This is a proposal, for legislation to be drafted, backed by the Pirate Party. Falkvinge is the founder and leader of the Swedish Pirate Party. Much less has happened than this article implies.
Well, the proposal has been adopted as a report today. The Parliament has formally requested legislation to be drafted - it has gone beyond the proposal stage.
So this has entered the famous _wurstmaschine_ - the legislative sausage machine - where something will come out the other end.
The same thing happened when the US cut non-friendlies (or basically any nation that does business with Iran) with denial of access to the SWIFT system. What use to be a financial transaction highway became a political weapon of choice. This basically backfired when China refused).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/swift-iran-sanction...
This is important news and I am happy a first step is taken.
I am not sure about the accuracy of the title of the submitted post though. The official EU text, as reported in the post,[1] does not scold or name anyone. The scolding comes from a press release of the Pirate Party.
1. “[The European Parliament] considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by card; considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance”
The headline has, as always, an amount of liberty in summarizing the article to a few words.
The person responsible for inserting the text into the report, who is a Member of the European Parliament, and therefore in some sense representing this particular piece of text, names WikiLeaks and the donation blockade specifically.
Could not anti-competitor laws be expanded to also include depended parties? It sound as an logical approach, since anti-competitor laws always discuss market abuse by parties of an monopolistic nature, and the activities against wikileaks looks to match that exactly. The problem is not VISA, MasterCard, and PayPal per say, but their monopolistic statue as payment systems in regard to access to and by end-users. For companies and organizations depended on online revenue like donations or webb-shops, VISA, MasterCard, and PayPal has complete market control over them.
Didn't Visa & Friends kill WikiLeaks donations two years ago? What good does it do for the EU to "scold" them now, two years later, after it turned out WikiLeaks was able to survive and keep operating without credit card companies?
Even if something comes of this, it would have been a helluva lot more useful to have happened in December 2010/early 2011. Doing something now might discourage this kind of behavior in the future, but it seems a lot more like calling the fire department after watching your neighbor's house burn to the ground.
They might think a legislation change to protect horror movie and sex toy makers will have more chance politically, so they wanted the wikileaks thing to have a chance to blow over.
I don't know why EU seems to have so much more common sense for issues like these than US, but whatever they are doing is working, and I love it. Maybe US needs to model its democratic system more after EU.
Because most EU countries have proportional representation, which means geographically diffuse and demographically aligned ideologies, like the green party in the 70-80s, and the pirate party in the 2000s, can get off the ground easily.
Other than the reasons already pointed out, money plays a huge role in elections in the U.S.A. Without large influx of money, a politician can not run an effective campaign - hence corporations have a huge leverage. To put it bluntly: corruption is rife in the U.S. but it is "hidden" as money does not (always) go directly to a politician's pocket, but it is diverted to his/her campaign. What the U.S.A. needs is to revamp its law and limit contributions to small amounts per person - including corporate persons - and reverse the Citizens United ruling through a constitutional amendment.
This is good. Thank you Europe. But what about regulations that favour market diversity? We should regulate the payment interface to encourage the emergence of non-US companies in the system.
Personally I'd rather see the payment card companies nationalized. Make them operate at zero profit, and vastly reduce the friction in the flow of capital. Or, if you prefer not to nationalize, institute a government-operated competing global payment card system that's free for merchants and consumers alike. Watch the payment card companies collapse under their own weight.
It makes a lot of sense to me: the governments of the world are in the business of governing currency, and payment card systems are superseding that power. Time to take it back and return the power to citizens.
The actions of these companies were done at behest of the U.S. government. How would this problem be reduced if the companies were eliminated and a nationalized system implemented?
And if you think nationalization will increase efficiency, please compare the U.S. post office to European post offices, which were nearly all privatized decades ago. (They're operating with significant profits b/c they've combined with convenience stores, allow you to opt out of spam, offer scanning services, etc)
Vague rules are still better than nothing. Vague rules might be also be transformed in more efficient regulation if the effect still hurts in the long run.
