Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sledgehead

Mastercard / Visa : Buy Your Porn With Us

Recommended Posts

"Woolley told officers he had been using his credit card to access child porn sites, he told the court. "

Noncewatch

"MasterCard, Visa shut down electronic donations to WikiLeaks....

No government on the planet has declared the actions of media website WikiLeaks "illegal,"

but one of the largest credit card companies in the world now has.

MasterCard Worldwide said Monday afternoon that would block any further electronic donations to WikiLeaks,

claiming they are engaged in "illegal activities" that violate the company's terms of service.

"MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal,"

company spokesman Chris Monteiro told C-Net late Monday."

Both credit card providers will still allow electronic donations to controversial and hate-based groups like the Ku Klux Klan, according to The Guardian.

- whiteowlconspiracy

Anyone care to recommend a credit card that does not use the racist, nonce-net clearance system we call Mastercard/ Visa so I can make a donation to WikiLeaks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Woolley told officers he had been using his credit card to access child porn sites, he told the court. "

Noncewatch

"MasterCard, Visa shut down electronic donations to WikiLeaks....

No government on the planet has declared the actions of media website WikiLeaks "illegal,"

but one of the largest credit card companies in the world now has.

MasterCard Worldwide said Monday afternoon that would block any further electronic donations to WikiLeaks,

claiming they are engaged in "illegal activities" that violate the company's terms of service.

"MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal,"

company spokesman Chris Monteiro told C-Net late Monday."

Both credit card providers will still allow electronic donations to controversial and hate-based groups like the Ku Klux Klan, according to The Guardian.

- whiteowlconspiracy

Anyone care to recommend a credit card that does not use the racist, nonce-net clearance system we call Mastercard/ Visa so I can make a donation to WikiLeaks?

I've often wondered how they manage to condone this sort of carry on. Fecking unbelievable, isn't it? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paypal also shamelessly playing judge, jurour & executioner:

PayPal has posted a (late-night) statement to its website, saying: "PayPal has permanently restricted

the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that

our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.

We've notified the account holder of this action."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Woolley told officers he had been using his credit card to access child porn sites, he told the court. "

Noncewatch

"MasterCard, Visa shut down electronic donations to WikiLeaks....

No government on the planet has declared the actions of media website WikiLeaks "illegal,"

but one of the largest credit card companies in the world now has.

MasterCard Worldwide said Monday afternoon that would block any further electronic donations to WikiLeaks,

claiming they are engaged in "illegal activities" that violate the company's terms of service.

"MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal,"

company spokesman Chris Monteiro told C-Net late Monday."

Both credit card providers will still allow electronic donations to controversial and hate-based groups like the Ku Klux Klan, according to The Guardian.

- whiteowlconspiracy

Anyone care to recommend a credit card that does not use the racist, nonce-net clearance system we call Mastercard/ Visa so I can make a donation to WikiLeaks?

I find it rather interesting that you've chosen to use a quote relating to governments making "declarations" as to the activities of certain organisations being illegal! It surely follows then that, as far as you are concerned, as soon as some government does (and especially the US government given that it's currently their secrets which ar ebeing released) then you'd be happier.

Visa and Mastercard do have a point here, you can't really deny that. Wikileaks (rightly or wrongly, morally and ethically speaking), is publishing documents which have probably been given to them illegally. You don't need a government, or anyone else for that matter, to tell you that kiddiw porn is illegal and I don't think you need anyone to tell you that there are serious potential problems in publishing classified documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it rather interesting that you've chosen to use a quote relating to governments making "declarations" as to the activities of certain organisations being illegal! It surely follows then that, as far as you are concerned, as soon as some government does (and especially the US government given that it's currently their secrets which ar ebeing released) then you'd be happier.

Visa and Mastercard do have a point here, you can't really deny that. Wikileaks (rightly or wrongly, morally and ethically speaking), is publishing documents which have probably been given to them illegally. You don't need a government, or anyone else for that matter, to tell you that kiddiw porn is illegal and I don't think you need anyone to tell you that there are serious potential problems in publishing classified documents.

Can you tell us what law or laws WikiLeaks broke when they published the documents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell us what law or laws WikiLeaks broke when they published the documents?

The ones which say you can't publish classified documents, per chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it rather interesting that you've chosen to use a quote relating to governments making "declarations" as to the activities of certain organisations being illegal! It surely follows then that, as far as you are concerned, as soon as some government does (and especially the US government given that it's currently their secrets which ar ebeing released) then you'd be happier.

I merely point out that no ruling has been made as to the illegality. Thus Mastercard Visa are making their own judgement. I contrat this judgement with their judgement in relation to various hate groups, including the kkk, as well as allowing payment to child porn makers.

Visa and Mastercard do have a point here, you can't really deny that.

I deny it, so there you go, you were wrong straight off.

Wikileaks (rightly or wrongly, morally and ethically speaking), is publishing documents which have probably been given to them illegally. You don't need a government, or anyone else for that matter, to tell you that kiddiw porn is illegal and I don't think you need anyone to tell you that there are serious potential problems in publishing classified documents.

