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."

28 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MEGA should start to use bitcoin, it could use a bit of fresh publicity.

    1. Re:Bitcoin by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      Paypal has blocked other accounts for purely political reasons. It was a pretty big deal a few years ago.

  2. this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that the banks are not to big to fail, and should have been allowed to. There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions. while kim dotcom might not be the best person in the world, there is no reason for this continued harassment

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:this is one more reason by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      why do banks get to pick and choose who to do business with?

      sounds like we need to SCRAP the banking system and start all over, if this is truly the case. too much depends on the ability to move money around, in this world, and banks can basically kill you (pretty much literally, over time, of course) if they want to.

      this is NOT RIGHT. its unamerican, its anti-freedom, its unacceptable.

      keep fueling the revolution, boys. sooner or later, y'all will be up against the wall.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:this is one more reason by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      guilty until proven innocent.

      oh, and we don't care if you try to defend yourself, we've already made up our mind.

      the US lawmakers are a bunch of spoiled children....

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:this is one more reason by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions

      Last I heard, mega was a business. The banks terminated their business dealings with mega.

      Banks do business with their customers who do things like tell the bank to give X dollars to business Y. The bank's aren't doing business with MEGA, they are doing business with their customers.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re: this is one more reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not directly the banks. Its political. See the article at torrentfreak for more information. Paypal acknowledged their business is legit but booted them anyway. Why America does this to scare away foreign business is insane. I know i would not host any services in the US and would avoid US payment services as best I can. This just paves the way for foreign businesses to collect a cut. So who wants a cut of all the monthly payments flowing through mega? Any EU, RU, CN etc?

      http://torrentfreak.com/under-u-s-pressure-paypal-nukes-mega-for-encrypting-files-150227/

    5. Re:this is one more reason by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    6. Re:this is one more reason by hjf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. That's why I refuse service to blacks.

      If a black walks into my shop he is very likely to carry a gun and rob me.

      It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

    7. Re:this is one more reason by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would that also be like the banks refusing to do business with gun and ammo manufactures because...reasons? Or how about the US feds illegally seizing assets from small and medium businesses because "reasons" as well.

      This entire thing comes down to one thing, they're attempting to cut off the financial lifeline to his business because they don't like him/it/whatever. Even though the business he's operating is legal.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:this is one more reason by khchung · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    9. Re: this is one more reason by daniel23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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.
    10. Re:this is one more reason by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody is stopping people in the US from doing business with mega. Send an international money order. People do it all the time. And if you trust them so much, you can always send cash.

      It's not so much trust in the business on the other end that keeps me from sending cash through the mail, it's all the people in the middle that are handling the cash-filled mail. The business has a huge incentive to not rip off their customers since a customer that doesn't get what he paid for will soon be an ex-customer.

      http://www.masslive.com/news/i...
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
      http://www.wickedlocal.com/art...

      If postal workers knew that every envelope addressed to Mega had cash in it, they'd be a huge theft target.

    11. Re:this is one more reason by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, you are a fucking moron.

      Anyone could do business with mega...Just show up with cash, or gold coins, or a couple of fucking sheep. Is that your position?

      So what's on the list of "disapproved" businesses now?

      Sex
      Weapons
      Ammunition
      Whatever the fuck Mega does

      Who's next?
      Publications that won't print the party line?
      Manufacturers who won't hire illegals?

      With your stupid, cavalier attitude of "just use cash" (Have I called you a fucking moron yet?) you are enabling the Feds to pick and choose business to kill by merely whispering into the ear of financial services.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  3. What presure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What pressure? Mega is doing nothing wrong, by PayPal's admission.
    Their excuse is "Well, they use encryption." What, and Paypal *doesn't* use encryption? If it didn't, that would be one hell of a reason to drop PayPal immediately.

    Fuck off with that shit. Admit it, your CEOs were paid off or otherwise coerced by certain government agencies, and has absolutely nothing to do with law or morals.

    1. Re:What presure? by matbury · · Score: 4, Informative

      What they meant was that Mega.co.nz use end-to-end encryption and users hold the keys, not Mega. It's impossible for any government to put a gag order on Mega and then force them to hand over the keys, because they haven't got them to hand over. Like Silent CIrcle and LavaBit before, if a service provider offers real privacy and security, the govt. do whatever they must to compromise it or shut it down. Once you understand this, you understand that Google, Apple Inc., etc.'s talk about encrypting stuff and protecting their users' privacy is ineffectual hot air.

      The five eyes; USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, and Australia; believe we have no right to privacy. And if they can get at our online accounts, so can hackers and criminals.

  4. A new judicial system? by jmd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This type of activity is quickly becoming a judicial system of sorts. If you do not play by our rules we will destroy you.

    1. Re:A new judicial system? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      interesting point.

      banks are not voted on, not representative, no checks and balances (lol) and they are not answerable to the population on anything they do.

      so WHY are we leaving matters of legality to banks? they are not legal institutions and should not have 'boycott' power!!

      you know, I wish the joker (in the movie) did slice lehey's throat. its a bad thing to say, but since he's not a very nice person, I don't feel bad about wishing harm on him.

      damn. the american system of 'justice' is such a laughing stock. we now seem to be the world's most powerful banana republic...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. This is really about their encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "because piracy" claim is just a facade, Mega fully encrypts everything and the US doesn't like that.

    1. Re:This is really about their encryption by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "because piracy" claim is just a facade, Mega fully encrypts everything and the US doesn't like that.

      "the US" includes me. And think encryption is fabulous. You probably should have said "the US law-enforcement / law-writing / Disney-Sony industrial complex" rather than "the US".

  6. folding like lawn chairs by Masked+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In light of what has been revealed about the NSA, it is always very suspicious to me when a seemingly powerful person or company caves in to pressure so easily. Powerful people & companies have much to lose and public images to protect, so blackmail would probably be a very effective tactic to use against them.

    Our own government makes a mockery of the justice system it was sworn to uphold and yet nothing is ever done. For example the IRS claims to have lost thousands of emails due to server crashes and everyone knows it's bullshit, but still no one is prosecuted or punished in any meaningful way. Judges suddenly make rulings completely contrary to their previous positions. Every US company is so eager to climb into bed with the government.

    Fuck it, call me paranoid. I think you've got to be willfully blind not to be somewhat paranoid these days.

  7. Re:Demonstrating why I will never use PayPal by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

    i havent used them in probably 6 years now. I was selling diecast cars and someones order got held up at the border (canadian) so it arrived late. he put in a complain with paypal who took my money and added fees. once the die cast car arrived and he submitted the note to get it fixed on my side they did, but they still wanted their fees. and they would not cancel them eventhough I had done nothing wrong

    so today I still "owe" paypal about 10-15 bucks, that they will never get out of me. they are a horrible company

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  8. Not the banks choosing, Operation Chokepoint by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why do banks get to pick and choose who to do business with?

    Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

    However what is happening here is not the choice of the business. It's the government saying "we can make life very unpleasant for you in terms of audits etc. unless you cease doing business with this list of people". The government has been going after many adult businesses in the same way for a while now, google Operation Chokepoint

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. it must be working by burne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because I moved all my stuff from dropbox to mega, a few minutes ago.

  10. More fascism by rossz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  11. A corrupt shit-hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that is what the U.S government is.

  12. Canary in the Coal Mine by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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]