
Wikileaks credit card donation is back - Timshel
http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate#dccard
======
flyosity
I really want to donate but honestly feel like I'll be put on a U.S.
Government list somewhere of nefarious individuals who support terrorism which
might have consequences in the future. Anyone else feel that too? I should
just mail them some cash anonymously.

~~~
rdtsc
Since your name is in your profile. Let me donate in your name then, it will
put your name on the list, you'll know it is there, and you won't worry about
it from now on, just keep donating.

</kidding>

But on a serious note. Besides 'terrorists winning' in this game. You know who
else won? Every little vindictive pest that you could run into in your daily
life. Your neighbor hates your lawn? -- He can report your for suspicious
behavior or just donate $5 to Wikileaks in your name.

You got a bigger bonus than your co-worker? He puts a nasty comment about the
president on a liberal forum somewhere.

Possibilities for abuse abound. Once the collection of data has been enabled,
data will be siphoned through. It could be decades before a court case, a new
employment opportunity or overseas travel all of the sudden will trigger a
search and will open that archived file and all this stuff will be there. No
way to correct it. You would have forgotten about that one incident with your
neighbor 20 years ago, but it will be there.

What I fear will happen is that one of the triggers to open and inspect that
file will be you participating in any kind of protest. It will be a
Constitutionally legal thing to do. However, once you do it, you end up on a
list, and now that 'ol file gets opened again and all these things from the
past start appearing. You get pulled for random searches in airport. You miss
every single flight you book. Every time you enter the country you get
interrogated for an hour. All your electronic devices get confiscated.

Basically, once the government is acting irrationally it opens the door for
others to exploit that -- angry neighbors, scorned lover, upset employees. How
do I know? This is what happened in the Soviet Union. It was for a while
common for neighbor to denounce each other for 'anti-Soviet' activities, if
they didn't get along. In the best case and best times, those get ignored, in
the worst time, whole families disappeared overnight.

~~~
pnathan
One profound concern I have is for "denouncing for terrorist activities" to
become a common thing in the US as a way of dealing with unpleasant others.

------
mmaunder
"Despite Visa and Mastercard cutting off payments to WikiLeaks, we have found
some ways around the banking blockade, at least for now. We currently have a
way around the blockade with FDNN who are using the French banking system
Carte Bleue to accept donations for us using your Visa and MasterCard."

AFAIK Visa and Mastercard still auth/capture the card and they've just changed
their gateway provider. So if the US govt does manage to designate them as a
foreign terrorist organization then it will be illegal for any US company to
process funds for them.

From 2010 re trying to get wikileaks designated FTO:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html>

~~~
crazygringo
This is all Greek to me. What is FDNN? And why is this possible now, but
wasn't done before? If it's just changing a gateway provider, why did this
take so long? Basically, what has changed, and how is MasterCard/Visa allowing
this now?

~~~
nolok
FDNN[1] is a french association created by La Quadrature Du Net[2] ("an
advocacy group defending the rights and freedoms of citizens on the
Internet"). FDNN's goal is "to collect money and fund actions and projects
whose goal is to defend and promote net neutrality, and more widely free
speech on the Internet".

Why it took so long, I don't know, I guess FDNN is not used to such a big case
as wikileaks.

As for why visa/mastercard accept this now, they don't, all payment are
actually processed by "Carte Bleue"[3], which is 100% compatible with Visa
(they get their license from the european Visa company, which despite the same
name has nothing to do with the american company, they only license the
brand). Those license (Visa US => Visa EU, and Visa EU => Carte Bleue) are
mostly irrevocable, and getting the french banking system to "ban" you because
someone high up doesn't like you is much harder than what they did in the US
with wikileaks.

I do not know about the mastercard situation, but the cards are accepted
pretty much anywhere here so I wouldn't be surprised if Carte Bleue had the
same sort of deal with them (but every Carte Bleue is not a Mastercard, unlike
Visa).

Not an expert on the subject so I might be wrong on some things, but I hope it
helps clear things up.

