They is obviously the Government, but with the help of unethical companies: AT&T for taping the Internet, Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard for suppressing free press, etc.
Whether you agree with Amazon/Visa/etc or not, it's important to keep clear the difference between their actions (no force involved) and the Government's actions (force involved). It's not all the same thing even if they help accomplish some similar ends.
I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.
So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.
"Not being able to receive money from the public for a week can cost Wikileaks 7 digit figures in losses, and DataCell as well, as it is unable to process any cards," Fink said.
The suit will be filed in the UK against Visa Europe. The company will file a court case with a request for an immediate injunction "to limit further damage," Fink said.
Wikileaks donations can still be made via wire transfer, but that MasterCard and Visa handle small donations, which make up the majority, according to Fink.
"Wire transfers are good if you want to transfer €10,000, but if you want to pay €10, the costs of the transfer eat up the donation," said Fink. "Visa and MasterCard are vital for the small amount donations, and that's around 99.9 percent of the donations."
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/leg...
Everyone making 7 digits or more has lawyers, or should, to deal with such contracts.
The US has anti-trust laws (15USC1 - see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_0...) which cover similar conduct: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".
It sounds like the companies have not admitted a conspiracy with Joe Lieberman to stop Wikileaks from receiving donations - the companies seem to claim to have all come to the conclusion independently - but if such a conspiracy did exist, and was considered unreasonable by the courts, it could be illegal.
It's hardly peaceful. At best, it is passive-aggressive. At worst, an outright attack on that organization. It can especially be considered such when the company in question is part of one of the world's biggest anti-competitive conglomerations.
But unethical?
But unethical?
Do you doublethink so?
So which will it be?
This is Amazon, PayPal, VISA, MC, etc, saying "woah hey a dangerously hot potato, not touching that", which strikes me as a more or less neutral stance.
To expect more than that would be expecting a company to make a political stand on one side or another - something we've consistently fought against in the past.
So which is it? Do we want companies to remain politically neutral and leave the democratic process up to real people (as opposed to corporate persons)?
Or do we want them to fight for our cause, and make open political stands? If so, we also have to accept that often they will not be fighting on our side, and each punch they throw will be worth a lot of real people's punches.
There's only so much you can avoid taking sides on.
These are complex decisions being made by complex businesses...why does no single company deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I don't think its about the benefit of doubt anymore. I think we have to recognize that the groups on the other side of the power equation are implacable and do not have constraints stopping them from harming you. They have the power to take over your life and do not have any oversight.
Heck I would say that they have evolved to game the system and learnt how to be the best at it.
The original system was not about "the constitution" or freedom, liberty, fraternity or whatever ideal we can point to. It was about distributing power evenly and having checks and balances in the most enlightened way possible.
That power equation IS out of whack, and it needs to be brought back into balance.
At what point do you stop staring at the minute details and say - Crap things are messed up.
When was the last time you heard a company take the long view about society? If corporations don't care because they have a need to make money, if the rule makers have been corrupted and the average user is irrelevant, if the impartiality of the referees/judges is being removed, then who is there to ensure the system works?
As someone pointed out - "I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked. Until they take websites down without trial? Checked. Until they start accusing journalist of espionage? Checked. Until they illegally tape the Internet? Checked."
Heck you have to get pissed off at some point before you do something about it. Its likely that the point has been passed.
I have no problem with companies being political, my only problem is when they use their disproportionate power to rewrite the laws in a way that screws all other stakeholders. Would Amazon hosting WikiLeaks be a case of a big company using their political influence to rewrite the laws to favor themselves while screwing everyone else? I don't think so, and I don't see any inconsistency.
Being neutral would be more like "I'll let they keep doing their thing, like any other business."