Google Looks To Cut Funds To Illegal Sites 347
rbrandis writes "Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, MasterCard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding. If Google goes ahead with the radical move, it would not mark the first time that illegal websites have been diminished or driven out of business by having a block put on their source of money."
AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks Google/banks for killing your own model and building the strength of your sucessor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks to bitcoin, people can exercise their freedom to get rich off other people's hard work!
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, the RIAA are going to sue them for patent infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
In bitcoins defense its almost singlehandedly invented the genre of schadenfreude based financial humor.
"Hey guys I've put my entire life savings into bitcoin"
*someone posts "sell now!" on a forum and life savings instantly lose 4/5 of its value.
A wise man once said "Comedy on the internet is defined as tragedy , and the words "and then I lost my bitcoins""
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time there was this thing "innocent until proven guilty" which meant that stuff wasn't declared in violation of the law until that violation was argued and confirmed. People had a right to a defense. Think that's going to happen here? Or is this going to be 'shoot first, ask questions never' like the rest of internet enforcement? How many fair use sites will just have their money stolen from them (usually when these sorts of decisions happen, they also take any owed money for the last payment period... usually a month) without any ability to argue their case?
Also, keep in mind that 'illegal' in these sorts of cases very often means more like 'things we don't like' and will intentionally sweep up any not-even-gray zone stuff that they don't want to deal with. Hosting an image board / cloud storage / video share? Except to be black listed the moment some troll posts something illegal no matter how fast the mods pull it down or even if you comply with the DMCA.
(And if you don't believe me, see how funding was cut for WikiLeaks, despite the fact that publishing classified material is not a crime. Publishing certain secrets can be, but was that proven before funding was cut? Nope. As I understand it, despite their best efforts, they still have yet to find anything illegal about WikiLeaks's behavior.)
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Interesting)
"innocent until proven guilty" only ever applied to criminal law. This is civil law at best. But more probably not even that. Visa and the other credit companies don't have to do business with any particular merchant. They are free to chose who to do business with and who not to.
The danger here, and not a legal one but a moral one, is that it may be that Visa and the other credit companies trust Google to tell them who not to do business with. I don't think Google have proven themselves to be trustworthy enough to make such decisions. And the scale of their operation suggests they might automate it. Not good.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no (Score:2)
Visa could choose to not do business with blacks if they choose to?
If you say no, where is the line drawn?
Except for the fact that Visa operates in country that prohibits racial discrimination by law AND the fact that they would be subject to customer boycotts even if it were not legally prohibited, yes, they could choose not to do business with people of a certain race.
In the United States, there are many local "businesses" that are organized as private clubs and who restrict club membership to people of c
Re: (Score:3)
At fat people and badly dressed people.
And in most places you can refuse to do business on the grounds that you're a complete jerk and you just don't feel like doing anything helpful right now.
I'm totally not kidding.
A does not follow B (Score:5, Insightful)
If BitCoin becomes the "currency" of choice for the "underground economy" (a position for which it is well suited... about the only thing it's well-suited for), I don't think it's going to terrify Google or Visa/MC all that much. They don't WANT that business; it causes too many legal/regulatory hassles.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is true that they probably do not like business that comes with to much hassle and trouble. But on the other end, I'm thinking of the banks that do business with criminal organisations likes drug cartels. They are *big* trouble, but also *big* money. As long as the profit is worth the trouble, they will do business with any (-one) criminal. Keep that in mind !
actually even before that (Score:4, Insightful)
who/how do you define an "illegal download site"?
Is this "they host the files", or is this torrent sites that host no files? This matters, as one of those is not even illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
At that point VISA would have to stop dealing with google. You can easily use it to find torrents.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it's a case of do as I say not as I do, but it would be great if Visa and Mastercard refused to do business with google due to their illegal activities (torrent searches etc).
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Insightful)
A think a lot of us didn't take Bitcoin seriously until we saw what happened to Wikileaks. The incredible power of VISA to simply cut off global funding to any entity at a keystroke with zero accountability to anybody. Whereas prior the idea of Bitcoin would be seen as "too much effort", a lot of people could now be pushed into giving it a try.
Phillip.
Most of us still do not take it seriously (Score:2)
Re:Most of us still do not take it seriously (Score:5, Interesting)
First, this requires that people are willing to sell, and if a single entity was buying up Bitcoins at that massive of a scale, you can bet the price (due to demand) would skyrocket. Then if the government effectively 'destroyed' said currency by not reintroducing it to the system, the value of the coins in the system (presuming a stable demand similar to what already exists), would remain high as the supply of coins would be drastically reduced. A government doing something like that would temporarily destabilize the market place, but wouldn't in any significant way impact the long term viability of bitcoins as a currency, if bit coins could bounce back from their 2011 market bubble, then obviously their viabilty as a currency can survive a period of temporary instability.