First, one government uses power to regulate who and how receives money. Than another government uses power to regulate who and how accepts money. Why nobody questions why governments are regulating money flow at all?
If nobody was after WikiLeaks, Visa and MasterCard would be happy to provide them with payments. Or, on the other hand, if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?
> if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?
Since Visa (and MasterCard) are such a big part of the flow of payments that leaving that decision to them is almost like letting organized crime charge protection money.
I guess you missed this part:
> banks in Sweden were caught in the act of arbitrarily
> discriminating against fully legal business owners that the
> banks claimed sold (according to the banks) “questionable
> products” like horror movies, movies with nudity, or sex toys;
> meanwhile, these same banks happily channeled stock in
> corporations under investigation of genocide. When pressed on
> the matter, the banks referred to vague rules from Visa and
> MasterCard
Imagine being a startup that competes with (say) Amazon in some fringe market (say porn, of which Amazon has plenty). You get shutdown (by Visa/MC proxied by your bank) for selling "questionable products" while Amazon happily can continue selling the same products, since they bring so much more profit to Visa/MasterCard. Is that fair?
Visa and MC are, as mentioned, an effective duopoly over card payments in the EU.
This means that Visa and MC are in a position to govern the flow of money. Since they have started acting as a governing body by unilaterally cutting off access for political reasons, they have exposed themselves to political control over their behavior, also for political reasons.
Only the government gets to be the government. That's why it works.
And so it goes. I have a feeling many people on here would be singing a different tune if the EU suddenly decided that it was a "right" for people to use their software no matter who they are. Think of it this way. Would anyone truly benefit if the EU decided that Hacker News was "a valve of free speech" so it must not discriminate who uses it? I think this is a terrible decision and a massive overstep of the state into private affairs. As an aside, I'm not so convinced that wikileaks is as noble an organization as many on here seem to think it is.
So, for example, if I operated a bus company, and I wanted not to accept, say, jews on my bus, it would be a "terrible decision and a massive step etc. etc." for the state to intervene?
Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work in political matters. Because reality isn't based on simple monotonic logic.
I don't understand why the downvotes. This is a legitimate argument -- although the position isn't popular.
On one hand, businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone, without much reason. On the other hand, customers should have a right to certain necessity services that are vital to creating value or functioning in the modern world -- such as electricity, Internet service, or credit card acceptance.
The problem is striking a balance when these two rights come into conflict. Usually because the industry providing the necessity is a monopoly or near-monopoly. This case calls for regulation. Since HN isn't a monopoly -- there are plenty of other places for people to get their free speech fix -- it isn't a matter for government regulators if HN tightens its policies.
I am worried, though, that the EU government may move in the wrong direction -- requiring compliance with burdensome regulations for providers of non-necessities, or providers of necessities in non-monopoly-like industries.
Right now everyone's thinking of the outrage over the Wikileaks situation. But there's always a danger that the legislation that's passed may be overbroad and do more harm than good. Or, even if today's legislators and bureaucrats honestly believe they've limited the new laws and regulations to the necessary cases, tomorrow's legislators and bureaucrats may be able to abuse the authority being created today.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Falkvinge|13 years ago|reply
So this has entered the famous _wurstmaschine_ - the legislative sausage machine - where something will come out the other end.
Cheers, Rick
[+] [-] digitalengineer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] demetris|13 years ago|reply
I am not sure about the accuracy of the title of the submitted post though. The official EU text, as reported in the post,[1] does not scold or name anyone. The scolding comes from a press release of the Pirate Party.
1. “[The European Parliament] considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by card; considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance”
[+] [-] Falkvinge|13 years ago|reply
The person responsible for inserting the text into the report, who is a Member of the European Parliament, and therefore in some sense representing this particular piece of text, names WikiLeaks and the donation blockade specifically.
Cheers, Rick
[+] [-] belorn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiba|13 years ago|reply
The others being that bitcoin is a great way to transfer wealth out of the country at any moment, allowing individuals to vote with their wallet.
