WikiLeaks Halts Publication To Fight "Unlawful Financial Blockade"
WikiLeaks Halts Publication To Fight "Unlawful Financial Blockade"
Posted 10/24/2011 at 10:05am
| by Brad Chacos
18
Comments
Print
Whether you love ‘em or hate ‘em, there’s no denying that WikiLeaks posts stuff that lots of folks would rather remain hidden in the shadows. Those people have (kind of) gotten their wish: WikiLeaks has said that it will temporarily halt its publishing operation to focus instead on raising cash. The reason for the dire financial straits? Many of the major global financial institutions in the world, including banks, credit card companies and even PayPal, have refused to process donations for the controversial site, causing a precipitous drop in funding.
Assange considers the refusal to process funds an "arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade… without democratic oversight or transparency," and says it is spearheaded by Visa, Mastercard, Western Union, PayPal and the Bank of America, according to a video on WikiLeaks’ front page that explains the decision to stop publication. “The attack has destroyed 95% of our revenue,” a WikiLeaks press release says. Assange claims that WikiLeaks has lost tens of millions of dollars because of the financial institutions’ actions.
Assange plans on fighting back, though: the BBC reports that WikiLeaks is preparing to launch litigation over the “blockade” in several jurisdictions around the world, including the US, UK, and EU. "A handful of US finance companies cannot be allowed to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket," Assange said.
As far as the “Leak” portion of “WikiLeaks” goes, the site will reopen to submissions on November 28th.
More like this
18
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
biggiebob12345
October 24, 2011 at 10:18pm
"A handful of US finance companies cannot be allowed to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket"
Apparently the US is now the only country that has banks. Assange is such a tool.
blkpanthr
October 24, 2011 at 10:46pm
lol...agreed
What he meant to say was:
"We lost a major portion of our funding which comes from discontented American young liberal apple ipad toting hipsters and after we screwed over the American Armed Forces, they wont let us use their privately owned banking and transfer systems because these same malcontents dont know how to write thier own names, let alone a check and figure out how to mail it"
Its this kind of arrogant self-entiltled jackassery that really makes him look a loser...
Good luck sueing privately owned comapnies that denied you service...jackass...
fygquas
October 24, 2011 at 3:53pm
He should have used something less dependent on major financial institutions. Something like Bitcoin.
praack
October 24, 2011 at 10:31am
well he'll get some support, and he'll get some hackers glad for an excuse to go after those "evil" corporations. but let's face- you cannot claim a god given right for someone to do business with you.
especially if your business does hit the shadows of the laws in several nations and definatly crosses the line in others.
of course it could be just him looking for news since his book sold so poorly (664 copies in the first week)
tekknyne
October 24, 2011 at 10:54am
So are you suggesting that my bank can just keep my money and "refuse to do business with me" on a whim? I understand that you could call this analogy "theft", but they're not "stealing" anything- the bank is just "keeping" my money from me right? Just like these financial institutions are "keeping" Assange from money that is rightfully his (the donations).
He's not asking for credit from Visa or Mastercard and failing due to a credit score. These sanctions are not the result of a conviction, so there's no legal injunction. This is essentially collusion on the part these financial serivce providers in order to silence a potential threat.
That is unlawful my friend. Just as unlawful as my bank "refusing to do business" with me.
Nimrod
October 25, 2011 at 3:29am
Banks right now as we speak are refusing to give people the money in their accounts if the withdral is over 10k. Look it up.
blkpanthr
October 25, 2011 at 8:06am
wow...you really are the FUD master...
Thats a federal rule that ALLOWS banks to require 7 days notice for withdrawls over 10k to avoid bank rushes that eat up branch reserves, and colapse the financial iinstitutions.
No one is refusing anything.
That federal rule has yet to even be used in force...
YOU shoud look it up before you make dumb statements..nimrod...
There is also a law requiring ID to be filed (CT-21) for deposits over 10k for money laundering review...want to make up some shit about that too?
