Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Cloud Democrats Encryption Government Piracy The Almighty Buck Politics

Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega 136

New submitter seoras sends news that PayPal is now refusing to handle payments for Mega, Kim Dotcom's cloud storage service. A report (PDF) issued in September of last year claimed Mega and other "cyberlocker" sites made a great deal of illicit money off piracy. Mega disputes this, of course, and says the report caused U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy to pressure credit card companies to stop working with Mega. Those companies then pressured PayPal to stop as well. The hosting company claims, "MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA’s business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal’s queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

Comments Filter:
  • Bitcoin (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2015 @06:42PM (#49155763)

    MEGA should start to use bitcoin, it could use a bit of fresh publicity.

  • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @06:47PM (#49155781) Homepage
    that the banks are not to big to fail, and should have been allowed to. There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions. while kim dotcom might not be the best person in the world, there is no reason for this continued harassment
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions

      Last I heard, mega was a business. The banks terminated their business dealings with mega.

      • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:16PM (#49155929)

        why do banks get to pick and choose who to do business with?

        sounds like we need to SCRAP the banking system and start all over, if this is truly the case. too much depends on the ability to move money around, in this world, and banks can basically kill you (pretty much literally, over time, of course) if they want to.

        this is NOT RIGHT. its unamerican, its anti-freedom, its unacceptable.

        keep fueling the revolution, boys. sooner or later, y'all will be up against the wall.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Well, we could always start a movement to pressure anks to stop doing business with Senator Leahy or his campaign, etc....

          • So, apparently Mega was singled out as dangerous because they have end-to-end encryption whereas other [B.S.] cloud storage providers like Dropbox don't. And so apparently this encryption enables "dangerous and illegal" activities online that the government can't monitor/prosecute.

            But so I ask, how is this different than online backup service providers like Mozy and CrashPlan that allow client-side encryption and end-to-end encryption??!?!? Or even Amazon S3 for that matter?!

            And if this is a harbinger of th

            • by doccus ( 2020662 )
              Well, what that means is it's back to harddrives if you don't want to lose your data.. since any cloud service that doesn't toe the line will be bullied into bankrupcy.. and your data lost with it. I'm going to back up all my Mega backups.. and that's all I've used it for, is backups..
              • If you want to use something like Dropbox and don't want anybody to know what you've got, encrypt it yourself.

                A cloud service account is a backup, in the sense of a copy that won't go away for the same reasons your primary copy does, but no backup solution is perfect.

            • But so I ask, how is this different than online backup service providers like Mozy and CrashPlan that allow client-side encryption and end-to-end encryption??!?!? Or even Amazon S3 for that matter?!

              Or taken alternately we can hypothesize that these service providers are different in some way. This would lead us to wonder what is different about these providers that causes the government to leave them alone? That's where things start getting interesting.

              • Or taken alternately we can hypothesize that these service providers are different in some way. This would lead us to wonder what is different about these providers that causes the government to leave them alone? That's where things start getting interesting.

                ahh sh*t.
                you just made my ball sac suck up a little bit into my abdomen.
                how the f**k are we supposed to have any privacy/security these days?!
                the damn tin hats were right!

            • I think Mega was singled out as dangerous because they tried to put Kim Dotcom in jail, and so far, he isn't in jail.
        • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:55PM (#49156147)

          why do banks get to pick and choose who to do business with?

          Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

          However what is happening here is not the choice of the business. It's the government saying "we can make life very unpleasant for you in terms of audits etc. unless you cease doing business with this list of people". The government has been going after many adult businesses in the same way for a while now, google Operation Chokepoint [google.com]

          • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

            Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

            Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account, despite 5+ "convictions of fraud" (repeated bankruptcies).

            And Mega has never been convicted of fraud. Because of such accusations, Kim Dotcom arranged the business structure such that he has no real influence on it, and may not even have any financial stake in it at all, in addition to no control.

            So where are these frauds you assert, and when did Mega commit them? Or are you lying because y

            • Well, bankruptcy is considered fraud in some places, but no bank has ever refused Donald Trump a checking account,

              Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun.

              And Mega...

              Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?

              I said that what was happening to Mega WAS NOT THE BANKS CHOICE. It was government pressure; the mention of fraud was just generically is response to the notion that banks should be unable to refuse any business at all.

              Bank

              • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

                Did you just completely miss my whole point or what?

                Well, as someone once told me "Whoosh. As in, you jetted past whatever point you may have been trying to make and went directly into the sun."

