Thank you for converting my thoughts into coherant sense, I've been trying to do that for years
Mastercard and Visa Start Banning VPN Providers
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Thank you for converting my thoughts into coherant sense, I've been trying to do that for years
Mastercards and Visa are both independent businesses who are allowed to to refuse to do business with whoever they want. They refuse to take payment on behalf of many companies whose business is legal all the time.
I fail to see why this is any different.
I fail to see why this is any different.
I'm going to go to the headquarters of MasterCard and visa and take photos of its employees in their everyday lives and post it online in the hope it dispells the myth that everyone employed by MasterCard or visa is an evil tyrant looking to restrict access through vpn networks as some sections of society would lead you to believe. The op seems to like that sort of thing 
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Thank you for converting my thoughts into coherant sense, I've been trying to do that for years
One does try.
I don't see how a payment provider, an essential need for any legal business (like a VPN provider) should be allowed to decline their services.
It's essentially allowing them to judge who they deem fit to be in business because if you can't take payments from your customers you go bust.
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Both companies are under contract laws to provide "a service". For instance, when you take out a credit card with whatever bank you choose, you are now in a contract with them bound by law, meaning they couldn't just stop processing your orders "because they choose to" without giving you the proper notice/warning and reasons why. At the other end of the payment chain, you have a bank and it's merchant (the merchant being the VPN in this case) and they are in similar contracts.
Neither can they really play the illegal activities card, when both companies process billions off Americans visiting hardcare porn and gambling sites, both of which are illegal in many states of the US. They cannot simply pick and choose which illegal activities they wish to block and which they want profit from.
Of course they can choose who to do business with? Yes, they can't stop without proper notice, unless this is what was agreed in the contract. If it was, then of course they can. Why would they need to provide reasons if it was contractually agreed that they can stop their services whenever they like?
One does try.
I don't see how a payment provider, an essential need for any legal business (like a VPN provider) should be allowed to decline their services.
It's essentially allowing them to judge who they deem fit to be in business because if you can't take payments from your customers you go bust.
Because they are a private business and it is their choice whom they want to be in a relationship with? Why should they be forced to provide services which are, legally, not deemed to be essential the way water, gas, electricty etc. are deemed to be essential.
Yes they are the predominant payment systems, but other systems do exist which people can use. Bank transfer for instance. Yes people are less likely to pay in that way (I know I wouldn't), but a business does have other avenues. Not to mention the fact that if sufficient businesses are impacted, a new payment system may come out which chooses to accept such business.
Yes they can choose who to refuse from the offset, the point is that is not what has happened here. If you look at the Wikileaks case in Iceland, the court decided that they had broken contract laws, implying at least in Iceland, there are a set of basic contract laws that come into force if you decide to take on a customer. I'm pretty sure if they could have had a contract where they could just stop processing payments for Wikileaks whenever they chose to, then they would have stated that clause from the start.