Swedish Pirate Party Sues Banks For 'Discriminating' Against Wikileaks
from the standing? dept
Earlier this year, we noted that a court in Iceland had ordered Visa to start accepting donations to Wikileaks again. There's been some cat and mouse games as the various payment processors, under pressure from US officials, cut off the site a while back. The latest, however is that the Swedish Pirate Party itself has pressed charges against Swedish banks for discriminating against Wikileaks.The charges were filed eariler today with the Swedish Finansinspektionen, the authority which oversees bank licenses and abuse of position. This follows an earlier initiative from the Pirate Party to regulate credit card companies on the European level in order to deny them the ability to determine who gets to trade and who doesn’t.I don't quite understand Swedish law, so it's not entirely clear to me how the Swedish Pirate Party has standing in which to bring these charges. However, it looks like "charges" basically mean asking the relevant regulatory body to investigate whether the actions are legal. Given how much power a very small number of payment companies have over what can and cannot accept money online, it would be nice for there to be some rules against discrimination. Of course, an even better answer would be to create more services that can accept payment...
“The blockade is a serious threat against the freedoms of opinion and expression”, says the Pirate Party’s Erik Lönroth, who has been preparing the formal charges. “It must not be up to the individual payment provider to determine which organizations are eligible for donations. At the same time, these charges will bring clarity as to whether the bank regulations of today are sufficient, or if regulations need to be tightened to protect freedom of expression.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: payments, pirate party, sweden, swedish pirate party, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whenever I see complaints of how Google/Visa/Paypal/[insert big corp here] is evil for doing [insert typical monopolist behavior here] I think of Wall-e and that Buy'n'Large company. Because that's where we are walking towards (few gigantic companies although I also think that we'll garbage ourselves to extinction).
With the capitalistic and predatory notion of profits first, everything else, small markets and shops succumb to the economic power of the big chains. And those big chains know that. They try to overwhelm the small player with a huge offer to buy their business and if they decline they set up a shop next door with filthy low prices till the small player go bankrupt.
Much like Isla de Pascua, we are walking towards extinction on multiple fronts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s jic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You refer to: "filthy low prices till the small player go bankrupt" and aim your guns at Wal-Mart. I heard this argument when they wanted to build a store near my cabin in Vermont. The reality is that Wal-Mart simply has better pricing. They have the same prices (basically) at all of their stores and the fact that these prices are lower than the small stores they compete with is actually good for consumers. It drives prices down. If a store cannot compete, they SHOULD go out of business, that's free market economics.
Nobody is crying about Wal-Mart having to compete with Amazon (well, except Wal-Mart) because they are big, but Amazon has done essentially the same thing Wal-Mart has been doing, they figured out a way to compete by lowering costs and prices. This is all consumer-friendly activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a particular fan of wal-mart, but what they have shown us is that the majority of people seem to want low prices and everything in one giant store. This appears to be more important than good customer service, high quality merchandise, or cleanliness (if my local store is a good example).
Their practices appear to be less predatory than simply supplying what customers want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Walmart subsidy ... yeah that's real good for those at the top - however it is crapola for everyone else.
Do not be surprised when others disagree with your assertion that Walmart is wonderful and should be worshiped. Look around, educate yourself and you might find reasons to castigate Walmart, others certainly have and for good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wal-Mart has suddenly found itself loosing sales to online sources, who can undercut even Wal-Mart's "Low Prices". If Wal-Mart can't compete with these online stores, then it will also fail. This is the free market at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow - time for you to take a debate class. I never said they were wonderful - or that I even like their stores. What I am saying is they appear to be successful at giving customers what they want and their business practices do not appear to be predatory or causing consumer harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Till they are the only ones in the market. I was not talking about Wal-Mart but another big chain in Brazil.
In any case, it may be consumer-friendly now but is it wise in the long run? It has been proven that it's the small businesses that actually generate jobs as they are not that eager to maximize profits at all costs for insanely huge profit margins. Of course the wages may be lower per employee but in the end isn't it better to have more people employed even if the overall wage is somewhat lower?
You see, I'm not saying that out of pure experience and I'm sure there's room for discussion but keeping the prices artificially lower than your competition to drive it out of business is not what I'd call right. To take your example, Wal-Mart can open a shop and keep the prices lower than the competition for a while if it serves its purposes. The small market from that countryside town probably can't sustain it for long. And maybe, just maybe, it has better employee and consumer treatment even if it's not the best price.
Food for thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's a lot more to it than that. Take a look at the terrible things Wal-mart does to obtain those price points.
Actually, it's not. There is a temporary consumer benefit, but in the long run the pricing scheme leads to reduced wages in the area and a tendency toward under-employment. As a percentage of income, consumer purchasing power actually falls.
And there are tons and tons of Amazon detractors, who have many of the same complaints as those about Wal-Mart. Also, Amazon does seem to have less of a corrosive effect on any given community than a Wal-Mart does. Amazon's harm is spread over a wider population base.