                Well first of all, they shouldn't be required to do business with someone who repeatedly commits fraud...

                If your argument was unrelated to your completely wrong accusations of fraud against Mega, then why fly into the sun to post something so obviously and trivially proven false?

                I thought that was your posting style, lead with the outlandish claim, that grabs the attention. But that's what you complain about.

                That, and there's proof of the pressure against some lines o

        • The banks and paypal are NOT picking the people they do business with. They are choosing not to do business with another business.
          • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @08:01PM (#49156175) Homepage
            yes, that is exactly what they are doing it. you can put lawyer speak up all you want but it doesnt change anything. people in the US are being stripped from doing legit business with other businesses on the basis of what exactly? that they dont like encryption?? that they dont like kim dotcom?? what legal reason would they have from getting in the middle and preventing legitimate business to take place???
          • by doccus ( 2020662 )
            Businesses ARE people. Legally.
      • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:20PM (#49155961)

        guilty until proven innocent.

        oh, and we don't care if you try to defend yourself, we've already made up our mind.

        the US lawmakers are a bunch of spoiled children....

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Banks and PayPal don't want to do business with the company. Kim Dotcom is NOT the company. So whether Kim Dotcom is guilty or not is a side issue.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@gIIImail.com minus threevowels> on Saturday February 28, 2015 @08:56PM (#49156369) Homepage

            Would that also be like the banks refusing to do business with gun and ammo manufactures because...reasons? Or how about the US feds illegally seizing assets from small and medium businesses because "reasons" as well.

            This entire thing comes down to one thing, they're attempting to cut off the financial lifeline to his business because they don't like him/it/whatever. Even though the business he's operating is legal.

            • Hey, they aren't putting mega out of business. Mega can still accept cash, money orders, bitcrap, and chickens in payment. They can even start their own PayPal competitor if they want.
              • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                So a company who has a source of income from another business is leaned on by the government for "reasons" and you're okay with that. Sounds genius, that's not an over-reach of federal power at all.

              • by phorm ( 591458 )

                "They can even start their own PayPal competitor if they want."

                Not so useful is said competitor is blocked from accepting debit/credit payments.

        • by Tom ( 822 )

          guilty until proven innocent.

          If you have the long laundry list of crimes that Kimble has, and everyone with any interest in the subject is wondering how you're still not in jail, then yes, that is the proper approach.

          Don't get me wrong, in a court of law, I'm all for the innocence assumption. But outside, in the real world, when you're dealing with a career criminal then for your own safety you should assume that he's not suddenly turned into a little angel just because you are such a sweety to him.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ganjadude ( 952775 )
        banks should not be free to decide who they can do business with. If a baker cant decide they dont want to do business with a couple they disagree with, a bank should not be able to do so either.
        • If someone walks into a store that has a sign saying "No bare feet", they're not going to get served. Same if they are publicly known to have a contagious disease (like Ebola). Someone drops a glass and the guy in bare feet cuts his foot, who's gonna pay? Mega gets seized, who's going to pay for the charge-backs?

          It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

          • "If someone barefoot walks into a store that has a sign saying 'No bare feet' "

            It's a safety and liability issue, same as you can't go onto an active construction site without a hard hat and security boots.

          • by hjf ( 703092 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @08:40PM (#49156303) Homepage

            Yes. That's why I refuse service to blacks.

            If a black walks into my shop he is very likely to carry a gun and rob me.

            It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

            • Not the same thing. You're engaging in stereotyping, nowadays called profiling. There is no reason to believe that every black who walks into your shop is carrying a gun. However, there is every reason to believe that someone who walks into a restaurant with bare feet is at risk of cutting their foot should a glass get dropped.
          • If someone walks into a store that has a sign saying "No bare feet", they're not going to get served.

            Oh, is that what that means? Damn. I had always assumed they were simply out of stock. I don't know what I was thinking.

          • It's about avoiding unnecessary risk.

            It's about having your cake and eating it too. Banks and credit card companies have succesfully integrated themselves into the society so it can't function without them. They're too big to fail, and can thus take insane risks and the profits associated with them, secure in the knowledge they'll get saved on public dime should those risks turn sour. So why should society not force them to pay the price: make them serve the public good even when that's not in their person

        • by khchung ( 462899 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @09:47PM (#49156583) Journal

          banks should not be free to decide who they can do business with. If a baker cant decide they dont want to do business with a couple they disagree with, a bank should not be able to do so either.

