WikiLeaks Claims a TKO Over Visa in Iceland
An Icelandic court gave WikiLeaks a legal boost by ruling that a company formerly run by Visa broke contract laws by blocking credit card donations to the whistle-blowing site. Visa responded by saying the ruling might not apply to its operations.
An Icelandic court gave WikiLeaks a legal boost by ruling that a company formerly run by Visa broke contract laws by blocking credit card donations to the whistle-blowing site. Visa responded by saying the ruling might not apply to its operations.
WikiLeaks claims it has lost roughly $20 million in funding since the U.S. financial companies Visa, Bank of America, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union stopped handling WikiLeaks donations in December 2010. At that time, MasterCard and Visa justified the suspension of service by claiming that Wikileaks was “engaging in or facilitating” illegal activity.
— Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly
WAIT BEFORE YOU GO...The Guardian:
Attorney Sveinn Andri Sveinsson told Reuters that an Icelandic court has ordered Valitor to resume processing donations to WikiLeaks within two weeks or face Kr800,000 (about £3,000) in daily fines.
… But even if Valitor does resume passing payments to WikiLeaks accounts in Iceland, it is not clear that it would have any to process. The Visa and Mastercard system works in a “four-party” model, where the customer holding a credit card effectively has a contract with an “issuing bank”. At the receiving end is the “accepting bank” – in this case Valitor – and its “merchant” (here, WikiLeaks).
Visa and Mastercard effect the transfer of funds between the issuing bank and the accepting bank. While the court may have restored the tie between Valitor and WikiLeaks, it is unclear whether that means that Visa is obliged to pass on money transferred to an issuing bank from a cardholder.
This year, the ground feels uncertain — facts are buried and those in power are working to keep them hidden. Now more than ever, independent journalism must go beneath the surface.
At Truthdig, we don’t just report what's happening — we investigate how and why. We follow the threads others leave behind and uncover the forces shaping our future.
Your tax-deductible donation fuels journalism that asks harder questions and digs where others won’t.
Don’t settle for surface-level coverage.
Unearth what matters. Help dig deeper.
Donate now.
TD Column
What is the constitutional fallout from the first conviction of a publisher under the Espionage Act of 1917?
Ear to the Ground
After 14 years without freedom of movement, the WikiLeaks founder leaves London on a $500,000 flight to avoid stepping on the U.S. mainland.
Activism
The whistleblower’s combination of humanism and realism is still with us, one year after his death.
Courts & Law
This is the first signal that attitudes are shifting in Washington towards the Wikileaks founder regarding his extradition.
Opinion
For starters, negotiating a plea deal would help shore up flagging support on the left.
TD Column
He can be extradited if the U.S. gives “assurances” his First Amendment rights will be protected and he doesn’t face the death penalty.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.