Supall
October 24, 2011 at 12:25pm
Uh, no. The government already does asset freezes on private accounts. And if you're doing something truly illegal,businesses have every right to stop financial transactions or they would be implicated. Every business has a right to deny their products/services to you. They do not have to serve you (except Hospitals in life-threatening situations).
These financial institutions are saying "No, we do not want to do business with you. We don't want to do anything with you. Go find another way." There's nothing illegal about that. They aren't taking his money, they aren't taking your money. They're just saying "We don't want to be associated with you." If a politician, sports star, movie star, etc., does something illegal or something that is wholly frowned upon, they will lose sponsors or those sponsors will receive a lot of public criticism for maintaining a relationship.
tekknyne
October 24, 2011 at 1:33pm
I'm not going to profess to know the ins and outs of the international legal system. I'm not really talking about legalities here anyway. All I said was that these banks are not acting under any legal injunctions.
Thank you for helping me make my initial point. Medical care = fundemental for human life. Are wireless transfers in 2012 fundemental for humans? This is ARGUABLE at best. Know anybody with an EBT food card? I know this analogy is a bit of a reach, but in an increasingly digital world, it's really not that hard to comprehend.
blkpanthr
October 24, 2011 at 1:23pm
this.
They are not witholding any money.
They are refusing to faciliate a transfer of money on their service.
Read the Terms of Agreement of any bank..
They have the right to terminate thir services for any reason they see fit.
If people want to donate, they can mail a check.
@tekknyne, no, they cannot take/withold your money without a court order. But what they CAN do is hand your money back to you and tell you to find another bank to do business with. That is 100% legal..
compro01
October 25, 2011 at 7:24am
Check? Evidently you are not understanding the situation. They are blocking ALL transfers of money to their accounts. Unless you're mailing cash, they're getting nothing.
blkpanthr
October 25, 2011 at 9:22am
You appear to not undertand the situation.
I will clarify:
they are only blocking on-line/Electronic donations cleared through visa/MC/Merhcant Services(BOA)/Western Union, etc....
Hense "Transfers"
checks are not transfers, and cannot be blocked per se. They are concidered tender.
If the EU banks refuse to give them a bank account to deposit the checks into, thats anouther issue...
However, that is not the case,....yet...lol
tekknyne
October 24, 2011 at 1:32pm
My point is that wireless transfers are becoming more fundemental to your and my every day life. Say in 20 years, when we have a micro-chipped society, someone were put in this postion. Think of the implications, they are much the same. If a group of banks can conspire against any one person or group of people to deny them service BEFORE any conviction is made... THAT'S WRONG. I don't care how you try to justify it.
And really? The terms of service? The terms of service of any bank are likely to be in excess of 20 pages long and designed so that no human being can fully comprehend the magnitude of their nature. That's not for your benefit or mine my friend.
blkpanthr
October 24, 2011 at 1:40pm
Doesnt really matter, A bank is a private business. they can choose to do business with whomever they wish. or not as the case were.
If a bunch of them got together and said we dont like you, it makes no difference. They can choose to deny service to whomever the wish.
fellowleo
October 24, 2011 at 3:14pm
I think the point is that financial services are becoming more a utility like electricity or water. Electronic financial transactions are becoming so prevalent in life that it is very difficult to go with out it. Take the credit card. Try buying a plane ticket or rent a car or reserve a hotel room with out one. It is possible but exceedingly difficult. And god forbid if you try to get any kind of load without FICO score (which is just a number in a computer based on more numbers in other computers).
Your point is still valid as these private companies can choose who to do/not do business with, but I think there is something to be said when an industry is so ingrained in our lives that they function more as a utility.
blkpanthr
October 24, 2011 at 4:55pm
agreed, and it wont be too long before governments step in to regulate this kind of issue, much like utilities.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 6 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 6 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E4 days 4 hours ago