[1]: <http://www.fdn2.org/> [2]: <http://www.laquadrature.net/en/who-are-we>
[3]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_Bleue>

------
mtgx
An article that also mentions Wikileaks' current financial situation -
apparently they need 1 million euro immediately:

<http://wlcentral.org/node/2734>

~~~
comex
But... why?

Is WikiLeaks really _doing_ enough to need such a large budget?

------
wbhart
Using the same logic as is being used in the prosecution of Bradley Manning:
supplying copies of diplomatic cables to Wikileaks is knowingly "aiding the
enemy", a capital crime, thus giving money to Wikileaks is "aiding the enemy".

So if you are a US citizen, what chance do you think there will be that you
will be prosecuted for treason if you donate to Wikileaks?

Note: I am not expressing an opinion here, merely following the logic of the
recent court case against Bradley Manning.

And if you doubt the link between supplying mere money (as opposed to
information) and aiding a terrorist organisation, note that an Icelandic bank
was declared a terrorist organisation by the UK Govt:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7688560.stm>

Also recall that US senators have in the past called for Wikileaks to be
branded a terrorist organisation:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-
te...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-
says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html)

~~~
mh-
Manning is being charged under the UCMJ. He was/is an enlisted soldier. He
waived certain rights, and is subject to codes and laws that civilians are
not.

I'm not sure if people don't understand this or skip over it for the purposes
of hyperbole..

------
thechut
Edit: ooops, page loading now...I see the bitcoin donation link. Disregard
this comment

This page was down when I clicked the link. Not sure what the deal is? As
others have said this not a solution to being able to safely support the
organization from a personal perspective.

Why are they not accepting Bitcoin donations? If they have a bank working with
them it should be trivial for them to setup a Mt. ox or other merchant account
to turn the bitcoins into money. I feel like this coudl solve several
problems.

Can anybody comment on why they (Wikileaks) would be opposed to accepting
bitcoin? Maybe a major bitcoin exchange or merchant (which already has some
trust among the bitcoin community) could set up a way to do proxy donations? I
see the possibility for fraud out there, but there has been successful bitcoin
fundraising in the past...

------
dmvaldman
This is excellent news. Does anyone know if this has to do with the recent
Icelandic court ruling in favor of Wikileaks [1]?

Also, anyone who hasn't already checked out assange.rt.com should! JA has been
producing high quality interviews with some of the most interesting world
leaders while under house arrest.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/wikileaks-
court-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/wikileaks-court-
victory-visa)

------
pvnick
I can confirm this works, just made a donation using my Visa card. Wikileaks
is dangerously low on cash, please, if you believe in their ideals of
openness, consider donating.

------
briandear
Does Wikileaks do any evaluation of the danger of releasing specific
classified information? For example, the leak (by the Obama Administration,
not by Wikileaks) of the name of the Pakistani doctor that provided the key
information for the Osama Bin Laden raid was arrested, tortured and imprisoned
for 30 years because of a leak.

I don't understand the value of the entire world being able to read secret
diplomatic and intelligence communications between nations. If we disagree
with a specific national policy or ideology, then we should be donating
instead to political candidates that support our worldview rather than short
circuiting a process that has led to deaths and substantial disruption.

For example, as a direct result of Wikileaks, Iranian Majid Jamali Fashi was
executed by Tehran for his role in disrupting the Iranian nuclear program.
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-
han...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-hangs-mossad-
spy-majid-jamali-fashi-for-killing-scientist-7754332.html)

The same people supporting Wikileaks are ostensibly against
US/British/French/Israeli nuclear armament or anti-terrorism efforts, yet
sabotage efforts to prevent these weapons from reaching the hands of rogue
actors. It seems like the Wikileaks crowd is often the same crowd that blocks
the Brooklyn Bridge for their own vanity, yet ignores the unintended
consequences of their actions (for example, a worker being hours late for his
job.) The 1% would just use their helicopters. The real power isn't affected
by childish acts, despite the childish miscreants hoping otherwise.

It isn't much different than a spoiled child throwing a tantrum. Perhaps not
surprisingly, the same crowd complains about copyrights and have no problem
with illegal downloads. Rather than working to change the system legitimately
(or through the courts,) they instead ignore the law simply because they don't
like it. I don't like paying $1800 per month in taxes so my neighbors living
rent free in Section 8 housing can stay up until 3am having parties while I'm
trying to sleep for work the next day. But I'm not firebombing the IRS because
of it -- I simply vote for the candidates who most support my views.
Firebombing gets headlines, but it doesn't catalyze change. Voting does,
contributing to political campaigns does, volunteering to knock on doors does.