The demand for Bitcoin is predicated on the existence of exchanges that allow Bitcoin to be traded for fiat currencies. Those exchanges are easy targets for a government wishing to ban Bitcoin within its borders.
This would be a much more successful avenue of attack for a government trying to shut down bitcoins, however I think that it would be difficult to completely eradicate conversion between fiat currencies and bitcoins. All it takes is for one government to allow such a conversion to their local fiat currency, and you can convert that to litterally any other currency in the world. Sure it might take more hoops, but I'm sure there are more than a few nations that wouldn't mind some extra influx of value to their currency should a large portion of the world ban digital currency to fiat conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont see how the government could buy all the bitcoins, there are so many out in the wild now i would think it would be impossible. Bitcoins are formed by miners who then sell them, or buy something or whatever, how exactly is the goverment going to force the miners to sell there bitcoins to them? and even if it was possible, they would need to go back a few years and find all the old ones laying around and thats not likley. Even if they manage to buy all the bitcoins going forward, it would jack up the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We still don't take BTC because it's a glorified Ponzi scheme. The founders make a crapload of money for very little effort and newbies get less and less as more and more people join. What's more because of the fixed maximum number of BTC that can come into existence, you're going to have a deflationary spiral that you can't escape eventually.
The only people using BTC are people who are too stupid to realize what they're dealing with.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet your post is completely wrong. The profits to the people in early come from later arrivals and at some point there won't be enough money to keep it going.
And no, it hasn't been proven wrong so many times, it's still just as true now as it was early on. If you don't believe me, look at the production curve and ultimate total.
As far as deflationary spiral, yes, they're divisible 99,999,999 times, but you're dealing with a fixed quantity of bitcoins that are possible. It doesn't matter whether you can
FUD Campaign continuing (Score:5, Informative)
I have mod points, but not finding anyone questioning this source... Have you RTFA? This is The Telegraph! There is no source cited AT ALL. You don't know who said what in which context. Nothing.
Microsoft has hired the CEO of Burton-Marsteller with the official function of spreading FUD on Google.
But frankly, this sounds more like this comes from The Onion... Nobody here questions sources anymore?
Re: (Score:3)
citation please. Since you are doing *exactly* what you accuse others of doing...
I did a google search for Microsoft has hired the CEO of Burton-Marsteller and the fourth link was a wikipedia page about him, with citations such as http://www.holmesreport.com/news-info/12157/Mark-Penn-Exits-BursonMarsteller-For-Strategy-Role-At-Microsoft.aspx [holmesreport.com] and http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-admits-to-antigoogle-smear-campaign-20110513-1el5t.html#content [smh.com.au]
Perhaps you did not log in because you didn't want us all to know who you are only because you are a big idiot who can't us
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin will never see mainstream use (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is the stroke of a pen.
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:4, Funny)
Bitcoin reportedly tried to buy off a number of politicians, but the pols reneged when the bribes were provided in some sort of opaque pretend-currency.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're going to have to narrow it down - "opaque pretend-currency" describes the US Dollar as well as it describes Bitcoins.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, but it will be interesting to see how they're going to regulate virtual currencies. How to make a linden coin legal while criminalizing bitcoins?
Re: (Score:3)
Just have drones drop cash above drop locations... hee hee.
Another Keynesian.
Re: (Score:3)
anything is in that category.
For the time being however, there is no such stroke of the pen. It's also a whole hell of a lot harder to restrict a digital currency.
Re:AKA Google drives Bitcoin Into Mainstream use (Score:5, Interesting)
Difference between "currency" and "legal tender" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Legal tender" is anything the government says it is.
"Currency" is anything two or more transacting parties say it is. "Goodwill," "reputation," "an understanding that if I do this for you, you'll do something for me later," and the like are all "currencies" in this sense.
In a more tangible sense, soldiers in WWII used unopened packs of cigarettes as currency, even though it had no legal backing whatsoever. In some American cities, street people have used bus tokens and other useful items that could later be exchanged for a needed good or service as currency, again, without legal backing.
