Mastercard and Visa Start Banning VPN Providers

tom_e · 4 Jul 2013 at 16:13

DiCe! said:
Pay Pal put money in account then use account to pay VPN providers. tada.

That's not quite the sort of replacement I was talking about, I meant as in a full on replacement debit/credit card provider springing up.

Sudden · 4 Jul 2013 at 16:16

Sin_Chase said:
In short, this.

Why should the big card companies be able to turn around and say "No, you cannot purchase (totally legal) service X....because it's possible to use it in illegal way Y"

Surely because they are private companies and they choose where they want their services used?

Not saying I agree with the steps being taken, but it is their right to do so as companies, no?

What if, for instance, they wanted to block access to a legal service, but one that was unethical or violated the company's own mission statement? Should they be forced to continue providing their services to it?

Xordium · 4 Jul 2013 at 16:18

Quite the dangerous precedent.

Bobcat · 4 Jul 2013 at 16:32

Sudden said:
What if, for instance, they wanted to block access to a legal service, but one that was unethical or violated the company's own mission statement? Should they be forced to continue providing their services to it?

Then they should be transparent (imo) and state what services they class as unethical that go against their own code/mission-statement, where does it draw the line, at what point, they need to be clear after the move they have made, otherwise it leaves customers wondering what is acceptable, if payments will be accepted, cancelled etc.

Sudden · 4 Jul 2013 at 16:34

Bobcat said:
Then they should be transparent (imo) and state what services they class as unethical that go against their own code/mission-statement, where does it draw the line, at what point, they need to be clear after the move they have made, otherwise it leaves customers wondering what is acceptable, if payments will be accepted, cancelled etc.

Ideally, yes, they should. As you said, otherwise it leads to confusion for the customers.

That being said, I do appreciate the fact that from the company's point of view, they need a certain level of vagueness in order to be able to be flexible where possible and take decisions on a case by case basis. This is not good from a consumer point of view, but necessary from the company's point of view.

ubersonic · 4 Jul 2013 at 16:45

PapaLazaru said:
So, people up in keyboards about this, tell me, how does this actually affect 99.9% of their customer base?

Its simple.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

LordSplodge · 4 Jul 2013 at 17:33

Castiel said:
It probably doesn't, however having financial corporations deciding what legal services you can or cannot spend your money on is a dangerous precedent.

Exactly.

ubersonic said:
Its simple.

First they came for the torrents,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a torrenter.

Then they came for the VPNs,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a VPN user.

Then they came for the FTP sites,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't use FTP

Then they came for web,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Glaucus · 4 Jul 2013 at 17:35

Insane, unless there's something more to it, like a court order.

Have they got a history of blocking unsavoury groups/shops? Say political or anything else?

LordSplodge · 4 Jul 2013 at 17:51

Glaucus said:
Insane, unless there's something more to it, like a court order.

Have they got a history of blocking unsavoury groups/shops? Say political or anything else?

They blocked payments to Wikileaks. Essentially MasterCard and Visa have become an enforcement arm for the American government.

gillywibble · 4 Jul 2013 at 17:56

Wonder if Anonymous will have something to say on the matter?

Abraxaz1 · 4 Jul 2013 at 18:06

gillywibble said:
Wonder if Anonymous will have something to say on the matter?

oh no they'll release a video and ddos the website... they used to be so much better that recent

fornowagain · 4 Jul 2013 at 18:14

Visa told Computing: "Visa Europe has not been involved in this matter in any way, and has not made any such stipulations to Payson or to any other organisation."

http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news...providers-says-swedish-payment-service-payson

Destination · 4 Jul 2013 at 19:28

LateX'Dog said:
This and the massive spying going on.....in the name of safety what have we lost.

What have we lost?
Explain it to me please, you made a statement not a question, so explain it?
Or will you fail to return to the thread yet again?

Destination · 4 Jul 2013 at 19:30

Xordium said:
Quite the dangerous precedent.

It is not.
They did this two years ago also regarding other sites.
That's when they set precedence.
This is nothing new.

bitslice · 4 Jul 2013 at 19:36

Dammit, how am I going to download a car now?

Xordium · 4 Jul 2013 at 19:39

Hikari Kisugi said:
It is not.
They did this two years ago also regarding other sites.
That's when they set precedence.
This is nothing new.

Well being as it appears all is not what it seems then it is irrelevant.

However, the "other" sites had a clear purpose with a singular goal. A VPN does not have that singular purpose and is used for a variety of different reasons.

Glaucus · 4 Jul 2013 at 19:46

Hikari Kisugi said:
It is not.
They did this two years ago also regarding other sites.
That's when they set precedence.
This is nothing new.

Who?
Wikileaks was massively different, and in the same class as stoping funding to terrorist sites. It was a national security issue and is very different from an ordinary site with a very legal business.

aln · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:21

LateX'Dog said:
https://torrentfreak.com/mastercard-and-visa-start-banning-vpn-providers-130703/#

The internet is becoming a machine of corporate will now.

No longer will you be able to speak out about things and not be concerned about your personal safety.

This and the massive spying going on.....in the name of safety what have we lost.

Buy a second hand laptop on gumtree, go about the country using free wifi and post whatever the **** you want. Anonymity isn't a terrible hard problem yet but rest assured if we don't push back the governments will have their way and you won't be able to get on the network without a monetary trail.

LordSplodge · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:36

aln said:
Buy a second hand laptop on gumtree, go about the country using free wifi and post whatever the **** you want. Anonymity isn't a terrible hard problem yet but rest assured if we don't push back the governments will have their way and you won't be able to get on the network without a monetary trail.

Public wifi is to be censored soon under government proposals. They're using pronography as the reason but you get the idea...

LordSplodge · 4 Jul 2013 at 20:38

Hikari Kisugi said:
What have we lost?
Explain it to me please, you made a statement not a question, so explain it?
Or will you fail to return to the thread yet again?

The ability to use certain VPN providers. Thus the ability to remain (mostly) anonymous to our own government.

Hikari Kisugi said:
It is not.

Yes it is. Going after VPN providers is in a whole new ballpark compared to not allowing people to donate to WikiLeaks. A VPN is (currently) perfectly legal and they shouldn't be withholding payment services.