Slashdot Mirror
Online Payment Firm Stripe Boots 3D Gun Designer Cody Wilson's Companies
SonicSpike writes with this news from Reason magazine: Cody Wilson, famous for making the first usable fully plastic 3D printed handgun and for his new project "Ghost Gunner" which mills metal lower receivers (the milling machine itself is of course not a weapon, and what it makes is not itself legally a weapon) for AR-15s, [informed me Monday] that his online payment processor Stripe has decided that his companies, all of them, qualify as forbidden "weapons and munitions; gunpowder and other explosives" services. This includes the Ghost Gunner and Defense Distributed.
...and other cryptographic currencies. This is one out of many reasons why we need them.
Because I'm 100% sure that a couple of government 'visitor' types stopped by to help Stripe make this decision.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...
they are entitled to not do business with him, just as im free to not do business with them. a shame too as i was recently recommending them to a few friends of mine, guess I will have to tell them not to use them now.
The only people who lose here are stripe
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The only people who lose here are stripe
You think they lose? Let me introduce you to a little concept called contingent liability. They are making the perfectly sane decision that the potential liability and government scrutiny that could arise from facilitating these payments is not worth it. Honestly I might have made the same decision. Has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the product being sold. It's simply an actuarial analysis that says the costs outweigh the benefits. They are in business to make money, not to facilitate business models that could cause them legal heartburn later.
The more relevant weapons in this situation are the IRS audit and the FBI raid, two BFG's that Stripe definitely wants to avoid.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
BUT BUT BUT I thought Companies don't have the right to deny people's rights simply because they don't agree with them.
Substitute Gay Marriage for Guns in this case and see if your position changes.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Look it up. He saw this coming over a year ago. DarkWallet = anonymity for Bitcoin.
The guy is not stupid by a long shot. Also listen to him speak, he's a great philosopher with the wisdom of an immature teenager.
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
Also the "operation chokepoint "government pressure on bank transactions for businesses that they consider undesirable. that may be the heart of what's going on here.
Geeks (and other people, but us more than normal) love to analyze things, and think we're remarkably clever when we find a loophole in specific wording.
If laws were enforced by djinn that would be a useful skill, but laws are enforced by judges who are supposed to evaluate the spirit behind a law and the intent of your actions, not merely the letter. And they hate when people get 'clever'.
I assure you, the argument "But I'm not selling an X, I'm selling a magic box that spits out X when you press a button" will not go over well with a judge.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution protecting the civil rights of gays. There is a whole amendment for protecting the civil right to own guns.
Well, people don't like being told that the best way to control their government is to actually go out and meet local candidates for their school boards, city councils, county boards, and even homeowners associations and to actually listen to what those candidates have to say on issues other than abortion, firearms, religion, and sex. That takes too much work. Unfortunately for all of us, the people that start out in school boards, city councils, county boards, and even homeowners associations are the larval form of what become our representatives, senators, governors, and presidents and their cabinets.
I don't think that owning firearms would stop a government from being tyrannical or from attacking the population. I don't think that a lack of firearms in the population would mean that the population can't rise up. For the former, look at Iraq, which is loaded with weapons and had abuse by the government in Baghdad, and for the latter, look at the fall of the Berlin Wall, where the East German Communists didn't have the stomach for shooting tens of thousands of their own people when they interpreted an off-the-cuff comment about easing border controls as freedom to cross now.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh? Stripe was one of my favorite services - to the point I never even thought about using any other payment processor. I see that may need to change...
Who said it has anything to do with politics? I support gun rights and I probably would have made the same decision. The potential liability and government oversight is simply not worth it. They are making a very sane and reasonable business decision. Just because it conflicts with your political beliefs doesn't mean it is a political decision. They might even share your political beliefs but still have come to the same reasoned business decision that the downside outweighs the upside.
Plus I should point out that you are trying to foist your politics off on Stripe. Why should they be forced to share your political beliefs? Why should they be forced to pick a side?
In Federal law, homosexuals are not a protected class. State laws vary.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
In the US this falls under 'public accommodation' laws which involve not being allowed to bar people from access to a service. Those laws would not apply here since we are looking at a product and not a person. Gun owners are not being denied access, only payment processing for some hazy definition of weapons. Companies are generally free to decide what they carry, but can get into trouble if they refuse to serve some people but not others.
