tip off

The humble credit card is now a political tool

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange has announced that the organisation again will start accepting submissions of leaked material via its website on November 28, a year to the day from the release of the Cablegate material.

However, Assange told a press conference at London’s Frontline Club, the organisation will also be suspending its publishing activities immediately, so that it can fully focus on contesting the comprehensive banking and credit blockade that was imposed on it at the time that the Cablegate publication began.

And he warned that the very existence of the organisation was at risk: ”If WikiLeaks isn’t able to break the blockade, we will simply not be able to continue our work beyond the new year.”

Until November last year, donations could be made to WikiLeaks via Visa and Mastercard, Paypal and Western Union. But these were cut off almost immediately when publication of the Cablegate archive, following State Department pressure on the companies concerned — companies that, it must be said, were far from reluctant to comply.

WikiLeaks’ chief press spokesman Kristin Hrafnsson flashed some graphs and noted that WikiLeaks’ donations had gone down by 95% when the blockade was put in place, from an average of about €100,000 a months to about €6000.

For the next months, WikiLeaks’ principal activity would be the pursuit of litigation via regulatory bodies in Iceland, Denmark, and the EU in Brussels, and Australia and Britain. The most promising, according to Hrafnsson, was an anti-trust suit in Brussels, which could force the European courts to issue an injunction against the credit cards and major banks, forcing them to lift their blockade.

Much of the campaign will hinge on the argument that the payment blockade raises issues that extend far beyond WikiLeaks. The consolidation of banking systems and payment processes has given a handful of payment systems a near monopolistic control over day-to-day transactions across the world.

Assange noted that the issue was ultimately one of individual rights — the ban was not merely on WikiLeaks “but on anyone who wanted to contribute to WikiLeaks, and to affiliate with it in that way”. It was a restriction on anyone who wanted to “vote with their wallet”.

Furthermore, it was also an issue of sovereignty. Since 97% of transactions now go through the big two credit cards, and Paypal, the effect is that US corporations control the day-to-day economic interactions between two people in another country entirely.

Indeed, the fix WikiLeaks is in points to a double paradox of the rise of the internet, and more particularly, the web — the manner by which liberating processes and applications quickly take on a near-monopoly status. Credit cards were fairly marginal to key commercial processes until about 25 years ago, and the idea that we would freely and easily send our financial details zipping over the wires to unknown recipients would have been greeted with howls of laughter.

Once they become central, however, not only do they vastly expand their range of operations, but they also make other methods seem impossibly arcane. Thus, it is still possible to donate to WikiLeaks by a dozen or so different bank transfer processes, etc, as its website makes clear — the source of the donations it does get.

But what would have once been second nature — making a bank transfer, or writing a cheque to support a cause — has become almost impossible to bother with. The monopoly form of the internet has so reshaped our habits, as to change our very notions of time and tasks, of turning the specific acts of a task, into a form of active dissuasion.

WikiLeaks, as much as anyone, has been dependent on the business model that has been built up during the commercialisation of the web — that all one needs to do is get people people to hit the “confirm payment” button — that the withdrawal of such became a political tool.

Thus the net/web is both, as is endlessly celebrated, a device for openness zero cost global communication and organisation, flattened hierarchies, etc — but also the greatest tool for the centralisation of power that the world has yet seen. WikiLeaks’ mission, is, in part, to make that centralisation visible and contest it — so inevitably the manner of attacking relied crucially on using the monopoly power of financial transaction, which is heavily linked into the US state.

Tonight, as the story of the organisations’ potential demise raced around the world, there was a degree of support for it from mainstream media quarters — perhaps because they are all heading for a digital era in which credit and debit payment for media will be universal, and feeling their own necks as regards the control of such credit agencies.

Some were sceptical as to whether the suspension of publishing was in part a response to running out of material, due to the submission system being down for many months — but WikiLeaks claims to have more than 100,000 documents ready to roll. Even The Guardian ran a supportive article of sorts, by James Ball — a former student of Guardian investigative reporter David Leigh, who fell out bitterly with Assange in the Cablegate period. Ball subsequently left WikiLeaks, wrote some tell-all stories about the inner workings of the group, and now has a full-time position with The Guardian.