... erm, you haven't actually said anything here worth reading. What on earth are "serious problems"? You say kiddy porn publishing is illegal (which it actually would not be in some countries, but let's ignore that), but you stop short of declaring WikiLeaks activities illegal.

Was that intentional? Are we in the presence of some lord chief justice for the "world court", sharing with we meek hpcers, his first pronouncements? If so, you best make your pronouncement available to the US etc, cos until now, despite their best efforts, they haven't actually been able to make a case against WikiLeaks. Given the absolute necessity to shut WL up, you might wanna wonder why that is, and then reconsider your assertion that it's straight forwardly illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones which say you can't publish classified documents, per chance?

But as others have said - the newspapers running the stores are doing exactly the same. So why can you still buy things off the Guardin or Times using Mastercard ?

The hwole thing stinks. There is no doubt about that. I am just interested in what way. Not sure really. Could be any sort of dodgy goings on behind this whole event.

And it does seems like an 'event' - doesn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones which say you can't publish classified documents, per chance?

The editors of the Guardian and New York Times will be in jail for the next 120 years surely since they published the same documents? If that law exists that is. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones which say you can't publish classified documents, per chance?

Isn't it funny that people will tell you that there is no censorship in the "free" world?

But there is plenty. To get away with evil things, all the Western democracies have

to do is keep their operations covert & classify the documentation.

They tell you that the information has to be kept secret so that the official enemy

(whoever he is in any given era) doesn't find out, but in reality it's their own populations

they want to keep the information from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny that people will tell you that there is no censorship in the "free" world?

But there is plenty. To get away with evil things, all the Western democracies have

to do is keep their operations covert & classify the documentation.

They tell you that the information has to be kept secret so that the official enemy

(whoever he is in any given era) doesn't find out, but in reality it's their own populations

they want to keep the information from.

Censorship is a threat to democracy and therefore must be suppressed.

I'm wondering if this guy will even get to court, surely and defence lawyer would be trawling the published papers looking for this information already in the public domain.

The secret cable going from Cornwall to the US was already known about, I can remember reading a report on it some years ago that it could be a target. However these cables break all the time and they have a boat that fixes it. So any terrorist attach would only have a short lived impact and it's nothing that nature doesn't already do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones which say you can't publish classified documents, per chance?

So, what you are saying is, it's ok that the US government reads my e-mails-and your e-mails, listens to our phone calls, monitors our credit cards and sees itself as permitted to seize, assault and detain our persons( or any other persons whomsoever), to kill, torture and disappear at will- these things are undeniable. Indeed they are state doctrine, upheld by Federal Courts.Why then, should we not read the e-mails in which they plot their crimes, record their lies, detail their deceitfulness and show their contempt for the rule of law and honest dealings?

Why do you uphold your right to be kept in the dark? :unsure: Explain yorself man B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I merely point out that no ruling has been made as to the illegality. Thus Mastercard Visa are making their own judgement. I contrat this judgement with their judgement in relation to various hate groups, including the kkk, as well as allowing payment to child porn makers.

But what is the comment about governments making statements as to whether what a private organisation does is legal or not all about? Snce when do wait for the pronnouncement of central government on such things? I mean, people are already screaming that Assange is being fitted up on a rape charge just because they like the fact that he's embarrassing the US government.

As to the other stuff. Do they actually allow people to make payments to the KKK or is it just something the Wail made up? I did a quick google on it and the KKK doesn't actually seem to exist in reality, it's just a few tiny groups of nutters at best so it's not even clear whether Visa/MC even know of their existence. The other thing is that the US has a thing called freedom of speech. Unless you can demonstrate some sort of fundamental law breaking by the organisation then I'd imagine the the CC companies would get sued for refusing them.

Also, I very much doubt that they "allow" payment to child porn providers. Do you really think that Mr Paedo walks into a brach of his local bank and tells them he needs their services in order to sell his highly illegal material. I'm pretty sure that banking/payment services use by such people get suspended in failry short order if the banks in question become aware of it.

I deny it, so there you go, you were wrong straight off.

Okay, so you can deny something in the face of pretty clear evidence.

It's illegal to publish classified documents, Wikileaks have published classified documents. That, to me, appears to be pretty strong evidence that they are probably breaking the law. I'm sure most people think the same.

You may think that publishing classified documents should not be illegal or that breaking the law in this respect is perfectly justifiable but that doesn't make it not illegal.

... erm, you haven't actually said anything here worth reading. What on earth are "serious problems"?

The potential legal problems inherent in publishing illegal documents.

You say kiddy porn publishing is illegal (which it actually would not be in some countries, but let's ignore that), but you stop short of declaring WikiLeaks activities illegal.

Kiddie porn is illegal in the vast majority of the civilised world. I'm not aware of anywhere it would not be.