[+] [-] saalweachter|13 years ago|reply
Even if something comes of this, it would have been a helluva lot more useful to have happened in December 2010/early 2011. Doing something now might discourage this kind of behavior in the future, but it seems a lot more like calling the fire department after watching your neighbor's house burn to the ground.
[+] [-] Zikes|13 years ago|reply
Sure it won't save the house, but the wrongdoer is still on the loose and might well do it again given the opportunity.
[+] [-] userulluipeste|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unconed|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|13 years ago|reply
As George Carlin once said: "When you have a selfish, ignorant public, you get selfish, ignorant leaders."
[+] [-] aroberge|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lumberjack|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjara|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mullingitover|13 years ago|reply
It makes a lot of sense to me: the governments of the world are in the business of governing currency, and payment card systems are superseding that power. Time to take it back and return the power to citizens.
[+] [-] jivatmanx|13 years ago|reply
And if you think nationalization will increase efficiency, please compare the U.S. post office to European post offices, which were nearly all privatized decades ago. (They're operating with significant profits b/c they've combined with convenience stores, allow you to opt out of spam, offer scanning services, etc)
[+] [-] joshuaheard|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] userulluipeste|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oleganza|13 years ago|reply
If nobody was after WikiLeaks, Visa and MasterCard would be happy to provide them with payments. Or, on the other hand, if Visa does not want to provide a service for any reason, why anyone should force them to?
[+] [-] eCa|13 years ago|reply
Since Visa (and MasterCard) are such a big part of the flow of payments that leaving that decision to them is almost like letting organized crime charge protection money.
I guess you missed this part:
> banks in Sweden were caught in the act of arbitrarily > discriminating against fully legal business owners that the > banks claimed sold (according to the banks) “questionable > products” like horror movies, movies with nudity, or sex toys; > meanwhile, these same banks happily channeled stock in > corporations under investigation of genocide. When pressed on > the matter, the banks referred to vague rules from Visa and > MasterCard
Imagine being a startup that competes with (say) Amazon in some fringe market (say porn, of which Amazon has plenty). You get shutdown (by Visa/MC proxied by your bank) for selling "questionable products" while Amazon happily can continue selling the same products, since they bring so much more profit to Visa/MasterCard. Is that fair?
[+] [-] mfringel|13 years ago|reply
This means that Visa and MC are in a position to govern the flow of money. Since they have started acting as a governing body by unilaterally cutting off access for political reasons, they have exposed themselves to political control over their behavior, also for political reasons.
Only the government gets to be the government. That's why it works.
[+] [-] JohnGB|13 years ago|reply
Would it be fair if an electricity provider decided to stop providing energy to a company because they did something that they didn't like?
[+] [-] userulluipeste|13 years ago|reply
If the government won't want to provide them a licence to operate in a certain way and place, why would anyone have something against it's decision?
[+] [-] littlegiantcap|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danmaz74|13 years ago|reply
Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work in political matters. Because reality isn't based on simple monotonic logic.
[+] [-] csense|13 years ago|reply
On one hand, businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone, without much reason. On the other hand, customers should have a right to certain necessity services that are vital to creating value or functioning in the modern world -- such as electricity, Internet service, or credit card acceptance.
The problem is striking a balance when these two rights come into conflict. Usually because the industry providing the necessity is a monopoly or near-monopoly. This case calls for regulation. Since HN isn't a monopoly -- there are plenty of other places for people to get their free speech fix -- it isn't a matter for government regulators if HN tightens its policies.
I am worried, though, that the EU government may move in the wrong direction -- requiring compliance with burdensome regulations for providers of non-necessities, or providers of necessities in non-monopoly-like industries.
Right now everyone's thinking of the outrage over the Wikileaks situation. But there's always a danger that the legislation that's passed may be overbroad and do more harm than good. Or, even if today's legislators and bureaucrats honestly believe they've limited the new laws and regulations to the necessary cases, tomorrow's legislators and bureaucrats may be able to abuse the authority being created today.