Yet even here, the paper can’t get itself sorted out on Assange, with Esther Addley, the correspondent covering the press conference, writing that WikiLeaks was “facing” legal action in eight countries — rather than instigating it. Elementary incompetence, but par for the course it would seem.

As regards the re-booting of the submission system — designed to be completely anonymous, so that not even WikiLeaks knows who has sent material in — Assange argued that the previous architecture was manifestly inadequate, attributed to the failings of the agencies certifying public encryption, due not least to their infiltration by spy agencies of various nations. A new submissions system had taken so long to complete, because it had to bypass these processes altogether.

Whether it will be in operation for very long, or there be any chance to distribute the material gained, will depend on donation and litigation. And all this may well be interrupted by Assange’s possible, even likely, extradition to Sweden, for further questioning on s-x crime allegations. But those who believed that WikiLeaks was finished after Cablegate do not appear to have reckoned with its determination to carry on at all costs. Indeed, its new submission system may well be in place before dissident site “OpenLeaks” opens for business, a year after its foundation was announced.

22
  • 1
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Just goes to show how much power they have over the internet with the credit card and other payment modes

  • 2
    animaldander
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    a list of credit unions that can process internet transactions would be useful (Crikey?) what are the alternatives, other than bitcoin (hard for non computer literates). I will happily close my (big 4) bank account and move to any credit union that offers internet banking that does not use visa, mastercard or pay pal.

  • 3
    pk_x
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Proof that the reality of internet communications is far more complex and nuanced than earlier, wildly optimistic theories of total communications globalisation.

    What would happen if Wikileaks urged a boycott of Mastercard/Visa/PP etc? I doubt they would find much support.

  • 4
    Brian Taylor
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Strange how Visa, PayPal and Mastercard have no qualms about transferring funds to the Klu Klux Klan but WikiLeaks is somehow beyond the pale.

    Shameful intervention on the part of the big credit cards.
    BrianT

  • 5
    joanjett
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Interesting how the humble cheque book has come back into vogue after reports of its demise in the 80’s, thanks to the miraculous BankCard. Don’t forget that in Australia our affair with electronic transactions is ubiquitous and long term. When I lived in Italy for many years cash was (and still is) totally king. People look at credit cards with mistrust and it’s clear why. (Incidently that is one of the consequences of why Italy’s governement is having so many financial problems, so many of their small businesses accept cash and then don’t pay IVA on the transactions.) Credit cards make transactions visible to the tax man!
    I got a cheque book when my eldest daughter lost her school fees (cash in an envelope) one term (obviously not at a private school!). I used it as a back up when my debit card was compromised and my bank account was cleaned out recently. They have a system of pre-paid credit cards over in Europe for those who mistrust credit cards but they are issued by Visa & MasterCard (of course!) so no good for poor Wikileaks………..

  • 6
    Hogarth
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    As ANIMALDANGER stated…. the only alternative is Bitcoin.

    Fast (send to anywhere on the planet in seconds, first confirmation in ~10 minutes), secure (uses SHA256 and ECDSA) and as anonymous as you want it to be (Run it over the TOR network) and the big one….. cheap (You can send $1 or $1,000,000 for a fraction of a cent).

  • 7
    John64
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Won’t necessarily work Animal. It depends on the channels the payments go through and at some point, usually Visa or Mastercard are involved - they can always use their muscle to shut-down anyone who tries to process their payments through another channel.

    Besides, why do WikiLeaks need so much cash to publish anyway? This is the internet age after all. Seems more like they’re raising money for Assange’s defence fund.

  • 8
    Steven Warren
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    John bandwidth cost money.

    When you require enough bandwidth to host most of the worlds political reporters plus hundreds of thousands of casual enquirers the cost is a little higher than your typical home ADSL plan.

  • 9
    Scott
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    The irony is that if Wikileaks was based in the US, it would probably have better protections in regards to free speech via the first amendment and it would have been less likely to be cut off by US companies like Visa and Mastercard.
    The only reason the KKK still exists in the US is because of this fundamental right to free speech and political association. Unlike Wikileaks, the clan is a legal entity, based in the US and subject to US laws and regulations so Visa and Mastercard are happy to accept it as a customer, even if, in my opinion, it is pretty dodgy morally.
    Wikileaks believes it is better off in Sweden due to it’s journalism shield laws, but it’s more of a publisher than a journalism site so I think it’s a liability for them. As shown, they can become isolated and hence subject to these sort of boycotts. Whereas US whistleblower sites like the Drudge Report and Mother Jones continue to operate as per normal.

