'd ever had one..
Fixed
I will boycot Google if they go ahead with this.
Great News from Google!
You've all been signed up for the GPolice Beta program! Today, with Industry partners, we've started an open beta of GPolice, where we will be policing your websites for compliance to accepted Industry standards. Should any sites be found to be in violation, we and our parners will cut your funding! Since this exciting new feature is still in Beta, we anticipate a few problems here and there, but with GPolice growing and expanding --we are still looking for more Industries to partner with-- we will soon iron out most bugs and cut funding more effectively.
Thank You from your GPolice team!
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Why is anyone surprised? Google sold out years ago... Chrome sending all your keystrokes, URLs, and file download to Google servers anyone?
It is carefully worded but does not say that Google actually plans to do anything at all beyond consider some proposals given to it by third parties. This coming from a newspaper well known for its natural allegiance to one end of the political and social spectrum.
Just recently, FetLife – a well-known, large "social networking website that serves people interested in BDSM, fetishism, and kink" – had to make dramatic changes to their Content Guidelines, effectively banning all discussion on several fetishes (including poop play and incestuous relationships – or fantasies of such, possibly with an "ageplay" twist – between consenting adults, as well as all fantasizing on the themes of bestiality or necrophilia.)
This change was done to appease their Canadian payment processor who threatened them with fines for violating the Visa guidelines. Apparently there was something fishy going on with the first payment processor they used – possibly an attempt at scam of some type – but the second one they contacted turned them down as well, citing their fear for potential fines as the reason. So, having no good options left to them, they have now changed their Content Guidelines, which currently read as follows:
https://fetlife.com/fetlife/content_guidelines
You can find a more complete story about this on their website, in the FetLife Announcements discussion group, and especially in this post, but since reading it requires registration, here's a PasteBin copy.
This story is not directly related to Google, of course... but just goes on to show how the payment processors indeed have great power over defining which sexual fantasies and moral views are deemed "allowed" on the Internet and which are "thought crimes". If given this power, I fear they might not stop just to the (somewhat arbitrary) subjects of fantasy listed above, but there will be more in the future...
(FetLife is a free site for a casual user but accepts and encourages voluntary payments to keep the site running. Paying users get access to videos posted by other members. However, this is more of a way to make paying seem worthwhile; not the primary "purpose" of the site. FetLife is primarily based on the free social networking/contacts aspect and the discussions between the members: videos are only a side dish in the big picture.)
Google needs to make up their fucking mind and decide what line of work they are in. Either they are in the search engine business, or the money control business.
If Google is in the search engine business, then they need to get out of the censorship business and not worry about it.
If Google is in the money control business then they need to sell off the search engine and Youtube and be done with it.
If Google is going to try and do both, then there will likely be retaliations on their software and hardware and they will have no right to complain about.
If the courts which to continue to be taken seriously and not be viewed as a joke then they need to step in and slap some serious fines on Google (or anybody else) for doing such things.
Notice that most sites that use it aren't using it as a currency, but as a money laundering tool. Someone sends them bitcoins, they immediately convert them to the real currency that they want. They aren't using it as a currency, they aren't holding money in it, they just use it because it launders the funds and separates them from their clients.
That is useful in terms of sending payments for illegal products, but not in terms of being a currency. Quite the opposite, in fact. If the big users of it don't wish to have it for longer than absolutely necessary, then it isn't functioning as a currency.
It also sets it up to be in a good position to get shut down. If bitcoin becomes used exclusively for buying illegal goods, government will have all the argument they need to shut it down. While shutting down the decentralized BTC network itself might be impossible, shutting down the exchanges is not. They close down any place converting bitcoins to money, seize the funds, and charge the operators with money laundering. Suddenly, bitcions aren't worth shit.
As you've pointed out, they are inherently deflationary and thus will never function as a currency. So if the exchanges get shut down, now it is just a bunch of people fiddling around with nothing to do.
Bitcoin is nothing more than a distributed account book/transaction history. Since when is that illegal?
"I make policy."
You may make policy for Anonymous Cowards, but you will have to do more than that to convince us you are anything but a weenie whackadoodle.
The Bitcoin network merely maintains a distributed account book and transaction history in arbitrary units. The cryptographic security and other features have induced people to trade account balances for other goods and services, but trade in and of itself is legal. If you think bitcoins can be declared illegal, you would have to tell us what feature(s) it has that a business account book that tracks work in arbitrary units does not.
1. show ads on sites
2. accuse sites of criminal activity
3. dont pay the sites for the ads.
4. profit.
seriously man, there aren't even underpants in there
Or rather, you need SOMETHING to prevent those in physical possession of the metal from absconding with it and SOMETHING to protect you if they get robbed.
On the whole (exceptions abound), a functional government with a functional court system to enforce contracts and a functional law-enforcement mechanism punish thieves are better at doing this than an individual or corporation.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
By "doing business in a country" I mean actually going to that country to do business. I'm not suggesting that Google has to obey Chinese laws if Chinese citizens visit the Google web site and buy Google products from it using a credit card from a non-Chinese bank and they are either ordering non-tangible items or if they are ordering tangible items, they will not be shipped directly to China. Even if the customer is trying to pay with a Chinese-bank credit card or is trying to have tangible goods delivered to China, it's only a problem for Google if it expects to be paid and it expects the goods it delivers won't be confiscated at the border.
However, Google is, or at least at one time was, actually operating as a business in China.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If I remember correctly, a few years back people were having issues with google just freezing their adsense account and not ever paying out. Then finding some bogus reason for suspending you, but yet, they still allowed the ads to work, and collected the revenue from your impressions/click throughs. This sounds like just another way of accomplishing the same thing. I havent used adsense in years because of all that BS, but I bet even on sites they refuse to pay out, they still welcome the ad traffic. Its this double edge sword bullshit that gets me the most.
Phonetically, it's pretty close really.
... to web-sites that do not obey US laws ...
FTFY
That's a good point. Cracking down on piracy may drive pirates to methods of file transmission that are even less detectable. I'm waiting for them to drive us all to darknets, when the internet will be nothing but a stream of encrypted packets with ambiguous destinations. Then what are they gonna do -- outlaw encryption?
Or at least never admit it...
Does this mean that YouTube is going to get shut off.
What business is it of theirs to go after "illegal" sites? And why can credit card companies be coerced into refusing financial services to entities which have not been found guilty of any charges?
What if Google decides a critical blog is posting "illegal" links or advertisements, can they strong arm Visa, Paypal and Mastercard to cut them off to?
Google should stick to it's business which is search engines/ Android.
We must also remember that Mastercard LOST their case against Wikileaks and afaik must pay about 21 Million USD to them.
http://mashable.com/2012/07/12/wikileaks-wins-battle-against-visa-mastercard/
This action is absolutely wrong, and it's frightening that a company with as much influence as Google (THE search engine of the internet) could be behind it.
-Gel214th
Yes, I realize, I'm way too late in the game to matter, but..
Am I the only one appalled by a private company (American, of course) deciding one day Justice is now simply dispensed by those with the deepest pockets? What, no Law any more? No due process? No Judges? No Jury? No 'Innocent until proven guilty?
"12 Angry Men" my ass! The USA has got to be the only country I know that has legalized corruption to the point where private companies are just openly taking over the Law from the Government.
This can only end one way: in revolution. And expect no 12 angry men, but at least 120,000,000.
Of course as a proven paid apple shill you *would* say that.
That is a textbook ad hominem.
There is no such thing as an ad hominem attack and calling you names is not an ad hominem.
You can now return to chucking shit on the wall.
Here we go again. Google is about to screw a whole bunch of people like they did with their algo update...Who is watching Google?