It just seems incredibly selfish that some people feel like they have a right
to every piece of information or have a right to steal any content they want
without any regard for the consequences or the effects of this "freedom" on
the people that produce the information. You right to information shouldn't
override a person's right to not get killed because of it.

It seems like the people most passionate about Wikileaks are people that have
little experience with the nature of classified information and the
consequences of releasing sources and methods to the general public. Perhaps
if more people spent time in public service rather than public criticism, we
could really improve the governments of our respective countries. When was the
last time anyone here on HN ran for a local school board election or even went
to a city council meeting? When was the last time anyone here wrote and mailed
their congressman an actual letter? How many people here have applied to work
in the Foreign Service, the military or even the Peace Corps? I know for a
fact that CIA, NSA and FBI would be salivating over the qualifications of many
of you here, yet many of you would never even consider those careers because
of a jaded anger or indifference towards the government, yet, the government
is us. If we don't step up, things will never change. You can't achieve
justice from the outside looking in. You can vandalize, steal or threaten your
way to a better world.

I do agree, however, that there is a large amount of information that is
classified for reasons other than protecting sources or methods, but is
instead classified for political purposes. For example, the Fast and Furious
documents are being protected under "Executive Privilege" for the sole reason
of protecting politicians from the scrutiny of voters. The 1979 House Select
Committee on Assassinations files, for example, are classified not because of
national security concerns, but political ones; the same goes for many
1960s-era East-Germany operations, as well Vietnam-War era documents. However,
we should be pressuring politicians to evaluate the rules of classification or
appoint an independent FOIA commission to evaluate document requests
objectively instead of through the current lens of political expediency.

I expect to get down voted into oblivion, but hopefully, someone will get it.

~~~
mixmastamyk
They do do some evaluation and have said so. It's true a few people might die
for any particular leak, but you don't seem to weigh the potential benefits to
its release either. It's possible the release of information could save more
lives than it takes.

Governments have proven over and over and over again throughout history that
they cannot be trusted with much power, and knowledge is one of the greatest
powers. I find your overall authoritarian point of view disturbing, as if
government (and its cronies) are sitting around thinking what they can do for
us, instead of how to get more from us, or how to cover their own asses.

I agree with your point that there are good people working in govt but I fail
to see how the abundance of secrecy helps them do their jobs better. I hope
one day in the future that govts are fully transparent in everything they do
because technology allows everyone to be a spy.

~~~
gavinlynch
"I agree with your point that there are good people working in govt but I fail
to see how the abundance of secrecy helps them do their jobs better."

Then I don't think you really understand statecraft or warfare. Two essential
components of any sovereign nation. No offense meant. Just saying, secrecy are
central tenants of both of those, and they are two of the most important
functions of government.

~~~
mixmastamyk
I was arguing a bit at the extreme, in reaction to the other extreme. No doubt
some secrecy will continue, but it would be preferable if there were a lot
less than there is now. You imply that the state/military would collapse
without secrecy but haven't given any concrete reason why except perhaps,
"that's how it's done." Tenets also implies belief. The world is changing and
people will need to adjust regardless of what they believe in.

------
skizm
115 points... no discussion... Has anyone donated yet? What is the state of
wikileaks? Is it beyond repair? I haven't kept up with it in the news at all
really.

------
rimantas
I guess their "transparency report" does not look very transparent to me only.

~~~
alan_cx
I wonder if ironically you get enough down votes, thus making your post
transparent? :)

------
chj
Wow, Paypal is ok with wikileaks now.

~~~
tonfa
It's not Wikileaks but FDNN. FDNN is a french non-profit and can decide what
they do with their funds.

~~~
nolok
Also, for the record, in Europe Paypal is a registered bank (unlike in the US
where from what I understand its status is more fuzzier)

------
mkopinsky
What's with all the spelling errors? I find them quite distracting.