          It cut both ways.

          Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?

          How about their representatives? Or known associates? Or some front business that don't seems to do transactions like the business they claimed to be, but more like they are just a front for the drug lords?

          How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?

          How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?

          How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)?

          Yes, it is a slippery slope. So, where do you draw the line?

          • by Anonymous Coward

            No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".

            You either decide the government rules apply to ALL or apply to NONE, they don't only apply to "people you don't like" or you are no differnet than a racist or slaver (and yes, that is

            • No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".

              A baker cannot refuse to do business with a person because of that person's protected status, like gender, race, etc etc.

              A baker _can_ refuse to do business with a person that he dislikes, for example with a supporter of a football club that the baker dislikes, or with a person that has caused trouble in the store before.

              Banks can refuse to do business for the same reasons. Now the bank manager will not refuse service to a person that he dislikes, not because it would be illegal (it isn't) but because

          • no, its really not. give the banks protection from the people who use their services. meaning dont hold the banks responsible for the actions of the acct holder. banks should be like common carriers
            • by sycodon ( 149926 )

              No.

              Charge the banks with the responsibility of looking at who is using their services and for what. If it's fishy, report it and let the law take its course.

              • Well, that's how it works now. Part of being a bank and qualifying for FDIC insurance is reporting all financial transactions over a certain amount, which used to be US$10k. Dunno about now. I'd guess $5k.

            • no, its really not. give the banks protection from the people who use their services. meaning dont hold the banks responsible for the actions of the acct holder. banks should be like common carriers

              Like government backing? Or insurance?

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?

            Of course. That is none of their business. Unfortunately, in many countries the law says otherwise and they have no choice to refrain from doing business wiht certain people and organisations, but if you think about it, that is ridiculous.

            How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?

            How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?

            Sure, why not? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that and even if it were, it is none of the bank's business.

            How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)

            The problem here is the US government exerting pressure. It shouldn't meddle with these things.
            Again, why not

          • by sudon't ( 580652 )

            So, where do you draw the line?

            You don't. Or rather, the bank doesn't. The law does.

          • Eh? Banks are known to regularly open and operate accounts for all of the organizations you mention (especially the big international ones with private banking facilities).

            It usually only seems to be when the US gets pissy that the bank in question is called out, sued, pays a fine, stops doing business with that entity (at least in that entities current form) and what have you.

            The same is true here: it wasn't until some US politician got pissy that he went to Visa/MC to say "stop processing their stuff", wh

      • by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:33PM (#49156021) Homepage Journal

        There is no reason what so ever that any government should get involved in peoples personal financial decisions

        Last I heard, mega was a business. The banks terminated their business dealings with mega.

        Banks do business with their customers who do things like tell the bank to give X dollars to business Y. The bank's aren't doing business with MEGA, they are doing business with their customers.

        • Apostrophe abuse included deliberately.

        • If you don't have an active merchant account with a cc processor, the customer can whine all they want - the bank will not follow the customer's order to send money to the merchant. In this case, Visa, Mastercharge, and PayPal have all cancelled mega's account.

          Personally, I have no sympathy for mega. This just goes to show how risky it is to store your stuff "in the cloud."

          • Now we just need the big banks to refuse to do business with the other big cloud providers. Start with Apple, Microsoft and Amazon's cloud services. We can extend the list as we go along.

            • I have no problem with that. I've hated "the cloud" as an attempt to re-brand servers on the internet. And even more after those dumb microsoft cloud commercials a few years ago.
    • PayPal is not a bank. Visa and MasterCard are not governments.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:50PM (#49156109)

      Its not directly the banks. Its political. See the article at torrentfreak for more information. Paypal acknowledged their business is legit but booted them anyway. Why America does this to scare away foreign business is insane. I know i would not host any services in the US and would avoid US payment services as best I can. This just paves the way for foreign businesses to collect a cut. So who wants a cut of all the monthly payments flowing through mega? Any EU, RU, CN etc?

      http://torrentfreak.com/under-u-s-pressure-paypal-nukes-mega-for-encrypting-files-150227/

      • by daniel23 ( 605413 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @10:02PM (#49156647)

        "America" - or rather the commerce/3-letter/politico corporatistic conglomerate rooted in the US of A - does it cause it believes it can. They feel they have a monopoly in the field of international money transfer and when I take a look at my options to transfer money to a internet based business in NZ or in fact even at home (within the EU) they do.
        It is Visa or MasterCard of Paypal. and apparently all of them listen when a US senator tells them with whom they should not make business.