I'm not ignoring your last sentence, but until or unless Bitcoin-holders attempt to seek the same status for Bitcoins that non-domestic sovereign-backed currencies have, I don't think there will be a problem. From a legal standpoint, bitcoins are more analogous to limited-edition art prints, where "limited" is a very high finite number and where everyone has the ability to, with some expense on their part, create new prints until the limit is reached. This is only a legal analogy, in practical terms Bitcoins are a lot easier to transfer than a paper art print.
Re:Difference between "currency" and "legal tender (Score:5, Informative)
"Currency" is anything two or more transacting parties say it is. "Goodwill," "reputation," "an understanding that if I do this for you, you'll do something for me later," and the like are all "currencies" in this sense.
The same goes for Tide laundry detergent, [schneier.com] apparently.
Re:Difference between "currency" and "legal tender (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a first date if I've ever heard one described...
States rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, States have the right to make gold and silver legal tender but they do not have the right to coin money.
Re: (Score:2)
All debts have to be denominated in USD in the US, I'm sure most countries have similar rules in place. Which means that it's likely to remain legal forever to take payment in BTC, but you can't refuse to take USD in some form as payment.
And generally, minting and printing are related to the USD coins and paper that people use. Not to the creation or use of non-USD markers for keeping track of financial obligations.
Which is why I'm a bit curious how MS and the others get around skirting the issue by making
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
AC might be referring to issues like this: (at least in the US)
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/mar/19/local-liberty-dollar-architect-found-guilty/
Ah, I see (Score:4, Interesting)
The article refers to someone whose virtual currency "borrowed" significant elements from US currency. While his "medallions" weren't anywhere close to being replicas with US-mint-issued currency, there were enough elements to cause confusion about just who or what was backing the coins' value. Calling them "Liberty dollars" when that is the common name for a historical US coin probably didn't help.
If he'd minted them as "Liberty Money," used units other than "dollars," "cents," or any other past or present unit used by the US government, and avoided words, coin-sizes, and other attributes that might cause confusion he would likely have been free and clear legally. If he went further and put "not backed by any government" or similar words on all coins and paper-money products, that would've been even better.
His mistake wasn't making a second currency. His mistake was either not knowing the law and going out of his way to avoid even the appearance of violating it or knowing the law and being arrogant enough to dare the government to step in. If his goal was anything other than to go to jail, he failed. On the other hand, if his goal was to become a legal martyr and the money thing was just a means to an end, he succeeded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not it's included is a moot point. If you're using BTC to avoid paying taxes you'd likely be audited and sent to prison for tax evasion. As asinine as it can be, if somebody is receiving free work they're supposed to report that as income on their tax forms, so ultimately, the IRS would have at least one party to prosecute in this case.
Not a Fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a Fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Or wikileaks...
Re: (Score:2)
From RTFA it does not look like it is going to be up to just one organization to determine if it is an illegal website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this works, how slippery will the slope have to be to make you care?
Ie: if you never get another instance of spam again, if there is no longer R&D going into making better malware and virii are you going to campaign to stop the process?
Not that I think it would work anywhere near that well, but what if?
What slip in particular are you most worried about btw?
It's their search engine/payment mech., etc. (Score:3)
It's their search engine/payment mechanism/bank/whatever. They can decide what it is used for. They ARE the law, when it comes to the services that they themselves run. They don't need to ask a court's permission to verify if something is or isn't illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
To clarify a little for you...
Google doesn't need a court, government, or anyone else to determine who it can do business with. If it wants to refuse to do (ad) business with download sites, legal or otherwise (or any other kind of site for that matter), it can and should be able to make that call for itself.
While I detest the idea that 'big brother' can tell me what kinds of sites I can run or view, I just as much detest the idea that 'big brother' can come into my business and tell me I don't have any ch
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the tip of the iceberg...Google has its own file sharing services (Google Docs, Google Code). Given the size of Google and the dependency that download sites have on CC payments, this sounds like it goes over the line for anti-trust and anti-competitive conspiracy counter-charges. If I were Visa and MC, I would be very careful about how I approached this, so as not to get roped into a lawsuit.
If they just share information to turn over to the government, they can probably get away with that - af
Goverments get to define "illegal" (Score:2)
If it's left up to one Government to determine what is and is not an illegal site,
Actually, that's the way most laws work:
In general, sovereign states determine what is and is not illegal within their domain, subject only to their "basic law" (i.e. Constitution) and the ability and willingness of the people to rise up and revolt and the ability and willingness of outside actors (typically other governments, but sometimes people or corporations) to sanction or to go war with the sovereign state if it does something that offends someone.