Again, who says I have the power to declare someones activity illegal? You just make a judgement, you read up on the law, apply it to the facts before you and decide whether you think the person in question has broken the law. Publishing classified documents (documents which have already been illegally acquired by a third party) is illegal; Wikileaks has published classifed documents. The only reasonable conclusion to come to - in the absence of any other relavant facts - is that Wikileaks have broken the law. As I say, it's not about the moral aspect. Many people feel that it's entirely justified, many people think that kiddie porn, cannabis use and driving at 200mph where the conditions warrant, is morally justifiable, but they are still illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as others have said - the newspapers running the stores are doing exactly the same. So why can you still buy things off the Guardin or Times using Mastercard ?

The hwole thing stinks. There is no doubt about that. I am just interested in what way. Not sure really. Could be any sort of dodgy goings on behind this whole event.

And it does seems like an 'event' - doesn't it ?

Good point. I can assume that the difference is seen to tbe that Wikileaks are actually encouraging the release ofthe information or are actually complicit in it being stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no such law exists

I'm pretty sure that the US has a raft of legisltion which says that you cannot publish secret documents. The Homeland Security Act (or whatever it's called) is probably a good place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The editors of the Guardian and New York Times will be in jail for the next 120 years surely since they published the same documents? If that law exists that is. :)

Possible. I suppose the very fine distinction would be that they aren't actually publishing the documents. The are merely publishing a report of them in their own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link is working fine as I Donated [x] Euros. [@ 11pm - ish last night]

https://donations.datacell.com/

It takes about 2 minutes, and is dead simple.

Go get your card and send them a few quid.

YES, that means you, you procrastinator.:o

[Feels good spitting in the eye of the governments who are robbing you.]

I used a Visa Card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny that people will tell you that there is no censorship in the "free" world?

But there is plenty. To get away with evil things, all the Western democracies have

to do is keep their operations covert & classify the documentation.

They tell you that the information has to be kept secret so that the official enemy

(whoever he is in any given era) doesn't find out, but in reality it's their own populations

they want to keep the information from.

To be honest I find it more funny that people think theer is no censorhip in the "free" world. Of course there is, I doubt that any society could function without a measure of secrecy. I would have great difficulty running my business if I published absolutely everything about on the the internet and the same would be true of just about any organisation.

On the subject of Wikileaks, specifically. I really can't see what all the fuss is about, at least as far as the current release of documents is concerned. What have we actually got? Rubbish and fluff, essentially. We learned that Prince Andrew has slagged off the Frogs (who hasn't?); that China is fed up with North Korea (no one cares); that the Russians knew all about that guy who was poisoned with radiation in London a few years back (as if we didn't know that already) and....well....actually, I'm struggling to recall much more as it's all been so much pointless @rse which makes very little difference to anyones lives other than to divert attention from issues which actually matter. It's Britain's-got-X-factor-dancing-on-ice-Katie (I've shagged yet another bloke but I still really love my kids) Price for the section of society that kids it's self that it's a couple of intellectual steps up from the Lesser Spotted Chav but who, in reality, still need to wallow in mindless guff so they don't have to concern themselves with the important things in life.

CCC said that it feels rather like an "event". Perhaps it is. Is this a good time for governments to be "burying bad news", one wonders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what you are saying is, it's ok that the US government reads my e-mails-and your e-mails, listens to our phone calls, monitors our credit cards and sees itself as permitted to seize, assault and detain our persons( or any other persons whomsoever), to kill, torture and disappear at will- these things are undeniable. Indeed they are state doctrine, upheld by Federal Courts.Why then, should we not read the e-mails in which they plot their crimes, record their lies, detail their deceitfulness and show their contempt for the rule of law and honest dealings?

Why do you uphold your right to be kept in the dark? :unsure: Explain yorself man B)

I didn't say anything of the sort. I specifically pointed out that the morality of the laws in question (and that of breaking them) are beside the point. Wikileaks has probably broken the law, some CC processing companies have decided to withdraw their services because of that - big deal and not entirely unexpected when you think about it.

The problem is that so many people think that just because they personally don't agree with the law, or how it's enforced, then it automatically paints the CC companies as the bad guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything of the sort. I specifically pointed out that the morality of the laws in question (and that of breaking them) are beside the point. Wikileaks has probably broken the law, some CC processing companies have decided to withdraw their services because of that - big deal and not entirely unexpected when you think about it.

The problem is that so many people think that just because they personally don't agree with the law, or how it's enforced, then it automatically paints the CC companies as the bad guys.

OK - fair comment. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones which say you can't publish classified documents, per chance?

Can you tell us which laws they are? The US and UK statute book is online, so a few links would be fine.

Note: The US has specific laws enshrined in the constitution protecting freedom of speech, and the UK official secrets act only applies to those who have signed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. I can assume that the difference is seen to tbe that Wikileaks are actually encouraging the release ofthe information or are actually complicit in it being stolen.

Then would they not be guilty of handling stolen goods/information then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they'd release more interesting leaks , something about UFOs or something exposing the climate scam please , theres gotta be stuff like that in those 250,000 files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 277 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.