        Why is it that basic backgound infrastructure like financial networks, social media, internet search, is so firmly in US hands an there is no serious competitor based in a different locale?
        It might be that constantly waging war against half the planet supplies better means to establish worldwide networks.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You kinda left that out...

    • that tells you all you need to know about which party he is in.

      if they dont say it, you can bet its a democrat
  • Now we're going to need lobbyists to represent our banking interests to the corrupt bankers.
    • You are correct. DC runs by lobbyists because voters don't make intelligent decisions. If you want any influence then the $ is the only real vote.

  • What presure? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2015 @06:51PM (#49155799)

    What pressure? Mega is doing nothing wrong, by PayPal's admission.
    Their excuse is "Well, they use encryption." What, and Paypal *doesn't* use encryption? If it didn't, that would be one hell of a reason to drop PayPal immediately.

    Fuck off with that shit. Admit it, your CEOs were paid off or otherwise coerced by certain government agencies, and has absolutely nothing to do with law or morals.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by MobSwatter ( 2884921 )

      Oh crap, my bank website uses encryption, paypal uses encryption. Windows uses encryption. Politicians use encryption, the media uses encryption, the NSA uses encryption. Humans use encryption.

      There can be only one logical answer.

      ENCRYPTION IS A TERRORIST! AND THEY ARE ALL TERRORISTS SYMPATHIZERS!

    • Re:What presure? (Score:5, Informative)

      by matbury ( 3458347 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @09:50PM (#49156595) Homepage

      What they meant was that Mega.co.nz use end-to-end encryption and users hold the keys, not Mega. It's impossible for any government to put a gag order on Mega and then force them to hand over the keys, because they haven't got them to hand over. Like Silent CIrcle and LavaBit before, if a service provider offers real privacy and security, the govt. do whatever they must to compromise it or shut it down. Once you understand this, you understand that Google, Apple Inc., etc.'s talk about encrypting stuff and protecting their users' privacy is ineffectual hot air.

      The five eyes; USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, and Australia; believe we have no right to privacy. And if they can get at our online accounts, so can hackers and criminals.

      • Nothing stops you from encrypting your own files and storing them on any cloud storage service. A service like Dropbox will do the encryption for you if you like, but there's obvious privacy consequences there.

  • by jmd ( 14060 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:02PM (#49155847)

    This type of activity is quickly becoming a judicial system of sorts. If you do not play by our rules we will destroy you.

    • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:19PM (#49155949)

      interesting point.

      banks are not voted on, not representative, no checks and balances (lol) and they are not answerable to the population on anything they do.

      so WHY are we leaving matters of legality to banks? they are not legal institutions and should not have 'boycott' power!!

      you know, I wish the joker (in the movie) did slice lehey's throat. its a bad thing to say, but since he's not a very nice person, I don't feel bad about wishing harm on him.

      damn. the american system of 'justice' is such a laughing stock. we now seem to be the world's most powerful banana republic...

    • by Anonymous Coward

      If you do not play by our rules we will destroy you.

      US, the land of the free ... what a lie that is.

      When the curtain gets pulled back, what's behind the curtain looks similar to
      what is happening in countries we like to view as repressive regimes.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "This type of activity is quickly becoming a judicial system of sorts."

      You must be new here. You're under the strange idea "the law" serves "the people", it doesn't. Twas always thus, what is "illegal" or "criminal" is defined by the powers that be.

      I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefi

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:07PM (#49155875)

    The "because piracy" claim is just a facade, Mega fully encrypts everything and the US doesn't like that.

    • by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:45PM (#49156077)

      The "because piracy" claim is just a facade, Mega fully encrypts everything and the US doesn't like that.

      "the US" includes me. And think encryption is fabulous. You probably should have said "the US law-enforcement / law-writing / Disney-Sony industrial complex" rather than "the US".

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Statistics says that you voted for one of the two major parties and that you have a lot of friends and family that did the same.
        You might not see it as supporting the kind of bullshit the US government is doing, but you do.

        But talking politics with friends and family that doesn't share your opinion isn't pleasant. Perhaps it is just easier to shut up and let the government create more enemies for you.

  • I think (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Its time to take a serious look at paypal. Even under US law this is anti competitive on the grounds that they still supply other similar businesses and not Mega.