  • 10
    Mark from Melbourne
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Not that I am associating Wikileaks with these organisations, but how do good old fashioned terrorist organisations like the IRA get their donations from their US supporters - or hasn’t Paypal banned them?

  • 11
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    bitcoin lol

  • 12
    John64
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    @Steven: Yes a “little” higher than a home ADSL plan but nowhere near millions. And in WikiLeaks case, it’s even less given the number of mirror sites that popped up when they had DNS issues earlier in the year (which would’ve spread the load around considerably). There’s also torrent sites which they’ve hosted their work on - in that case at zero charge (cost is borne by the individuals sharing the torrent).

    According to Quantcast and Alexa, Wikileaks.org receives about 20k unique visitors a day (up to 100k a day during peak periods) - a big number but a piddling amount in internet terms these days. The world’s journalists and a handful of interested internet buffs doesn’t equate to Google or YouTube (and WikiLeaks are serving text, not millions of user uploaded videos).

    If you want a cost, Amazon’s EC2 service offers about 100 Terrabytes a month for around $10k per month - and that’d well and truly handle the visitors they’re receiving easily. In actual fact if you look at wikileaks.org home page, a scrolling info bar of expenses comes up. Legal is by far the most expensive at $1.2M.

    So again, it’s not “publishing” costs - especially given their intent to not be journalists (and editorialise content) and instead simply make source documents available.

  • 13
    Steven Warren
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    It’s funny you should mention Amazon EC2 service considering Amazon is also boycotting them.

    Costs according to wikileaks

    Legal $1,200,000 Actually seems fairly reasonable considering they have 6 active cases in 6 different countries trying to overturn the credit card companies blockade. They also often have to get legal advice on publications.

    Security $300,000 Again considering how of their job requires anonymisation seems reasonable. If we are talking network and computer security here this is a cost of publication. If we are talking physical security of their computers this is still a cost of publication considering the business they are in.

    Productions: $400,000. Hosting plus editing. Clearly a cost of publication.

    Technical Information: $500,000. Paying consultants to develop their systems and/or provide technical information on leaks. Clearly a cost of publication

    Publications Research: $500,000. Clearly a cost of publication.

    Salaries and expenses: $500,000. Assuming a 5 - 10 person team and travel expenses this seems reasonable. Paying staff is also a cost of publication.

    Campaigns: $300,000. Well ok given the amount of publicity they get maybe they don’t need to advertise to publish. But even then advertising has always been considered a cost by anyone selling a service.

    I don’t really know where you are trying to go with this. Clearly all of those are costs associated with publishing leaks online while endeavoring to maintain the anonymity of their sources.

    None of those costs seem unreasonable.

  • 14
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    With a major regional war due to break out in the Middle East in 2012, it’s no surprise that the
    US & its NATO allies will do anything to break down any form of organised resistance to the current world geopolitical structure.

    The UK & Sweden have been TOLD i.e. economically blackmailed - that the US wants Assange & Wikileaks closed down.

    Assange has done the US necons more damage without firing a shot, than did Osama Bin Laden.

  • 15
    Garve Scott-Lodge
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    @John64

    Besides, why do WikiLeaks need so much cash to publish anyway? This is the internet age after all. Seems more like they’re raising money for Assange’s defence fund.”

    There is a separate fund for JA’s legal costs, one that hasn’t been blocked by the payment providers.

  • 16
    Garve Scott-Lodge
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    Following a letter from a republican senator, Amazon shut down the S3 hosting which Wikileaks was using. A little more pressure and the payment providers, Paypal, Visa and Mastercard closed off the bulk of Wikileaks funding.

    Many newspapers are moving towards models requiring online funding. Subscriptions are paid through the 3 payment providers, or through Apple’s iTunes store. Much of the advertising shown on newspaper websites uses US based systems like Google’s Adsense.

    Due to the US’ near monopoly in these areas the US Govt will have a stranglehold over the finance of the press in most western countries. If for instance a London based newspaper wishes to print a story negative to the US Govt, what’s to stop them being threatened with a ‘Wikileaks-style blockade’?