The protection is for being able to own (and carry) a weapon, it doesn't say anything about who has to sell one to you.
Having never been in a firearms store, let alone purchase one, what do "real" firearm shops use as a payment processor? Surely they take credit cards, don't they?
Stripe makes it clear that they don't want to participate in transactions for regulated products and services. I don't see what the problem with that is.
Animal House was an awesome, irreverent movie that has stood the test of time and become one of *the* classic comedies.
Animal Farm is a dystpoian, allegorical novella about government overreach and oppression, which is what I think you're going after here.
What were you thinking about my post? Where is pot/Kettle?
My Libertarian views are that people should be able to deny service as they see fit. Works equally for Cakes and guns. And for the same reason. It is entirely consistent.
My personal view on Marriage, is that it is none of the government's business, and there should be no laws either supporting or denying status based on marriage. Period.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Same thing can be observed with urban gangs too. A dozen people can terrify a neighborhood of thousands.
Especially if those dozen people have military hardware and government authority.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The thing about equal protection is, weak groups tend to need a bit more protection then strong ones. Strong groups generally can protect themselves and do not benefit nearly as much from the scraps of help others get.
It is also not a zero sum game. Believe it or not, a society of 300+ million people can both address 2nd amendment issues AND civil rights. The classic argument of 'we shouldn't do anything about XYZ issue I do not care about until ABC issue I do is completely settled!' is just another way of never getting around to XYZ.
Can you point to any place in the Constitution where people have to sell you things because of a right you have?
Yes. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Can you point to the wording of that amendment which applies to private citizens? Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I am sorry, I do not see anything about where people have to sell you things.However, I do see it as making the argument the person you responded to was making.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I would much rather see the government drop marriage from teh language and develop domestic partnerships. Essentially contracts between people, regardless of whether or not they wish to engage in a religious ceremony or have sex with each other, that are stating that they are coming together for the purpose of maintaining a household. There should be different types of contracts, for instance, one could be just for people that wish to be room mates and would like to jointly file tax returns or share some of the benefits. Another could be for people that wish to combine assets, declare that one will inherit the goods of the other, and other such things that you now have with a marriage. Each could be easily dissolvable and should include set automatic expiration based on the level, but be as easy to renew as your car registration
This way the government no longer cares about who is in love with who, or what happens behind closed doors, and they can stick with what they should be regulating, while letting the religious leaders say who can and cannot get married within their own religion, and leave everybody else alone.
XDInd
Marriage in the US is a government institution, not a religious one. It is a government managed contract between individuals that grants automatic extensive contractual relationships that are recognized and enforced by the government. There are people in this country that want to keep those government contracts but deny them to groups of people and pretend that there is no equal protection. Equal protection requires that everyone be treated the same.
What that means is that either we allow everyone to marry anyone they want and obtain those government contracts or we do away with government marriage entirely. The former will only impact (mostly positively) people that are now able to execute those government contracts, the latter will have broad reaching and sustained impacts on all American families, and most of those impacts will be severely negative.
Personally, I'd rather we just honor our constitution rather than dramatically unwind hundreds of years of legal precedent and automatic protections granted by government recognized marriage.
This is yet another manifestation of the tactics employed by Obama's Justice Department. Unable to outlaw a particular activity (such as ammunition sales, or escort services — or even cigar-sales) itself, they lean on banks and payment-processors threatening them with audits if they don't stop serving the "undesirable" merchants and services-providers. The name is "Operation Chokepoint" and it has been in the news for a while. About time it made it to Slashdot too.
This — "the most technologically-advanced Administration in history" — is what all the cool kids (not a few /.-ers among them) voted for in 2008 and 2012...
Note, the DoJ is not even alleging any illegality — only "high likelihood" thereof. Nor are they threatening actual prosecution — only an audit. Unfortunately, the audits themselves — even if you end up fully clean at the end — are sufficiently painful and expensive, that banks choose to drop the few clients to avoid the experience.
It is particularly evil, because it is not the result of a prosecution, that is used to cow the victims to comply with the government's whim, but the very process itself. Results, you see, require the Executive to argue its point in front of the skeptical Judiciary. The process, however, can be made very painful without any repercussions — DoJ don't need to prove anything to cause a person or a company as much pain as they please.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.