Topic: The Wikileaks Banking blockade.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #8,318
http://vimeo.com/25412550Wikileaks is being blockaded by the major banks and financial institutions, illegally. Not only has Wikileaks not been convicted of a crime, but the Secretary of the Treasury has even said there is no grounds to add them to a financial blockade.
Wikileaks has to accept payment other ways, including Bitcoins, US wire (only certain banks, not in the BofA network), and by postal mail.
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #145,599
> Bitcoins
oh boy here we go
oh boy here we go
PROTIP !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #145,600
gb2reddit
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #145,603
• Threaten to release sensitive and damaging information about major banks
• Major banks refuse to do business with you
Not surprising.
• Major banks refuse to do business with you
Not surprising.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #145,604
@145,599 (hamfist !!mtq555+/1)
Wikileaks is starting a worldwide revolution.
Bitcoin is the fuel for Wikileaks.
Bitcoins is fueling a worldwide revolution.
Wikileaks is starting a worldwide revolution.
Bitcoin is the fuel for Wikileaks.
Bitcoins is fueling a worldwide revolution.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #145,605
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #145,607
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 28 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #145,630
@145,605 (A)
In the world of global financial power-politics, I'm sure the meaning of legal is pretty close to whatever you can get away with.
It does raise an interesting question. By allowing this is go unchallenged, it sets a precedent where banks can refuse to process payments from any organization they disapprove of regardless of whether that organization has been formally charged with a crime. In theory, allowing banks to pick and choose their clients for self-serving reasons would allow major banks to indirectly control policy and political action by cutting off press organizations, political parties, and anyone else who posed a threat to their income streams. It's all pretty spooky.
In the world of global financial power-politics, I'm sure the meaning of legal is pretty close to whatever you can get away with.
It does raise an interesting question. By allowing this is go unchallenged, it sets a precedent where banks can refuse to process payments from any organization they disapprove of regardless of whether that organization has been formally charged with a crime. In theory, allowing banks to pick and choose their clients for self-serving reasons would allow major banks to indirectly control policy and political action by cutting off press organizations, political parties, and anyone else who posed a threat to their income streams. It's all pretty spooky.