Slashdot Mirror
Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega
New submitter seoras sends news that PayPal is now refusing to handle payments for Mega, Kim Dotcom's cloud storage service. A report (PDF) issued in September of last year claimed Mega and other "cyberlocker" sites made a great deal of illicit money off piracy. Mega disputes this, of course, and says the report caused U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy to pressure credit card companies to stop working with Mega. Those companies then pressured PayPal to stop as well. The hosting company claims, "MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA’s business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal’s queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA."
yes, that is exactly what they are doing it. you can put lawyer speak up all you want but it doesnt change anything. people in the US are being stripped from doing legit business with other businesses on the basis of what exactly? that they dont like encryption?? that they dont like kim dotcom?? what legal reason would they have from getting in the middle and preventing legitimate business to take place???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The feds have been putting pressure on banks to stop taking accounts for businesses they do not approve of. So far, they've gone after accounts of the porn industry and gun stores. I fully expect them to target tobacco stores in the near future. They do this by suggesting to the bank that they would find it necessary to conduct thorough and repeated audits if the banks work with "less than desirable" businesses.
-- Will program for bandwidth
that is what the U.S government is.
banks should not be free to decide who they can do business with. If a baker cant decide they dont want to do business with a couple they disagree with, a bank should not be able to do so either.
It cut both ways.
Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?
How about their representatives? Or known associates? Or some front business that don't seems to do transactions like the business they claimed to be, but more like they are just a front for the drug lords?
How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?
How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?
How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)?
Yes, it is a slippery slope. So, where do you draw the line?
Oliver.
It is ever so slightly possible, that Paypal is sounding the alarm, here. Here's the key phrase...
"...but PayPal has advised that MEGA's 'unique encryption model' presents an insurmountable difficulty,"
It looks like Paypal fought to keep MEGA as a customer. But "somebody" put the screws to them, and forced them to break contract with MEGA.
That's no small thing. Corporate contracts are a bit more "customer friendly", and simply dumping a corporate customer isn't quite as easy as it is to dump people like you and me. MEGA could take Paypal to court with a valid argument over breaking that contract.
What are they going to say? What would be their excuse? "We don't like encryption."??? No judge would buy that.
Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.
[End Of Line]
"America" - or rather the commerce/3-letter/politico corporatistic conglomerate rooted in the US of A - does it cause it believes it can. They feel they have a monopoly in the field of international money transfer and when I take a look at my options to transfer money to a internet based business in NZ or in fact even at home (within the EU) they do.
It is Visa or MasterCard of Paypal. and apparently all of them listen when a US senator tells them with whom they should not make business.
Why is it that basic backgound infrastructure like financial networks, social media, internet search, is so firmly in US hands an there is no serious competitor based in a different locale?
It might be that constantly waging war against half the planet supplies better means to establish worldwide networks.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.