Yes, and their way is by externalizing costs. They aren't saving consumers money, they're shifting where that money must get spent, and are increasing the total cost in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen. by Tommy Jordan(aka
Quote:
ps: Please don't think that is good parenting, and if you doubt look at this first Facebook Parenting- continued by barelypolitical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever notice what Mike avoids?
Here he somehow manages to avoid the root cause, not even mentioning the extra-legal way in which US gov't pressured Paypal plus filehosts and others to hamper Wikileaks. Here's as close as he gets: "Given how much power a very small number of payment companies have over what can and cannot accept money online," -- But still not a hint of the real problem: gov't-corporate collusion. Not even a hint that corporations shouldn't have so much power.
And his vague solution? : "Of course, an even better answer would be to create more services that can accept payment..." -- A future theoretical. Instead of forcing existing corporations to act impartially toward all -- and by the way, Mike, that's COMMON LAW, well-based through the entire world, including in the US ever since lunch counters were forced to serve people with dark skin, it's just FAIRNESS in practice -- anyway, Mike's solution is some vague freedom to set up parallel services that are just as easily shut down by a phone call from some gov't "official" to wherever they bank. Any and all effort put into those can literally be dissipated in five minutes.
NO, MIKE, we have to force corporations to follow the common law and do what's right, and ALSO attack the root: keep the gov't from either pressuring or favoring corporations.
After three years, I can't find any evidence that Mike is concerned about even overt fascism. He's totally pro-corporate (for a small bunch of grifters whom he deems "innovators").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOTB...
I'm sure that most everyone else does too.
Your posts aren't even worth reading.
How sad is that?
Isn't it sad, ootb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OOTB...
ie: he's an ignorant asshole who we all blithely accept to be tragic & pathetic
*sad face now*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OOTB...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OOTB...
He's got a LONG way to go before I stop clicking report when I see his name.
However, I do agree that something needs to be done about corporations like Wal-mart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OOTB...
Yes, but it's a point that is regularly made here anyway. His real claim isn't about that, it's that people here are ignoring it. That is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
Please, for all of the times I tell you to get off the computer, for the love of God DO THAT! Seek medical help! There're people out there that can treat you! No one's going to (or will) take you seriously if you keep on posting this nonsense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
That is hardly a reasonable assertion. I think automotive safety is important to consumers - in fact, Volvo is certainly a great case study for that. Many consumers clearly will pay more for a safer car. Had the government not gotten involved, it seems likely that consumers would have eventually pressured auto makers into adding safety belts by simply purchasing cars that had them rather than purchasing cars without them.
People make decisions on car purchases today based on having or not having side-curtain airbags.
I am not an expert, but I would be very surprised if the majority of safety features on today's automobiles were a result of a threat from a government rather than from pressure from consumers that wanted a safer vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ever notice what Mike avoids?
Then prepare to be surprised, because the majority of safety features on modern cars only exist because of legislation. They were fought tooth-and-nail by automotive companies, on the grounds that they increase the cost of the automobile and people don't really want them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hard to choose...
hmmm...
you leave me no choice (literally and figuratively):
i'm with the pirates...
FOAD MAFIAA...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has complained about the root cause, as you say:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/17390512086/wikileaks-ice-domain-seizures-show-how-p rivate-intermediaries-get-involved-government-censorship.shtml
And on a related article, but not about wikileaks:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101207/09264812164/visa-mastercard-kkk-is-a-ok-wikile aks-is-wicked.shtml
This reinforces the point we recently made about the role of corporate intermediaries in being able to aid governments in censorship, even in the absence of a trial or conviction. Either way, this is a really sad statement about both Visa and MasterCard and their willingness to cave to government pressure.
This was just on a quick review of the links under the byline, I'm sure I can pull more examples if I spent a little bit of time. As a new reader, it would help to follow these sometimes to try and see what has been posted in the past about these very issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Processor
If Visa don't transfer money they have stolen the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Processor
Really? What law? And while you're futilely looking for that, go read the TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Processor
Visa and Mastercard need to comply with this Swedish law if they want to do business in Sweden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Processor
Visa and Mastercard need to comply with this Swedish law if they want to do business in Sweden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Processor
Visa and Mastercard need to comply with this Swedish law if they want to do business in Sweden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference between Swedish and Common Law
This is not a civil lawsuit, but a formal complaint to a regulatory authority which will act on complaints from the public. You can liken it to public prosecution which results from somebody filing a police report, but where this is in a specific field (and where the charges filed need to be quite carefully prepared for the field and overseeing authority).
Cheers,
Rick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why and how
A. It will be archived and no action will be taken by Finansinspektionen. We then know that the law needs to be fixed and Piratpartiet can set out to do just that.
B. Finansinspektionen issues some kind of penalty for missabuse of their market dominance. Most likely a fine of some kind that will be big enough for the banks to start acting. There is little chance the payment service providers will be denied business as this would stop all internet and regular trade in Sweden more or less.
So, all in all - we can certainly win this fight.
/Erik Lönroth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]