Google is hosted in the United States. It does busin
Who decides what's illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google? This is why Bitcoin is necessary. We can't continue having commercial entities controlling the money flow.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously why don't we just go back to carrying silver and gold?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is really stopping you from conducting your day to day business with precious metals, it will just be a pain in the ass getting most companies to accept them.
Re: (Score:2)
There are companies that will sell you gold or silver, hold it for you, and allow you to spend it online.
I haven't looked into them because well, it sounds like a stupid idea to me, but it does exist.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't continue having commercial entities controlling the money flow.
They never have. Long before some anarchist fringe elements in the crypto world dreamed of Bitcoin, people were using this technology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_money [wikipedia.org]
This is a really bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides what website is illegal? A website that may be deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.
This was the case with WikiLeaks and how their funding was diminished. The same would be the case with phone unlocking sites fro example.
Re:This is a really bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re: This is a really bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of people died because of that release of raw information
[Citation needed]. The US Department of Defense and NATO have both stated that Wikileaks did not release any sensitive information and did not put any lives in danger. And personally I find them far more credible on this issue than some random guy on Slashdot.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/dod-study-contradicts-charges-against-wikileaks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people died because of that release of raw information [...]
AFAIK, that's untrue.
Re:This is a really bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks didn't do anything that every major newpaper in the country has done at some point or another. Newspapers are dying and the Feds have everyone convinced that "The internet" is not legitimate media despite the fact it's replacing newsprint. Good luck hearing any bad news 20 years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal when the big compagnies are loosing money....
Companies in which countries?
Consider the fate of AllOfMP3 [wikipedia.org]. The web site [allofmp3.ru] was operating in an ostensibly legal way according to Russian laws and paid royalties through ROMS, but were sued for trillions of dollars by the RIAA and IFPI (who had apparently refused royalties). Eventually, AllOfMP3 ceased operations, but its sister sites such as AllTunes [alltunes.com] are still going strong, and are apparently quite legal in Russia. The RIAA and others would claim that they are illegal in the US and in many other places.
So
youtube (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Google making money via advertising on youtube with all the posted videos that are infringing on copyrights?
Re: (Score:2)
shhhhhhhhh don't upset the google.
Also, nice sig!
One word: Bitcoin (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One word: Bitcoin (Score:4, Interesting)
And the site you use to convert your dollars to bitcoin will be illegal. What then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but something has to be done. Next thing you know, these sites offering easy access to all this content they don't own, will be enhanced to become increasingly convenient--starting with putting in a search box and who knows, perhaps even further profiting from this illicit benefit from others' work by, say, something so egregious as putting their own advertisements on the pages. Probably they could even talk a large cross-section of business into using this "search engine to others' content" (to coin
So Google et al haven't heard of laundering? (Score:2)
I can think of at least three ways to get around this. And if I can, then you can bet people who've dedicated themselves to doing this have found at least fifty.
Re: (Score:2)
If both parties are aware of what is going on it is not fraud.
This is a job for courts! (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting off funding should not be decided by business, the courts should make that decision. Garnted, the operators of such a website may be scumbags but they still deserve their day in court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope judges strike Google & friends very hard if one of these "illegal" websites sue them.
Re: (Score:3)
So Google should be required to do business with people it believes to be criminals until such time as the courts finally convict them? That's a pretty strange idea. I wasn't aware scumbags were a protected class. Google can choice who it does business with and who it doesn't. You have no right to demand they do business with scumbags.
If the phone company has to, why not Google?
Why not stop accepting Ad revenue? (Score:4, Interesting)
For many searches, I still get results that put link and ad farms at the top, while those that are more likely to give original information are demoted.
To me this looks like Google is trying to make sure that if it can't make money on something, no one can. I don't see why it has the right to go out and strong arm other private companies. if something is illegal, let the law take care of it. If Google wants to make the world a better place, start by trying to do so good, instead of just avoiding evil.
Re:Why not stop accepting Ad revenue? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me this looks like Google is trying to make sure that if it can't make money on something, no one can. I don't see why it has the right to go out and strong arm other private companies.
Because they can.
This is economic power, libertarians. It's a real thing. If you were running a search-dependent company Google was targeting, would you survive until a popular Google competitor arises? And they're not doing this under direct legal threat, they could just as easily cut companies off for business or even personal reasons.
Sounds like the Judge Dredd method (Score:5, Insightful)
the plans, still in discussion, would also block funding to websites that do not respond to legal challenges, for example because they are offshore.
