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."

Comments

AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Google/banks for killing your own model and building the strength of your sucessor.

Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use

[Artraze]

Once upon a time there was this thing "innocent until proven guilty" which meant that stuff wasn't declared in violation of the law until that violation was argued and confirmed. People had a right to a defense. Think that's going to happen here? Or is this going to be 'shoot first, ask questions never' like the rest of internet enforcement? How many fair use sites will just have their money stolen from them (usually when these sorts of decisions happen, they also take any owed money for the last payment period... usually a month) without any ability to argue their case?

Also, keep in mind that 'illegal' in these sorts of cases very often means more like 'things we don't like' and will intentionally sweep up any not-even-gray zone stuff that they don't want to deal with. Hosting an image board / cloud storage / video share? Except to be black listed the moment some troll posts something illegal no matter how fast the mods pull it down or even if you comply with the DMCA.

(And if you don't believe me, see how funding was cut for WikiLeaks, despite the fact that publishing classified material is not a crime. Publishing certain secrets can be, but was that proven before funding was cut? Nope. As I understand it, despite their best efforts, they still have yet to find anything illegal about WikiLeaks's behavior.)

Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use

[horza]

A think a lot of us didn't take Bitcoin seriously until we saw what happened to Wikileaks. The incredible power of VISA to simply cut off global funding to any entity at a keystroke with zero accountability to anybody. Whereas prior the idea of Bitcoin would be seen as "too much effort", a lot of people could now be pushed into giving it a try.

Phillip.

Not a Fan

[jmrieger]

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?

Re:Not a Fan

[Joce640k]

Or wikileaks...

Who decides what's illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google? This is why Bitcoin is necessary. We can't continue having commercial entities controlling the money flow.

This is a really bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

youtube

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Isn't Google making money via advertising on youtube with all the posted videos that are infringing on copyrights?

Sounds like the Judge Dredd method

[1u3hr]

From TFA:

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.

Difference between "currency" and "legal tender"

[davidwr]

"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.