    Of course the law seams to be less important to the US lately so I am not surprised that they would ok this illegal action.

    Time to bring legal action against paypal on the international stage, and if they claim there are only held to US law then that's fine let them be held to that set of laws and bar them from any international business as they d

    • by jmd ( 14060 )

      Yes this is the global stage. The US is but one actor in the global stage.

      Unfortunately, the global framework of laws being developed are not political laws between countries but rather laws with roots in capitalism and finance. Humanity is being left out of the equation. Look at the TPP ... well from what you can find to read considering the negotiations are secret.

  • by Masked Coward ( 3773883 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @07:21PM (#49155963)
    In light of what has been revealed about the NSA, it is always very suspicious to me when a seemingly powerful person or company caves in to pressure so easily. Powerful people & companies have much to lose and public images to protect, so blackmail would probably be a very effective tactic to use against them.

    Our own government makes a mockery of the justice system it was sworn to uphold and yet nothing is ever done. For example the IRS claims to have lost thousands of emails due to server crashes and everyone knows it's bullshit, but still no one is prosecuted or punished in any meaningful way. Judges suddenly make rulings completely contrary to their previous positions. Every US company is so eager to climb into bed with the government.

    Fuck it, call me paranoid. I think you've got to be willfully blind not to be somewhat paranoid these days.
  • by burne ( 686114 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @08:41PM (#49156313)

    Because I moved all my stuff from dropbox to mega, a few minutes ago.

  • More fascism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogreNO@SPAMgeekbiker.net> on Saturday February 28, 2015 @09:03PM (#49156401) Homepage Journal

    The feds have been putting pressure on banks to stop taking accounts for businesses they do not approve of. So far, they've gone after accounts of the porn industry and gun stores. I fully expect them to target tobacco stores in the near future. They do this by suggesting to the bank that they would find it necessary to conduct thorough and repeated audits if the banks work with "less than desirable" businesses.

    • All you have to do is make so many idiotic laws that everyone is a criminal. Then it's just a matter of "prosecutorial discretion," a euphemism for political vendettas.
  • A corrupt shit-hole (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28, 2015 @09:41PM (#49156555)

    that is what the U.S government is.

  • And just accept payments in something like Bitcoin. Oh come on, you can spare a little out of your Mt. Pedo account for the pirated content you crave.

  • by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Saturday February 28, 2015 @09:54PM (#49156611) Homepage

    It is ever so slightly possible, that Paypal is sounding the alarm, here. Here's the key phrase...

    "...but PayPal has advised that MEGA's 'unique encryption model' presents an insurmountable difficulty,"

    It looks like Paypal fought to keep MEGA as a customer. But "somebody" put the screws to them, and forced them to break contract with MEGA.

    That's no small thing. Corporate contracts are a bit more "customer friendly", and simply dumping a corporate customer isn't quite as easy as it is to dump people like you and me. MEGA could take Paypal to court with a valid argument over breaking that contract.

    What are they going to say? What would be their excuse? "We don't like encryption."??? No judge would buy that.

    Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

      Given that National Security Letters are subpoenas, that's rather unlikely. If there was government pressure, it was probably rather more informal, and likely involved threats rather than orders.

    • Based on what we're seeing, Paypal's previous history aside, it sounds rather like Paypal got served a National Security Letter telling them to dump MEGA.

      It's the result of a US DoJ operation called "Operation Chokepoint" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org] which does an end-run around Constitutional limits on government power and the protections afforded by it to the people by putting pressure (Gee, we'd hate to have to come in and audit you to hell and back every 30 days for the next 10 years) on banks and other financial institutions and companies to stop doing business with those people & businesses the US government dislikes and/or finds inconvenient.

    • by rdnetto ( 955205 )

      Easy way to find out: Mega could file a tortious inteference suit, and subpoena Paypal for the details. If it was one of the major processors, it'll be revealed and they can avail themselves of damages. If it was an NSL, that will become apparent too.

  • People use Google Docs to share pirated files too. What is the difference?
  • Everyone wanting to comment on this decision should read the TorrentFreak article - https://torrentfreak.com/under... [torrentfreak.com] - as it seems to have the most information. Many typical sites and blogspam make it act as though PayPal did this through its own volition, when it is really the case of the US Gov't and financial services (banks, payment processors) who put pressure on PayPal - in this case, the US Gov't is acting as the enforcer for the Entertainment industry (MPAA/RIAA etc.) , further evidence of gover

Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...