So, if the "legal challenges" have a basis in fact, why not use existing laws? Sounds like a mechanism to make American laws apply to everyone in the world. And they don't even have to prove guilt, just send a threat from a lawyer, which is rightfully ignored, then Google pulls the plug on the site's income, site erased.
Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (Score:2, Funny)
(ANGRY SHOUTING)
[Vogon Captain] What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake, mankind! It's only four light years away, you know! I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affair
Make piracy non-profit again (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this could be great, and have unintended consequences that end up strengthening piracy.
By driving out the for-profit pirates, you restore it to the hobbyists, who tend to have high standards and be somewhat fanatical.
This will probably damage piracy of the vapid "big media" movies, music, etc. but will enhance piracy of niche markets and specialty genres, which will strengthen those through the "try before buy" principle among those who are likely to buy them anyway, if they like them.
Google's policies have already somewhat achieved this model. Some of the best piracy for music at least is through Youtube these days. They take down the big acts, but you can find lots of obscure and older material (full albums) with a simple search.
In many ways, this is the resolution between pirates and industry. Industry gets to protect its big money makers, which if pirated result in a loss of profits because they are only purchased for a short term (novelty value). Pirates get access to the vast breadth of information available that isn't in that single protected category.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the best piracy for music at least is through Youtube these days.
Ssssshhhh!!! O_O
Whoops (Score:2)
I broke the first rule of Download Club. Sorry about that.
Good .sig, by the way.
Stupid move (Score:5, Insightful)
Bye, bye Youtube... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And also the greatest surviving torrent directory.
Google Search.
Good idea, wrong target (Score:2, Interesting)
Gotta admit, I liked this when I read the headline, but was disappointed when I saw that this is targeted at media sharing and cites Wikileaks. Was really hoping Google was finally following the money in the anti-spam/malware fight. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, just killing the competition to YouTube.
Bad move all around (Score:5, Insightful)
If assisting with cutting off funds to sites like Wikileaks is what Google is intending to do, this can set a very bad precedence. While WikiLeaks is controversial, it is not be illegal. It hasn’t been even charged with any crime. But let’s say it does get charged with some random US law from 1918 and, in the court of law, is pronounced to be “illegal” in the US, does it mean the funds will be cut off to Wikileaks globally? What if the Wikileaks is based in Sweden and I live in Norway, would I be able to give funds to Wikileaks? Would Google prevent me in any way? How far would this ban go?
What if Iran sued New York Times and declared it to be illegal. Should Google then prevent the transfer of funds to New York Times because it was found to be illegal there? If Google decides to have different blocking policies based on the geographical location of the user, this can lead to breaking up the internet. Besides, we know there are plenty of technologies that allow users to spoof/change the location on the web. Will banning VPN and Tor be the next big thing?
--
There’s no such thing as “illegal download”
Dear Google (Score:2)
How can you tell which sites are illegal?
What about sites that are illegal in some countries and not others based on differing laws?
Have you thought this through?
Not Illegal Until Found Guilty (Score:2)
Google is in discussions with payment companies including Visa, MasterCard and PayPal to put illegal download websites out of existence by cutting off their funding.
A person's actions are not illegal until they are found guilty. That is a cornerstone principle of our law; presumption of innocence. A few corporations proclaiming something illegal does not make it so. Having our monetary system in the hands of a few relatively unregulated oligarchs is perilous.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that this is the same thing as saying that it's entirely legal to do things like kill people and rob banks, as long as you don't get caught, right? (because if you're not caught, then there's no possible way you can be found guilty).
Re: (Score:2)
Trial in absentia is the first thing that comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Vigilante (Score:2)
Who decides they are illegal? (Score:3)
Google? Visa? RIAA/MPAA?
Or is Google going to cut funds to sites AFTER they are ruled illegal in a court of law?
The real problem is WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE. There is where freedom dies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then Google would get into a tiff about manipulating search results, which they don't want.
In that context, this move makes a convoluted and Machiavellian kind of sense. If the sites are gone, there's nothing to index, and Google can claim their search is fair.
Re: (Score:2)
...Then we'd all be blocked from half of the Internet. I already had to change the exit node on my home connection to a bridge node because I couldn't get shit done anymore.
Who are you to say who they must do business with (Score:3)
Business is a voluntary act. Google is not a governmental agency which is required to deal with everyone, or even to deal with everyone with an even hand. They don't decide who can be online and do business, and who cannot. Those other sites will still exist and may conduct business as usual, just without a particular business partner.
If you don't like it, don't use them. It will reduce their income. Of course, I presume you're using Google right now, or you wouldn't give a fuck what they do (since, hey, y
Re: (Score:2)