    The US deserves much of the credit for making the internet as successful as it is, but Sen Lieberman has put US jobs and the US economy at risk by opening this can of worms. Companies outside the US can no longer create a business plan without having to factor in finding non-US service providers. There is a huge opportunity here for another non-US payment provider to step in.

  • 17
    Oscar Jones
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Some of the scandals in respect of the arrests of subscribers to illicit child porn websites have been uncovered because subscribers were tracked down via their payments to join those sites with their credit cards.

    Despite these credit card companies allowing easy access to this shocking trade, none has ever been implicated in the food chain from producer to content supplier to consumer.

    Yet these same companies can apparently conspire to deny Wikileaks access to donations, yet in doing so have been exposed in their efforts to engage in a vast conspiracy to control the flow of money. I hope Wikileaks wins and does so handsomely. It’s in everyone’s interest including non-supporters of Assange.

  • 18
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 25 October 2011 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    the net/web is both … a device for openness zero cost global communication and organisation, flattened hierarchies, etc — but also the greatest tool for the centralisation of power that the world has yet seen.
    This vulnerability is thus inevitable when it threatens power structures but the entire Intertube concept is surely the most brittle of all edifices, as shown in the ME.
    Apart from simply shutting it down or slowing to dial-up speed by autocracies, there is nothing to stop Conroy’s NetNanny adding any annoying site to its secret black list.

  • 19
    John64
    Posted Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    @Steven: My point?

    John bandwidth cost money. When you require enough bandwidth to host most of the worlds political reporters plus hundreds of thousands of casual enquirers the cost is a little higher than your typical home ADSL plan.

    That this is wrong. It’s not bandwidth that they need “millions of dollars” for - as you’ve so eloquently pointed out with their own figures. WikiLeaks certainly wasn’t founded with $3.5M. In fact - probably because of that - it started as an online collaborative project between hundreds of volunteers (hence the name WikiLeaks).

    To shut down publications now because they don’t have the cash is a bit absurd given those origins. Especially considering they’re asking for $3.5M when their donations before the credit card shutdown were only “an average of about €100,000 a months (sic)” - approx. $1.2M per annum (incidentally, the same amount they now require for their legals).

    As people can still do direct bank transfers and yet obviously aren’t bothering, what happens when WikiLeaks inevitably fails to raise the $3.5M Julian advises they need (even if the credit card moratorium is lifted)? WikiLeaks is never going to publish anything again?

    As for their “editing” - they are a document dump site. Assange has said as much, that he intends to be a location for “original source material” (source material doesn’t require editing). Given they published all the cablegate cables - in the end, without any editing at all - what costs do they really need to cover to make this material available?

  • 20
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    I said in my earlier post:

    Assange has done the US neocons more damage without firing a shot, than did Osama Bin Laden”.

    However, I should have added that it’s becoming clearer by the day that Bin Laden’s so-called 9/11 terror attack was assisted by the neocons. Six months ago, like I’m sure the vast majority of global geopolitics watchers, I dismissed such a claim as one of those crazy internet conspiracy theories.

    Not any more. The neocons are but one of the tentacles of an evil elite who’ve driven world politics & finance for 3 centuries. The US Republican (really libertarian) Presidential candidate Senator Ron Paul, who as I write this post, is being subjected to one of the worst anti-democratic campaigns ever seen in Western politics due to his exposure of the neocons agenda.

    Check out Senator Paul’s following YouTube post, titled ‘Ron Paul Exposes NeoCon Agenda’ which is but part of a major speech he made to the US Congress in 2003….and just follow your nose from there.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx1Jpxel-1k&feature=related

    Obama’s a fake. Absolutely breathtaking stuff.

    FYI, it took me around 100 hours research to sift through the bunk, and arrive at my current position.

  • 21
    joanjett
    Posted Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Kevin Herbert I haven’t watched the video but does this include the Israeli art students selling art works door to door and high fiving after the planes crashed into the WTC buildings?

  • 22
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 26 October 2011 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    JOANJETT:

    You wouldn’t be Koko the Clown’s sister, would you?

    Just watch the post of Senator Paul, who is the LEADING Republican Presidential candidate right now, and winning most of the meaninful polls, and then make a comment.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...